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

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ianmb17 wrote:DSEI 2021: CAMM To Up Firepower For Type 45 Destroyers

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... estroyers/
Very good summary. Clear, concise, and contains most of the information of interest. Great job, Richard Scott-san!

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Will bring substantial increase in its AAW firepower capability, both in area defence and CIWS, but still looks limited in firepower for a ship of its class and crew size. If you take the new Israeli Sa'ar 6 1,900t corvettes with 70 crew as a benchmark for firepower at only a quarter of the T45s displacement, they will both have the same number of VLS cells 72, though T45 will have 48 Aster 30's compared to Sa'ar 6 32 Barak -8's for area defence and for CIWS 24 Sea Ceptor vs 40 Tamir's

• Barak MX area defence system with 32 VLS cells for Barak-8 (three variants, MRAD 35 km/ LRAD 70 km/ ER 150 km)
• C-Dome (Iron Dome naval variant) CIWS defense system with 40 Tamir missiles
• 16 anti-ship missiles, expect its the IAI Gabriel V, as being offered to RN for the T23's in the I-SSGW competition as the Sea Serpent with Thales
• Two triple 324 mm torpedo launchers for the Mk54 as used by the RAF P-8A's.
• Oto Melara 76 mm main gun
• Two Typhoon 25mm Remotely Controlled Weapon Stations

Bongodog
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 25 Nov 2020, 20:56
United Kingdom

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

Post by Bongodog »

NickC wrote:Will bring substantial increase in its AAW firepower capability, both in area defence and CIWS, but still looks limited in firepower for a ship of its class and crew size. If you take the new Israeli Sa'ar 6 1,900t corvettes with 70 crew as a benchmark for firepower at only a quarter of the T45s displacement, they will both have the same number of VLS cells 72, though T45 will have 48 Aster 30's compared to Sa'ar 6 32 Barak -8's for area defence and for CIWS 24 Sea Ceptor vs 40 Tamir's

• Barak MX area defence system with 32 VLS cells for Barak-8 (three variants, MRAD 35 km/ LRAD 70 km/ ER 150 km)
• C-Dome (Iron Dome naval variant) CIWS defense system with 40 Tamir missiles
• 16 anti-ship missiles, expect its the IAI Gabriel V, as being offered to RN for the T23's in the I-SSGW competition as the Sea Serpent with Thales
• Two triple 324 mm torpedo launchers for the Mk54 as used by the RAF P-8A's.
• Oto Melara 76 mm main gun
• Two Typhoon 25mm Remotely Controlled Weapon Stations
The type 45 however has to be seaworthy anywhere, the Israeli corvettes are designed for the Eastern Med and can carry far more top weight

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

NickC wrote:Will bring substantial increase in its AAW firepower capability, both in area defence and CIWS, but still looks limited in firepower for a ship of its class and crew size. If you take the new Israeli Sa'ar 6 1,900t corvettes with 70 crew as a benchmark for firepower at only a quarter of the T45s displacement, they will both have the same number of VLS cells 72, though T45 will have 48 Aster 30's compared to Sa'ar 6 32 Barak -8's for area defence and for CIWS 24 Sea Ceptor vs 40 Tamir's

• Barak MX area defence system with 32 VLS cells for Barak-8 (three variants, MRAD 35 km/ LRAD 70 km/ ER 150 km)
• C-Dome (Iron Dome naval variant) CIWS defense system with 40 Tamir missiles
• 16 anti-ship missiles, expect its the IAI Gabriel V, as being offered to RN for the T23's in the I-SSGW competition as the Sea Serpent with Thales
• Two triple 324 mm torpedo launchers for the Mk54 as used by the RAF P-8A's.
• Oto Melara 76 mm main gun
• Two Typhoon 25mm Remotely Controlled Weapon Stations
Yet all that will be offset by inferior endurance, sea keeping, damage control and redundancy measures, crew comfort etc. etc. etc.

Just cramming weapons into every space doesn't necessarily make a ship more capable. It may be the done thing in the ME, but credible, global navies have long ago worked out there is far more to the capability equation than just bullets and bombs.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

From the article linked above, the photo shows Dragonfire as well. Maybe they haven't got the memo yet that its being replaced in the RN laser program with the Raytheon product.

Image

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe they will come up with "Son of Dragonfire", as an alternative and compete with the Raytheon system? :D

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Laser weapons make me think of the quote attributed to Einstein “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". US has been funding laser weapon R&D with $billions for over 40 years and as yet not a single laser weapon system is operational. It appears the the proof of concept Dragonfire was a failure and so MoD spending more £millions on lasers.

At the US Army DE M-SHORAD trials at Fort Sill earlier this year this the Northrop Grumman 50 kW laser burnt out, the Raytheon prototype survived, post trial report said it "engaged" the targets, not shot down (the targets UAS and RAM (rockets, artillery shells and mortar bombs)).

PS If we assume lasers one third efficient in converting the power into the laser beam, two thirds power becomes waste heat so not surprised the NG 50 kW laser burnt out. Mention 300 kW to 1 MW needed to take out missiles, that's a lot of heat to dissipate :angel:

The USN Lockheed Martin 60 kW Helios laser undergoing land based trials and second unit will be fitted to a Burke in December for seagoing trials, the US CRS report on naval lasers was not overly optimistic,
"Potential limitations of shipboard lasers relate to line of sight; atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence (which prevent shipboard lasers from being all-weather weapons); an effect known as thermal blooming that can reduce laser effectiveness; countering saturation attacks; possible adversary use of hardened targets and countermeasures"

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

NickC wrote:Laser weapons make me think of the quote attributed to Einstein “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". US has been funding laser weapon R&D with $billions for over 40 years and as yet not a single laser weapon system is operational. It appears the the proof of concept Dragonfire was a failure and so MoD spending more £millions on lasers.
There are thousands of laser-based countermeasures systems in use in aircraft...

The higher-power systems continue to be developed and continue to mature for destructive and offensive use.

I think it's disingenuous to consider the latest iterations as not being an advancement on their predecessors.

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

RunningStrong wrote:
NickC wrote:Laser weapons make me think of the quote attributed to Einstein “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". US has been funding laser weapon R&D with $billions for over 40 years and as yet not a single laser weapon system is operational. It appears the the proof of concept Dragonfire was a failure and so MoD spending more £millions on lasers.
There are thousands of laser-based countermeasures systems in use in aircraft...

The higher-power systems continue to be developed and continue to mature for destructive and offensive use.

I think it's disingenuous to consider the latest iterations as not being an advancement on their predecessors.
Nowhere in my post did I even hint at laser tech not advancing, just the opposite in fact due to the continuing $$$ funding of laser R&D, what I did point out was as yet not a single laser weapon system is operational. My reading of the tea leaves suggests even with the latest tech effective laser weapons still face a problematical future as highlighted by the CRS report which you did not quote, will watch the future with interest, not every new tech makes the grade eg the USN much hyped electromagnetic railgun has been canned.
Potential limitations of shipboard lasers relate to line of sight; atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence (which prevent shipboard lasers from being all-weather weapons); an effect known as thermal blooming that can reduce laser effectiveness; countering saturation attacks; possible adversary use of hardened targets and countermeasures

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

NickC wrote:
NickC wrote:Laser weapons make me think of the quote attributed to Einstein “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".
Nowhere in my post did I even hint at laser tech not advancing, just the opposite in fact due to the continuing $$$ funding of laser R&D, what I did point out was as yet not a single laser weapon system is operational.
So where's the insanity?
Potential limitations of shipboard lasers relate to line of sight; atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence (which prevent shipboard lasers from being all-weather weapons); an effect known as thermal blooming that can reduce laser effectiveness; countering saturation attacks; possible adversary use of hardened targets and countermeasures
Many of those issues can be applied to the existing countermeasures we have available too. I don't think anyone is suggesting that a laser is the answer to all threats or scenarios.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I think we are still quite some way form effective and reliable Laser weapons that can "Kill" a target, but there are systems that can "Blind" a targets EO, IIR seeker which is still a very useful capability. How fast and accurately this can be done with current generation weapons undergoing trial fits on Warships has yet to be fully revealed to the public, but these weapons are complimentary to other point defence weapons of a more traditional nature that use kinetic means to destroy a target.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Laser weapons are already in use. :twisted:

Image

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

RunningStrong wrote: So where's the insanity?
Potential limitations of shipboard lasers relate to line of sight; atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence (which prevent shipboard lasers from being all-weather weapons); an effect known as thermal blooming that can reduce laser effectiveness; countering saturation attacks; possible adversary use of hardened targets and countermeasures
Why are MoD funding lasers under the £130 million Novel Weapons Programme until the scientists can demonstrate through basic research they can overcome the major laser limitations listed above in the CRS report, which at present time prevent shipboard lasers from being an effective naval laser weapon. As yet see no indication scientists have come up with the answers, the Israeli claim they have made a tech breakthrough with the vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) devices and are looking forUS funding, early days yet. So until the basic laser limitations cracked its insanity to fund new lasers, just a blackhole for the MoD to pour its money. Would not an additional £100 million be better spent on the T31 for weapons and sensors, a sonar etc :angel:

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

NickC wrote:
RunningStrong wrote: So where's the insanity?
Potential limitations of shipboard lasers relate to line of sight; atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence (which prevent shipboard lasers from being all-weather weapons); an effect known as thermal blooming that can reduce laser effectiveness; countering saturation attacks; possible adversary use of hardened targets and countermeasures
Why are MoD funding lasers under the £130 million Novel Weapons Programme until the scientists can demonstrate through basic research they can overcome the major laser limitations listed above in the CRS report, which at present time prevent shipboard lasers from being an effective naval laser weapon. As yet see no indication scientists have come up with the answers, the Israeli claim they have made a tech breakthrough with the vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) devices and are looking forUS funding, early days yet. So until the basic laser limitations cracked its insanity to fund new lasers, just a blackhole for the MoD to pour its money. Would not an additional £100 million be better spent on the T31 for weapons and sensors, a sonar etc :angel:
So we shouldn't invest in UK R&D until we're sure others have addressed the issues we're aware of?

That sounds like a great way to stand still and then find ourselves paying the inflated coats when we have to import products.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Don't forget we are also at the forefront on electro-magnetic research and the development of "Rail" guns. :D

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »




(Mersey Shipping) 20th September 2021
The Royal Navy's Type 45 Destroyer HMS Daring (D32) being towed into Liverpool, down the River Mersey and into Cammell Lairds. She is entering Lairds for further works after spending a period of time in Portsmouth having work done. She was helped down the river with the help OF VB Sandon and Donau.

(On The River Mersey) 20th September 2021

^ Timelapsed from 1:28 onwards. HMS Dauntless (D33) also seen with her Sampson radar spinning.

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

RunningStrong wrote: So we shouldn't invest in UK R&D until we're sure others have addressed the issues we're aware of?

That sounds like a great way to stand still and then find ourselves paying the inflated coats when we have to import products.
Totally agree we should invest much more in R&D, have posted before UK invests abysmally low percentage of the MoD budget in R&D compared to France, US etc.

My question is why invest some of the MoD very limited R&D budget into lasers with their 40 year history of failure to come up with an operational weapon system. With the 50 and 60 kW power required for lasers to kill a low speed UAS drone, which presume similar in power to the laser MoD will be funding to the tune of approx £100 million with its new programme, the Dragonfire laser proof of concept was 30 kW / £30 million which has been hinted at was a failure.

Second question is perhaps more importantly why bother when a radar controlled Bofors 57mm, approx cost £10 million, can do the job and will operate in bad weather and obscured environments which as said at the moment no sign the laser can do now or in the future. The big white hope that lasers hold out is that they will have a limitless supply of ammo, that is if they don't burn out by overheating, which sure can be overcome, but no doubt at a high cost. Overall at the moment lasers look a poor investment.

PS we should move this discussion to a more appropriate thread

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »



HMS Illustrious, 1982:

:lol: :clap:

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

NickC wrote: , the Dragonfire laser proof of concept was 30 kW / £30 million which has been hinted at was a failure.
Not sure by what metric it would be considered a failure. It's still in development and was understood by many to be a development programme and not an end product.
NickC wrote: Second question is perhaps more importantly why bother when a radar controlled Bofors 57mm, approx cost £10 million, can do the job and will operate in bad weather and obscured environments which as said at the moment no sign the laser can do now or in the future.
Because a Bofors (or any AAA) is going to be useless against a manoeuvring target?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

How much a high supersonic or hypersonic weapon can actually manoeuvre is considerably limited, especially in its terminal phase. For slower weapons it is really the responsibility of the FCS and its ability to track and engage the incoming threat. For lasers to be truly effective against the targets mentioned above they have to be able to kill a target in a couple of seconds compared to the "Burning through" which is what todays lasers can do. Hence the need for much greater power.

Developing such a capability that will actually have practical military applications is still a way off. The systems being deployed now have a use against UAVs and attacks by a limited number of AShMs, but whether they are evolved enough to replace traditional kinetic weapons on board warships is a debate to be had in my opinion.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:Because a Bofors (or any AAA) is going to be useless against a manoeuvring target?
57mm Orka goes someway to addressing that

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Because a Bofors (or any AAA) is going to be useless against a manoeuvring target?
57mm Orka goes someway to addressing that
Range 8km, Muzzle velocity 1000m/s, ToF 8+ secs.

How does that hit a manoeuvring target?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Because a Bofors (or any AAA) is going to be useless against a manoeuvring target?
57mm Orka goes someway to addressing that
Range 8km, Muzzle velocity 1000m/s, ToF 8+ secs.

How does that hit a manoeuvring target?
By manoeuvring as well that is the point of Orka

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:Not sure by what metric it would be considered a failure.
The MoD placing a contract with somebody else to provide the same capability?

The original idea/plan was to embark Dragonfire after its land based trials. Not going to happen now because a Raytheon laser will go to sea on a type 23 instead.

Not too hard to join up the dots.

Be kinda like the MoD ordering some CV90's without mentioning Ajax. Most folk would get the message.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Not sure by what metric it would be considered a failure.
The MoD placing a contract with somebody else to provide the same capability?
Wrong. Raytheon capability is anti-UAV, and isn't just Laser system. Dragonfire is point-defence, only laser. It's not difficult to see the difference.
Ron5 wrote: The original idea/plan was to embark Dragonfire after its land based trials. Not going to happen now because a Raytheon laser will go to sea on a type 23 instead
Dragonfire 2023 trials. Using your powers of BS again...

Post Reply