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

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

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

Post by abc123 »

HMS Diamond remained in Augusta port, apparently gas turbine defect

https://www.navylookout.com/hms-diamond ... eployment/
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…

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by Tinman »

abc123 wrote:HMS Diamond remained in Augusta port, apparently gas turbine defect

https://www.navylookout.com/hms-diamond ... eployment/
Saw that yesterday, sensational headline, a deeper read suggests it will be repaired and will rejoin the CSG.

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

9th July PR by Eurosam the Franco-Italian consortium producer of Asters - SAMP/T

Mentions the half life upgrade for UK will be carried out at Defense Munitions, Gosport.
The ASTER Block 1 NT (new technology) with a new seeker and a new computer capable of countering modern threats
emerging. It will allow a radar detection range greater than 300 km and an interception range of 150 km

A new generation of SAMP / T systems (land based Aster version), called SAMP / T NG, has been commissioned by France and
Italy and will be delivered starting in 2025. Thanks to its 360 ° capability, this system already provides protection of vital resources against threats omnidirectional over large areas, well over 15,000 km², with an actual altitude of more than 20,000 meters and at distances well over 50 km.
To note first delivers of Aster 1NT 2025 if same as SAMP/T NG, presuming the new seeker enables the range increase from the previously quoted 120 km to 150 km/~80 nm and perhaps improved propellant, dual thrust motor?

https://www.eurosam.com/wp-content/uplo ... -ASTER.pdf

Digger22
Member
Posts: 286
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

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

Post by Digger22 »

Is it just me, or does the 1000 missile number seem very low. Even if 60% are UK, this only gives one re load per T45?

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

More worryingly is the fact that only Russia or China has to send aload of aircraft at a type 45 ,make it work hard and sail fast ,manuvering etc and theirs a good chance the engine will pack in and electrical shut down and they can't send a replacement cos they don't have any . not too good is it really for RN / uk plc ,

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Digger22 wrote:Is it just me, or does the 1000 missile number seem very low. Even if 60% are UK, this only gives one re load per T45?
We know the contract for the mid life update of the near 1,000 Italian and UK Asters is 1.2 billion euros, approx £1 million each. The MoD budget for the T45 is £500 million and that has to fund the mid life update of the RN Asters and installing the 24 silo for CAMM and the missiles plus modifying the T45 CMS, times six.

Your guess is as good as mine as to the funding split between Aster and CAMM (the MoD did say the majority of the spend will be on the Asters) but for sure it won't be for 600 Asters, more likely somewhere between 300 to 400, so not enough even for one reload.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:We know the contract for the mid life update of the near 1,000 Italian and UK Asters is 1.2 billion euros, approx £1 million each.
Sigh. We certainly do not know that it costs one million per missile.

Episode 86,301 in the continuing saga of dividing contract value by number of units.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The apparent low number of ASTER missiles does not surprise me. Given the availability of rates for the T-45s, and the risk assessment carried out by the MoD and its accountants, that is probably the minimum number they think they can get away with, relying on allies and UORs of things get hot.


I have a small hope that we might order a few SAMP/T Batteries for one Regiment/Squadron to be equipped, forming a layered defence with Land Ceptor or Albatross NG or both. The Command Paper did say improving out GBAD was a priority and we need this sort of coverage in house rather than always relying on allied units.

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:We know the contract for the mid life update of the near 1,000 Italian and UK Asters is 1.2 billion euros, approx £1 million each.
Sigh. We certainly do not know that it costs one million per missile.

Episode 86,301 in the continuing saga of dividing contract value by number of units.
If you want to be pedantic we know the average cost of the mid life update of the Aster missile is aprox £1 million per missile :angel:

I will again ref the OCCAR EA 5th July PR
The global MLU production Programme will cover the retrofit of about 1000 ASTER missiles, starting from 2023 for the following 13 years, with a total value of more than 1.2 billion euros [Euro 0.85 to £]
So for whatever numbers of Asters the RN holds think it a safe assumption the MoD with be paying approx £1 million per missile MLU. The MoD funding £500 million for the T45 missile upgrade, with the majority of the spend on the Aster 30 upgrades, in the future the 48 Sylver VLS cells will only be for the Aster 30s, no more Aster 15s, they will be replaced with the new 24 cell silo for CAMMs.

From <http://www.occar.int/it-uk-aster-mid-li ... ews%23news>

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:If you want to be pedantic we know the average cost of the mid life update of the Aster missile is aprox £1 million per missile
No you don't because you don't know how the contract money will be spent. There will be a considerable portion of it spent on things other than upgrading missiles. For example, startup costs.

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:If you want to be pedantic we know the average cost of the mid life update of the Aster missile is aprox £1 million per missile
No you don't because you don't know how the contract money will be spent. There will be a considerable portion of it spent on things other than upgrading missiles. For example, startup costs.
Agree totally but what we do know is the contract with Eurosam is worth more than 1.2 billion euros which as said equates to approx £1 million per missile, how the other costs are funded is an unknown, per missile on delivery or an upfront funding method, we don't know, but think reasonable to assume it will not make that much difference to the average cost per missile, but it might, that's why always adding the caveat of approx £1 million :angel:

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »


NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Following the T45 £500 million with majority funding MLU of its Aster 30s (Avio contract will also meet the Italian's Aster MLU requirement)
Rome, 7th July 2021 - Avio S.p.A. (“Avio”) informs that it has received several extensions of the production orders by MBDA France S.A.S. for the production of further lots of boosters for the anti-air and anti-missile ASTER-30 defence system, for a total value higher than Euro 80 million. These orders are on top to those received and communicated to the market in May 2020. The deliveries related to these additional orders are expected to take place in the 2022-30 timeframe.
https://www.avio.com/sites/avio.com/fil ... ef_eng.pdf

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Telegraph
Only one of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers is operational, ministers have admitted.
HMS Defender, recently at the centre of a diplomatic row with Russia following a voyage off the Crimean peninsula, is the only vessel of the class without an issue.
The other five Type 45s all need work, either planned or due to problems developed while at sea.
Tobias Ellwood MP, chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, suggested the situation was “operationally unacceptable”.
Both Defender and HMS Diamond were part of the carrier strike group (CSG), the UK’s attempt to demonstrate its naval power around the world.
But Jeremy Quin, the Defence Procurement Minister, said HMS Diamond had experienced “some technical issues” and was having maintenance, inspection and “defect rectification”.
HMS Daring and HMS Duncan are having planned “deep maintenance”, while HMS Dauntless has been upgraded and is due to return to sea for trials this year.
HMS Dragon is undergoing “planned maintenance” in advance of further operational commitments.
Mr Quin told MPs on the committee: “We have two Type 45s embarked with the CSG, Diamond has got current issues but I hope they will be able to be rectified shortly.”
Mr Ellwood said: “HMS Defender is now our only current operational Type 45.
“If that ship experiences propulsion problems as we have seen across the Type 45 family, then our carrier group would have to be forced to lean on a Nato ally to ensure that we have destroyer protection.
“That really indicates - bottom line - we need a bigger navy.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... y-says-mp/

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

It sounds drastic until you realise that 4/6 of them are undergoing routine work which has already been planned (and was the case before the CSG21 deployment).

They only care about it now Diamond has broken down and it gives them that snappy headline.

Not sure what they mean by 'flagship destroyer' either

Jdam
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

With the power and propulsion update for the other 5 ships and now the Sea Cepter upgrades it going to be very hard to maintain type 45 levels for the next 5 years at least.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

Jdam wrote:With the power and propulsion update for the other 5 ships and now the Sea Cepter upgrades it going to be very hard to maintain type 45 levels for the next 5 years at least.
Let's hope Dauntless' upgrade demonstrates the PIP actually works!

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »


User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

Defiance wrote:It sounds drastic until you realise that 4/6 of them are undergoing routine work which has already been planned (and was the case before the CSG21 deployment).
So the plan was to have 2 of only 6 Air Defence ships deployed with the CSG on the other side of the world with all the rest stuck in port undergoing work. Not a very good plan then.
What it highlights is what everyone already knows, 6 T45s was never enough, even without the propulsion problems they have.

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

whitelancer wrote:
Defiance wrote:It sounds drastic until you realise that 4/6 of them are undergoing routine work which has already been planned (and was the case before the CSG21 deployment).
So the plan was to have 2 of only 6 Air Defence ships deployed with the CSG on the other side of the world with all the rest stuck in port undergoing work. Not a very good plan then.
What it highlights is what everyone already knows, 6 T45s was never enough, even without the propulsion problems they have.
What it highlights is not to build ships with expensive and crap propulsion system, the full horrific details revealed in the Nov 2016 Parliamentary report.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... tAnchor048

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

whitelancer wrote: So the plan was to have 2 of only 6 Air Defence ships deployed with the CSG on the other side of the world with all the rest stuck in port undergoing work. Not a very good plan then.
It is if the only thing you really give a **** about defending with your air defence ships happens to also be on the other side of the world

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

NickC wrote:
whitelancer wrote:
Defiance wrote:It sounds drastic until you realise that 4/6 of them are undergoing routine work which has already been planned (and was the case before the CSG21 deployment).
So the plan was to have 2 of only 6 Air Defence ships deployed with the CSG on the other side of the world with all the rest stuck in port undergoing work. Not a very good plan then.
What it highlights is what everyone already knows, 6 T45s was never enough, even without the propulsion problems they have.
What it highlights is not to build ships with expensive and crap propulsion system, the full horrific details revealed in the Nov 2016 Parliamentary report.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... tAnchor048
Should add not disagreeing with your point that six was never enough.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

And in theory the waters around the UK, up north and in the Gap are all covered by NATO air defence assets both in the air and on the sea with the remaining Dutch Frigates being a prime example. in peace time and these wold be expanded when it it ever becomes squeaky bum time.

We are not the only ones whose Air Defence Ships are stretched. The French Navy has two Horizons and the two modified FREMM class for Area Air Defence and one always sails with the CdG. Italy also has four and Germany three. Most other European NATO Navies only have ESSM, or old Standard SM2 with limited capabilities. So on the face of it our having six, when they all work isn't that bad, we just have to be clever how we use them.

In the Cold War we were contributing Destroyers and Frigates to close convoy escort duties as well as being expected to form two ASW Groups each based around an Invincible class CVL. Now our primary duty will be to form the Carrier Strike Group and protect our CASD. We still have no real idea what will make up the LSG besides a modified Bay class and possibly a T-31. But until orders are place to modernise at least one Bay nothing is certain.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 275
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

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

Post by Cooper »

whitelancer wrote:What it highlights is what everyone already knows, 6 T45s was never enough, even without the propulsion problems they have.
For the RN, It was a simple choice between a full order of 12, (then reduced to 8) or only getting a single Aircraft Carrier.

In the short term, 6 T-45's is a problem, no doubt about it, but in the long term, choosing 2 Aircraft carriers was the right call.

New Destroyer builds come & go but building 2 Aircraft Carriers is only a once a generation opportunity, that may have not come again

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Cooper wrote:New Destroyer builds come & go but building 2 Aircraft Carriers is only a once a generation opportunity, that may have not come again
Completely agree but the most important thing now is to find a plausible way to increase the escort numbers back to a sensible level within the current budget straight jacket.

Replacing the T45's with four cruisers as part of the T83 programme is clearly not the most logical way to proceed.

Every new class of RN escorts should aim to increase mass by 20% to 30% as a baseline requirement.

Post Reply