By: Jonesy
- 21st July 2007 at 05:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unicorn,
For example a RN Marine force in action in a UN operation somewhere in Africa gets pinned down at night in bad weather (no air supprt available) and calls for NGS.
Again though mate your talking about an ARG deployment if there are Booties ashore. If there is a significant threat to the ARG then a T45 will consort the group and there will be additional attachments of 22B3 or, more likely, T23's. If there is a low threat level, as in Op Palliser in Sierra Leone, it'll likely just be a 23 or two that consort the amphibs. Either way it is unlikely that a circumstance would arise that would see a 45 on gunline.
You may think I'm being deliberately obtuse here and I'd understand that, but, what I am trying to say is that the situation you describe, where one fights with what one has, is not applicable here. The 45's are specialist assets....any advanced AAW ship would be even if we had gone down the US route and bought Burke IIA's with their 5" guns and all the bells and whistles. No matter what the secondary capabilities on the boats they are far too important, and there are far too few of them, to allow them to stray far from the performance of their primary duty - that of solo area air defence over a task group.
It may be the accepted wisdom that single use ships are no longer useful in any Navy. The Royal Navy, despite its ever shrinking numbers, doesnt adhere to that rule though. The T23 isnt really a GP FFG....its a very specialised ASW ship and, ton-for-ton, is the best all round ASW escort afloat anywhere. Here, with the T45, we have a very specialsed AAW ship that is, on a single unit basis, the best that will sail the seas until the yanks get a SPY-3 ship under way. ASuW has for decades, in the RN, been the preserve of the SSN and we have the Trafalgars and Astutes in the fleet, or entering service, and it would be a lucky surface vessel that survived an encounter with either.
We dont therefore actually NEED to have these jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none ships in the fleet as, when we combine our assets, we get task groups that are comprised of masters of their individual roles crewed by specialist operators and officers highly trained in their specific discipline. Surely an optimal situation.
All we actually need is more of the designs we have in service and coming into service so that we can meet our taskings...and thats simply a money issue. That will either be turned around by the UK electorate realising that its more essential to have a comprehensive military than it is, for example, to spend £13bn on hosting the Olympics or it wont and we will end up with an armed forces commensurate with that the politicians can get away with on minimum funding. Either way dont mourn the death of the RN because the RN will always be able to give a good account of itself no matter the outcome. Pity the idiots of the UK who one day will 'expect every man to do his duty' and then get a nasty shock when they find they've let things atrophy that one step too far!.
By: swerve
- 21st July 2007 at 13:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm. I was thinking of APAR/ SMART-L that is being used on some ships with the ESSM & SM-2.
So now you're proposing replacing the radars? Different radars, requiring some structural differences, different missiles, different combat suite, different VLS . . .
Sorry mate, but this is getting to the point where you're saying "you shouldn't have bought Type 45, but some other ship entirely". We don't really want to go there, do we?
By: sferrin
- 21st July 2007 at 15:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So now you're proposing replacing the radars? Different radars, requiring some structural differences, different missiles, different combat suite, different VLS . . .
Sorry mate, but this is getting to the point where you're saying "you shouldn't have bought Type 45, but some other ship entirely". We don't really want to go there, do we?
Where did I say I was proposing ANYTHING? I'd thought that the Darings use the same system so I was puzzled as to why they didn't go with a MK41 VLS. What's so hard to figure out about that? They don't use the same system (other than the similar long range radars) and it isn't compatible with SM-2 and ESSM out of the box. Pretty much end of story.
By: EdLaw
- 21st July 2007 at 16:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about trying to do a quad-pack Meteor for the Sylver launcher? If the Sylver launcher could quad pack Meteor, then it would make a massive difference. As for the extra cells, I would generally favour Tomahawk over the unknown Naval Scalp (Naval Storm Shadow :diablo: ), but I am open to being swayed! If the T-45 could carry 16 Naval Storm Shadows, 32 Aster 30s, and 64 Meteors, plus eight Harpoon or similar, it would be an excellent capability.
I still feel the Mk41 is more flexible, even though the Sylver may be lighter, though I would need to see a like-for-like comparison. I would not be surprised if the Tac-length Mk41 came in relatively close to the Sylver!
By: swerve
- 21st July 2007 at 20:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where did I say I was proposing ANYTHING? I'd thought that the Darings use the same system so I was puzzled as to why they didn't go with a MK41 VLS. What's so hard to figure out about that? They don't use the same system (other than the similar long range radars) and it isn't compatible with SM-2 and ESSM out of the box. Pretty much end of story.
Ah, I see now. Bit of a misunderstanding of what you meant.
Well, the S1850M long-range search radar is a derivative of Smart-L, so you were close there, but as it's clear you now know, the Sampson MFR has nothing to do with APAR. But your temporary misapprehension does explain, rather. No worries, all clear now.
By: swerve
- 21st July 2007 at 21:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...
I still feel the Mk41 is more flexible, even though the Sylver may be lighter, though I would need to see a like-for-like comparison. I would not be surprised if the Tac-length Mk41 came in relatively close to the Sylver!
I have some figures from the manufacturers -
Sylver A43 A50 (both 8 cell module)
Height 5.4m 6.0m
Weight 7500 kg 8000 kg (empty
Deck area (both) 2.6m x 2.3m
Mk.41 tactical - 8 cell module
2.62m x 3.45m x 6.76 (height)
14500 kg empty
2x8 cell module
2.62 x 6.32 x 6.76 metres
As you see, a significant difference in deck footprint, & a very large difference in weight.
By: Jonesy
- 21st July 2007 at 21:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about trying to do a quad-pack Meteor for the Sylver launcher? If the Sylver launcher could quad pack Meteor, then it would make a massive difference. As for the extra cells, I would generally favour Tomahawk over the unknown Naval Scalp (Naval Storm Shadow :diablo: ), but I am open to being swayed! If the T-45 could carry 16 Naval Storm Shadows, 32 Aster 30s, and 64 Meteors, plus eight Harpoon or similar, it would be an excellent capability.
I still feel the Mk41 is more flexible, even though the Sylver may be lighter, though I would need to see a like-for-like comparison. I would not be surprised if the Tac-length Mk41 came in relatively close to the Sylver!
Interesting, but, what would you see the role of the quad-packed Meteor being Ed?. Meteor is, by nature, a long range BVRAAM not a highly maneoverable WVR type so its no analogy of ESSM. Meteor, as I see it, could only be used in place, or as augment to, Aster30. You could therefore have a long-range Sea Meteor with Aster15 as inner-layer defence in the tubes, but, Eurosam might get a bit cranky with MBDA for pulling the rug on Aster30 with that one!.
The better option might be for Eurosam to work with MBDA on quadpacking VL MICA as an inner layer adjunct to Aster15...again though a too-good VL MICA could easily undermine Aster15 so that might be an own goal for Eurosam/MBDA.
Alternatively it could be possible, in extremis, I guess to have quadpacked Sea Meteor AND quadpacked VL MICA embarked. 192 missiles in 48 tubes would be interesting!. IF it was all feasible in the first place of course!.;)
By: swerve
- 21st July 2007 at 21:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting, but, what would you see the role of the quad-packed Meteor being Ed?. Meteor is, by nature, a long range BVRAAM not a highly maneoverable WVR type so its no analogy of ESSM. Meteor, as I see it, could only be used in place, or as augment to, Aster30. You could therefore have a long-range Sea Meteor with Aster15 as inner-layer defence in the tubes, but, Eurosam might get a bit cranky with MBDA for pulling the rug on Aster30 with that one!.
The better option might be for Eurosam to work with MBDA on quadpacking VL MICA as an inner layer adjunct to Aster15...again though a too-good VL MICA could easily undermine Aster15 so that might be an own goal for Eurosam/MBDA.
Alternatively it could be possible, in extremis, I guess to have quadpacked Sea Meteor AND quadpacked VL MICA embarked. 192 missiles in 48 tubes would be interesting!. IF it was all feasible in the first place of course!.;)
Meteor wouldn't have anywhere near the same range launched from a ship as from a plane, unless it had a damn good booster, & VL Mica would need a good booster to compete with Aster 15. VL Mica only has about 10-12km range at the moment, i.e. a fraction of the range of air-launched.
I wonder if you could squeeze more Aster 15 in a Sylver A50 with a slimmer booster? Current one is the same diameter as for Aster 30, but shorter. Would a longer, slimmer booster be practical?
By: Jonesy
- 21st July 2007 at 22:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Meteor wouldn't have anywhere near the same range launched from a ship as from a plane, unless it had a damn good booster, & VL Mica would need a good booster to compete with Aster 15. VL Mica only has about 10-12km range at the moment, i.e. a fraction of the range of air-launched.
I wonder if you could squeeze more Aster 15 in a Sylver A50 with a slimmer booster? Current one is the same diameter as for Aster 30, but shorter. Would a longer, slimmer booster be practical?
Yep, of course, Meteor would need a booster stage to match its flight parameters from an airborne launch. Even if the booster only replicated 75% of standard aerial launch parameters you are still looking at an area defence weapon in the Aster30 category as opposed to a quick reaction PDMS like ESSM or Aster15 though.
Yep MICA has a 10-12km range at present...that is in the midrange for the Aster15 engagement envelope though. IIRC All Aster15 test shots to date have culminated in intercepts in the sub-10km range envelope. Mate VL MICA with a good, hi-datarate, MFR and quadpack it for Sylver and you have a weapon that IS competing with Aster15!. At the end of the day that is going to impact someones bottom line to detrimental effect!.
You are thinking along the lines of the SM-2 booster stage that is 'inline' wih the round. The simple answer is that yes such a change would be feasible if a slimmer booster could be devised that would generate the same thrust along the same acceleration curve as the existing 'fat' booster. Best people to fire that question at are probably Eurosam themselves!.
By: EdLaw
- 22nd July 2007 at 08:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Swerve: thanks for the figures! I hadn't realised the difference was as great!
Jonesy: the role I would envision for VL-Meteor would be exactly the role of the Aster 15 actually. My point was that the Aster 15 does not provide a more compact missile, only a shorter ranged one. I would argue that being able to quad-pack a Meteor would be a genuinely useful capability. For the Type 45, it could carry 40 Aster 30 and 32 VL-Meteor if this were available.
Basically, it would not necessarily be inherently better than the A15, more that it could be more convenient. As for your point about not being a WVR weapon like ESSM, I'm not really sure what you're meaning? :confused: The ESSM is derived from a BVR missile, and has a range out to something like 50km. This would be very much in the same category as a VL-Meteor, the Meteor having the advantage of an active radar seeker of course....
New
Posts: 32
By: Shipmate
- 23rd July 2007 at 07:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T45's
Well son it goes to truely show you know little about little at sea or the true role of the Navy and what we can do so stick to potting your silly little ideas in your sun house and leave the war fighting to those that have been there both on the giving and taking end. The RN for one has moved to multi role vessels as we have so few so YES they are GP rolled as have been on a AWD which did great NGS and we do the litterol thing these darys or have you missed the news over the last 10 - 15 years.
Those on shore too need AW cover since we have so few AD assests with the army thanks to the penny pinchers.
Get up to date son and maybe just maybe you can talk with the rest of us with some degree of knowledge.
BYE
Don't be ridiculous - of course all vessels are not general-purpose. Many have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Yeah, because it's nice to have the option if you want it later.
Shore bombardment? You have to be ******* joking! That has minimal real use these days and just leaves ships open to return-fire from shore-based, short-ranged missiles. The Type-45s should not be going anywhere near the shore - they should be protecting big ships from air-attack.
Stop whinging - you sound like a child. It isn't PC, it's to do with MONEY. If you want the new ships fully fitted out now, you get the job of telling your grandmother than she's going to wait another year for treatment of her cancer because you've decided the Royal Navy needs the money more than she does.
New
By: Anonymous
- 23rd July 2007 at 10:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well son it goes to truely show you know little about little at sea or the true role of the Navy
When were you in the Navy - 1940? :rolleyes:
The RN for one has moved to multi role vessels
The frigates are multi-role, but not the destroyers. I never said the RN was single-role, but whether you like it or not the Darings are focused on AAW. I would love it if they received lots of upgrades, but that doesn't change the fact that a bigger gun is not the #1 priority.
which did great NGS and we do the litterol thing these darys or have you missed the news over the last 10 - 15 years
And how much NGS has the Royal Navy been doing in the last decade, pray?
Those on shore too need AW cover since we have so few AD assests with the army thanks to the penny pinchers
The Darings can provide air-cover without being vulnerable from shore-based, short-ranged missile attack. You know in the modern era, anti-air missiles can have long ranges. :)
Get up to date son and maybe just maybe you can talk with the rest of us with some degree of knowledge
I am up-to-date - you're stuck in the 20th century.
New
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan
- 23rd July 2007 at 19:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shipmate & Musashi,
Can we try keep it friendly, please. Enough fora are spoiled by such bickering as you are in danger of getting into. I emplore you, gentlemen, let's not do that here.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 23rd July 2007 at 19:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And how much NGS has the Royal Navy been doing in the last decade, pray?
The Darings can provide air-cover without being vulnerable from shore-based, short-ranged missile attack. You know in the modern era, anti-air missiles can have long ranges. :)
With all due respect Musashi the idea that the equipment fit of a vessel that will likely serve for nearly 40 years should be determined by the relatively limited experience of the previous decade seems rather dangerous to me.
The further in shore a DDG goes the further its air cover stretches over the shore, something which is useful for supporting amphibious operations, especially for the British who lack a land based MRSAM system. The fact that the destroyers in RN service are currently single role probably has more to do with the fact that they were built on a shoe string as single role vessels to start with and have very little room for upgrades. Saying that though the T-42s 4.5inch gun gives it the same NGS capability as its frigate counterparts. I think that NGS is a perfectly viable role for the T-45s, it may be rare that it is used but as the 2003 showed it is. BAe has proposed a 155mm gun that it claims will fit on the same mount (albeit with some modification) as the current 4.5inch. The ever increasing range of artillery projectiles enables a ship undertaking NGS to operate at significant distances out to sea, further more any major surface vessel is only likely to move inshore following the neutralisation of any land based AShM systems. In the ideal world the T-45s would have been delivered with BAe's proposed 155mm, however this is not the ideal world but it is a little more ideal than when the T-42s were built. With so few surface ships left in the RN it makes sense to make them as multi-role as possible.
New
By: Anonymous
- 23rd July 2007 at 23:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With all due respect Musashi the idea that the equipment fit of a vessel that will likely serve for nearly 40 years should be determined by the relatively limited experience of the previous decade seems rather dangerous to me
He mentioned the last 10-15 years, not me.
I don't dispute that a larger gun could have its uses, but if there are only going to be limited upgrades either across the lives of the Darings or merely in the near future, I would not prioritise such a proposed new gun unless it was cheap enough to ensure no more urgent changes had to be postponed/scrapped.
New
By: Anonymous
- 24th July 2007 at 00:49Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:29
Trident,
Yeah a few people have picked out the bridge glazing as somehow looking 'wrong' and out of scale. Personally I like it aesthetically and think that, from a ship-handling standpoint, the clearer the view you can get the better. Wont be many excuses from the OoD slamming into a rock or small craft that he 'didnt see' from that bridge!.
The pic below (credit: Barry Watson) shows the glazing quite well - gives the ship a sleek aspect, like the old Amazon-class boats, I think!!!
I was just commenting on what it does to my perception of its actual size, I like how it looks as well! Incidentally, the Dutch Zeven Provincien class shows a similar effect. It also surprised me a bit, because the generous glazing wasn't nearly as obvious on CGI artist's impressions of the ship, despite the fact that they got most other details right.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 24th July 2007 at 08:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
He mentioned the last 10-15 years, not me.
I don't dispute that a larger gun could have its uses, but if there are only going to be limited upgrades either across the lives of the Darings or merely in the near future, I would not prioritise such a proposed new gun unless it was cheap enough to ensure no more urgent changes had to be postponed/scrapped.
That was my point, in the ideal wold the T-45s would have a 155mm Star Streak based CIWS, AShM's, 72 VLS cells to start with etc etc. But this is not the ideal world.
By: Turbinia
- 24th July 2007 at 17:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Could the design be more versatile with SSM, TLAM, 155mm gun etc? Yes.
-Could the design end up doing far more than air warfare duties? Yes.
-Did the RN have the money to include everything they wanted and still get anything like the number of hulls needed? No. They can't get the 12 originally promised and it's unlikely the lowered target of 8 will be bought, although I still hope the extra two will be ordered.
This then asks the questions;
-what is the primary role of the ships?
-if money is not available to build the "perfect" destroyer (and there is no such thing as a perfect destroyer anyway) then where do you compromise?
The primary tasking of these ships is air warfare. If Sampson works as advertised and Aster is anything like as good as claimed then the ship has an air warfare system at least as good as anything else in the world, arguably better than just about anything the RN could order today, never mind when the ships were ordered. So the ship should meet it's primary mission very well indeed. The design has enough free space, stability/buoyancy reserve, strengh etc. to take major additions, few ships out there at the moment have anything like the growth potential of the T45. This means that if/when money is available, if/when it is deemed neccessary to upgrade the ships it is a straightforward job to do so, some of the extra systems are already pre-prepared for installation and wouldn't even need a naval dockyard to fit. If TLAM/naval Storm Shadow and all of the other desired equipment was fitted now then it'd either mean reducing investment in the primary mission equipment or even lower numbers, and to me an excellent air warfare destroyer easily upgraded is far better than a compromised air warfare destroyer or two or three gold plated ships. If the air warfare system is compromised to keep cost down it would be extremely difficult and expensive to change later, as opposed to an easy and straightforward upgrade to the T45 as built. Ideal? No, but what is the alternative? And be realistic, it's no use saying they should have been built with everything unless you accept an even smaller production run, the RN has a budget to invest in new equipment determined by the treasury and that is what they have to try and live within. The approach taken in the T45 is the least bad option, they're getting a first class air warfare destroyer with huge growth potential they can exploit if/when funds are available, far better than a second rate air warfare destroyer with a lot of ASW, land and surface attack capabilities or two or three hulls with everything.
On this discussion, it's a little sad that so little mention has been made of the propulsion/power package, the WR21 IEP is just as noteworthy as any of the radar or missile systems and lifts the design up a whole notch in terms of marine engineering innovation compared to contemporary designs.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 21st July 2007 at 05:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unicorn,
For example a RN Marine force in action in a UN operation somewhere in Africa gets pinned down at night in bad weather (no air supprt available) and calls for NGS.
Again though mate your talking about an ARG deployment if there are Booties ashore. If there is a significant threat to the ARG then a T45 will consort the group and there will be additional attachments of 22B3 or, more likely, T23's. If there is a low threat level, as in Op Palliser in Sierra Leone, it'll likely just be a 23 or two that consort the amphibs. Either way it is unlikely that a circumstance would arise that would see a 45 on gunline.
You may think I'm being deliberately obtuse here and I'd understand that, but, what I am trying to say is that the situation you describe, where one fights with what one has, is not applicable here. The 45's are specialist assets....any advanced AAW ship would be even if we had gone down the US route and bought Burke IIA's with their 5" guns and all the bells and whistles. No matter what the secondary capabilities on the boats they are far too important, and there are far too few of them, to allow them to stray far from the performance of their primary duty - that of solo area air defence over a task group.
It may be the accepted wisdom that single use ships are no longer useful in any Navy. The Royal Navy, despite its ever shrinking numbers, doesnt adhere to that rule though. The T23 isnt really a GP FFG....its a very specialised ASW ship and, ton-for-ton, is the best all round ASW escort afloat anywhere. Here, with the T45, we have a very specialsed AAW ship that is, on a single unit basis, the best that will sail the seas until the yanks get a SPY-3 ship under way. ASuW has for decades, in the RN, been the preserve of the SSN and we have the Trafalgars and Astutes in the fleet, or entering service, and it would be a lucky surface vessel that survived an encounter with either.
We dont therefore actually NEED to have these jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none ships in the fleet as, when we combine our assets, we get task groups that are comprised of masters of their individual roles crewed by specialist operators and officers highly trained in their specific discipline. Surely an optimal situation.
All we actually need is more of the designs we have in service and coming into service so that we can meet our taskings...and thats simply a money issue. That will either be turned around by the UK electorate realising that its more essential to have a comprehensive military than it is, for example, to spend £13bn on hosting the Olympics or it wont and we will end up with an armed forces commensurate with that the politicians can get away with on minimum funding. Either way dont mourn the death of the RN because the RN will always be able to give a good account of itself no matter the outcome. Pity the idiots of the UK who one day will 'expect every man to do his duty' and then get a nasty shock when they find they've let things atrophy that one step too far!.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st July 2007 at 13:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So now you're proposing replacing the radars? Different radars, requiring some structural differences, different missiles, different combat suite, different VLS . . .
Sorry mate, but this is getting to the point where you're saying "you shouldn't have bought Type 45, but some other ship entirely". We don't really want to go there, do we?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 21st July 2007 at 15:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where did I say I was proposing ANYTHING? I'd thought that the Darings use the same system so I was puzzled as to why they didn't go with a MK41 VLS. What's so hard to figure out about that? They don't use the same system (other than the similar long range radars) and it isn't compatible with SM-2 and ESSM out of the box. Pretty much end of story.
Posts: 1,327
By: EdLaw - 21st July 2007 at 16:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about trying to do a quad-pack Meteor for the Sylver launcher? If the Sylver launcher could quad pack Meteor, then it would make a massive difference. As for the extra cells, I would generally favour Tomahawk over the unknown Naval Scalp (Naval Storm Shadow :diablo: ), but I am open to being swayed! If the T-45 could carry 16 Naval Storm Shadows, 32 Aster 30s, and 64 Meteors, plus eight Harpoon or similar, it would be an excellent capability.
I still feel the Mk41 is more flexible, even though the Sylver may be lighter, though I would need to see a like-for-like comparison. I would not be surprised if the Tac-length Mk41 came in relatively close to the Sylver!
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st July 2007 at 20:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, I see now. Bit of a misunderstanding of what you meant.
Well, the S1850M long-range search radar is a derivative of Smart-L, so you were close there, but as it's clear you now know, the Sampson MFR has nothing to do with APAR. But your temporary misapprehension does explain, rather. No worries, all clear now.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st July 2007 at 21:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have some figures from the manufacturers -
Sylver A43 A50 (both 8 cell module)
Height 5.4m 6.0m
Weight 7500 kg 8000 kg (empty
Deck area (both) 2.6m x 2.3m
Mk.41 tactical - 8 cell module
2.62m x 3.45m x 6.76 (height)
14500 kg empty
2x8 cell module
2.62 x 6.32 x 6.76 metres
As you see, a significant difference in deck footprint, & a very large difference in weight.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 21st July 2007 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting, but, what would you see the role of the quad-packed Meteor being Ed?. Meteor is, by nature, a long range BVRAAM not a highly maneoverable WVR type so its no analogy of ESSM. Meteor, as I see it, could only be used in place, or as augment to, Aster30. You could therefore have a long-range Sea Meteor with Aster15 as inner-layer defence in the tubes, but, Eurosam might get a bit cranky with MBDA for pulling the rug on Aster30 with that one!.
The better option might be for Eurosam to work with MBDA on quadpacking VL MICA as an inner layer adjunct to Aster15...again though a too-good VL MICA could easily undermine Aster15 so that might be an own goal for Eurosam/MBDA.
Alternatively it could be possible, in extremis, I guess to have quadpacked Sea Meteor AND quadpacked VL MICA embarked. 192 missiles in 48 tubes would be interesting!. IF it was all feasible in the first place of course!.;)
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st July 2007 at 21:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Meteor wouldn't have anywhere near the same range launched from a ship as from a plane, unless it had a damn good booster, & VL Mica would need a good booster to compete with Aster 15. VL Mica only has about 10-12km range at the moment, i.e. a fraction of the range of air-launched.
I wonder if you could squeeze more Aster 15 in a Sylver A50 with a slimmer booster? Current one is the same diameter as for Aster 30, but shorter. Would a longer, slimmer booster be practical?
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 21st July 2007 at 22:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep, of course, Meteor would need a booster stage to match its flight parameters from an airborne launch. Even if the booster only replicated 75% of standard aerial launch parameters you are still looking at an area defence weapon in the Aster30 category as opposed to a quick reaction PDMS like ESSM or Aster15 though.
Yep MICA has a 10-12km range at present...that is in the midrange for the Aster15 engagement envelope though. IIRC All Aster15 test shots to date have culminated in intercepts in the sub-10km range envelope. Mate VL MICA with a good, hi-datarate, MFR and quadpack it for Sylver and you have a weapon that IS competing with Aster15!. At the end of the day that is going to impact someones bottom line to detrimental effect!.
You are thinking along the lines of the SM-2 booster stage that is 'inline' wih the round. The simple answer is that yes such a change would be feasible if a slimmer booster could be devised that would generate the same thrust along the same acceleration curve as the existing 'fat' booster. Best people to fire that question at are probably Eurosam themselves!.
Posts: 1,327
By: EdLaw - 22nd July 2007 at 08:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Swerve: thanks for the figures! I hadn't realised the difference was as great!
Jonesy: the role I would envision for VL-Meteor would be exactly the role of the Aster 15 actually. My point was that the Aster 15 does not provide a more compact missile, only a shorter ranged one. I would argue that being able to quad-pack a Meteor would be a genuinely useful capability. For the Type 45, it could carry 40 Aster 30 and 32 VL-Meteor if this were available.
Basically, it would not necessarily be inherently better than the A15, more that it could be more convenient. As for your point about not being a WVR weapon like ESSM, I'm not really sure what you're meaning? :confused: The ESSM is derived from a BVR missile, and has a range out to something like 50km. This would be very much in the same category as a VL-Meteor, the Meteor having the advantage of an active radar seeker of course....
Posts: 32
By: Shipmate - 23rd July 2007 at 07:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T45's
Well son it goes to truely show you know little about little at sea or the true role of the Navy and what we can do so stick to potting your silly little ideas in your sun house and leave the war fighting to those that have been there both on the giving and taking end. The RN for one has moved to multi role vessels as we have so few so YES they are GP rolled as have been on a AWD which did great NGS and we do the litterol thing these darys or have you missed the news over the last 10 - 15 years.
Those on shore too need AW cover since we have so few AD assests with the army thanks to the penny pinchers.
Get up to date son and maybe just maybe you can talk with the rest of us with some degree of knowledge.
BYE
By: Anonymous - 23rd July 2007 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When were you in the Navy - 1940? :rolleyes:
The frigates are multi-role, but not the destroyers. I never said the RN was single-role, but whether you like it or not the Darings are focused on AAW. I would love it if they received lots of upgrades, but that doesn't change the fact that a bigger gun is not the #1 priority.
And how much NGS has the Royal Navy been doing in the last decade, pray?
The Darings can provide air-cover without being vulnerable from shore-based, short-ranged missile attack. You know in the modern era, anti-air missiles can have long ranges. :)
I am up-to-date - you're stuck in the 20th century.
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan - 23rd July 2007 at 19:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shipmate & Musashi,
Can we try keep it friendly, please. Enough fora are spoiled by such bickering as you are in danger of getting into. I emplore you, gentlemen, let's not do that here.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 23rd July 2007 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With all due respect Musashi the idea that the equipment fit of a vessel that will likely serve for nearly 40 years should be determined by the relatively limited experience of the previous decade seems rather dangerous to me.
The further in shore a DDG goes the further its air cover stretches over the shore, something which is useful for supporting amphibious operations, especially for the British who lack a land based MRSAM system. The fact that the destroyers in RN service are currently single role probably has more to do with the fact that they were built on a shoe string as single role vessels to start with and have very little room for upgrades. Saying that though the T-42s 4.5inch gun gives it the same NGS capability as its frigate counterparts. I think that NGS is a perfectly viable role for the T-45s, it may be rare that it is used but as the 2003 showed it is. BAe has proposed a 155mm gun that it claims will fit on the same mount (albeit with some modification) as the current 4.5inch. The ever increasing range of artillery projectiles enables a ship undertaking NGS to operate at significant distances out to sea, further more any major surface vessel is only likely to move inshore following the neutralisation of any land based AShM systems. In the ideal world the T-45s would have been delivered with BAe's proposed 155mm, however this is not the ideal world but it is a little more ideal than when the T-42s were built. With so few surface ships left in the RN it makes sense to make them as multi-role as possible.
By: Anonymous - 23rd July 2007 at 23:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
He mentioned the last 10-15 years, not me.
I don't dispute that a larger gun could have its uses, but if there are only going to be limited upgrades either across the lives of the Darings or merely in the near future, I would not prioritise such a proposed new gun unless it was cheap enough to ensure no more urgent changes had to be postponed/scrapped.
By: Anonymous - 24th July 2007 at 00:49 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:29
I was just commenting on what it does to my perception of its actual size, I like how it looks as well! Incidentally, the Dutch Zeven Provincien class shows a similar effect. It also surprised me a bit, because the generous glazing wasn't nearly as obvious on CGI artist's impressions of the ship, despite the fact that they got most other details right.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 24th July 2007 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That was my point, in the ideal wold the T-45s would have a 155mm Star Streak based CIWS, AShM's, 72 VLS cells to start with etc etc. But this is not the ideal world.
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 24th July 2007 at 17:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Could the design be more versatile with SSM, TLAM, 155mm gun etc? Yes.
-Could the design end up doing far more than air warfare duties? Yes.
-Did the RN have the money to include everything they wanted and still get anything like the number of hulls needed? No. They can't get the 12 originally promised and it's unlikely the lowered target of 8 will be bought, although I still hope the extra two will be ordered.
This then asks the questions;
-what is the primary role of the ships?
-if money is not available to build the "perfect" destroyer (and there is no such thing as a perfect destroyer anyway) then where do you compromise?
The primary tasking of these ships is air warfare. If Sampson works as advertised and Aster is anything like as good as claimed then the ship has an air warfare system at least as good as anything else in the world, arguably better than just about anything the RN could order today, never mind when the ships were ordered. So the ship should meet it's primary mission very well indeed. The design has enough free space, stability/buoyancy reserve, strengh etc. to take major additions, few ships out there at the moment have anything like the growth potential of the T45. This means that if/when money is available, if/when it is deemed neccessary to upgrade the ships it is a straightforward job to do so, some of the extra systems are already pre-prepared for installation and wouldn't even need a naval dockyard to fit. If TLAM/naval Storm Shadow and all of the other desired equipment was fitted now then it'd either mean reducing investment in the primary mission equipment or even lower numbers, and to me an excellent air warfare destroyer easily upgraded is far better than a compromised air warfare destroyer or two or three gold plated ships. If the air warfare system is compromised to keep cost down it would be extremely difficult and expensive to change later, as opposed to an easy and straightforward upgrade to the T45 as built. Ideal? No, but what is the alternative? And be realistic, it's no use saying they should have been built with everything unless you accept an even smaller production run, the RN has a budget to invest in new equipment determined by the treasury and that is what they have to try and live within. The approach taken in the T45 is the least bad option, they're getting a first class air warfare destroyer with huge growth potential they can exploit if/when funds are available, far better than a second rate air warfare destroyer with a lot of ASW, land and surface attack capabilities or two or three hulls with everything.
On this discussion, it's a little sad that so little mention has been made of the propulsion/power package, the WR21 IEP is just as noteworthy as any of the radar or missile systems and lifts the design up a whole notch in terms of marine engineering innovation compared to contemporary designs.
Posts: 1,773
By: Gollevainen - 27th July 2007 at 12:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just out of curiosity, is there any pics availble which would show the Sampson arrays which are inside the round dome?