HMS Daring fires first Sea Viper

HAVE YOUR SAY

18 May 2011

Most press releases from the MoD, Royal Navy and industry about this 'successful' firing of Sea Viper contain a disturbing void of information regarding about what 'success' was defined by:
http://bfbs.com/news/uk/hms-daring-fires-new-missile-first-time-47710.html
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-45-destroyers/hms-daring/news/hms_daring_fires_its.htm

One press release/report does mention a discouragingly incapable test-target:
http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1185-daring-finally-shows-her-bite.aspx :

"... the target was a rather slower- subsonic- jet drone... "

Considering that the test-target was a subsonic, out-of-date-technology dummy-drone with negligible capabilities, how can- as these press releases all say- "(the successful Sea Viper test) means the Portsmouth-based warship is now fully operational..."??

Why was the Sea Viper test not using a test-target configured to emulate the types of airborne anti-ship threats* likely to be faced by the RN in the future**??

* GQM-163A Supersonic Sea Skimming Targets (SSST):

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gqm163-ssst-a-tricky-coyote-to-match-wits-with-defenses-03155/
http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma208/?fuseaction=controller.target_view&target_id=62&type=target

http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefense/MissileDefenseTargets/

http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefense/TargetVehicles/index.shtml

** http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2010/Concealed-carriage-Club-K-changes-cruise-missile-rules.html

- "Coastal Defence 3M-54 Club Variants":
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html#mozTocId315284
- "Novator 3M54/3M14 Club":
- http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Regional-PGM.html#mozTocId713214

So, another Type-45 Destroyer- that: is not Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) equipped***; can not fire torpedoes from-ship; has no Close In Weapons Systems; has no Land-attack missile capability; has no Anti-surface (anti-ship) missile capability; has a crappy, inadequate sonar; has no from-ship anti-submarine weapons; and has negligible decoy systems.... has fired one of its scant few Sea Viper anti airborne threat missiles... big deal!!!

This Type-45 and all other RN vessels are highly unnecessarily vulnerable to Anti-ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) and other airborne threats due to Type-45s and other RN vessels not being CEC equipped*** and due to the RN not having any CEC-equipped fixed-wing AWACS aircraft**** today and no plans to acquire such in the future...
------------------

Anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), if they're any good, approach targets at altitudes of just above sea level and consequently are not detectable by naval vessels' radars until 'over the horizon'- or within about 20-miles- of an individual ship...

At this point, typically, even moderately technologically up-to-date ASCMs enter the terminal phase of their flight paths- accelerating to several times the speed of sound and begin swerving wildly in order to avoid retaliatory fire from targeted and supporting ships...

As a result, such ASCMs become much, much more difficult to defend against than during their pre-terminal phase flight path...

Potentially targeted naval vessels and supporting ships can not detect approaching ASCMs and other airborne threats that are farther away than 20-miles or so- AND THAT ARE APPROACHING AT ALTITUDES BELOW 30 or 40 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL- using their own radars...

This due to inabilities of ship-borne radars to 'see' objects that are farther than 20-miles away and that are at altitudes below 30 or 40 feet above sea level...

The US Navy gets around this problem by ensuring that their surface combatants and other ships that are deployed to hostile areas are supported by highly capable 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC)-equipped*** fixed-wing Airborne Early Warning And Control (AWACS) flying radar platforms such as the aircraft carrier-deployed E-2D:

**** http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/assets/E-2D_Brochure.pdf
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/index.html

The UK Royal Navy currently does not have any ships with the capability of deploying fixed-wing flying radar AWACS platforms such as the E-2D because such aircraft require aircraft-launch catapults...

Current RN aircraft carriers (Invincible class- HMS Illustrious, etc) don't have long enough decks to accommodate the E-2D and Invincible class carriers are not capable of being fitted with the types of aircraft launch catapults required by the E-2D...

Although the UK is building 2 new 'big deck' aircraft carriers, planning and project management for these urgently needed vessels is so chaotic that the RN and MoD have not defined- and have not made commitments to purchase- the types of non-fighter/bomber aircraft- such as the E-2D- that these vessels will deploy...

The UK's planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers ought to be built- but with simultaneous, regular, bold public statements from the MoD, RN, UK govt and industry representatives about ALL OF the types of aircraft intended to be deployed from them...

*** 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC) sensors and communications kit...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/
http://www.ndu.edu/CTNSP/docUploaded/Case%2011%20%20CEC%20Transforming%20Naval%20Anti-Warfare.pdf
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td/td1604/APLteam.pdf

On a related note:

Since the UK is redesigning its planned new, 'big deck' aircraft carriers so that- when completed- they are fitted with with aircraft-launch catapults- why couldn't the UK work with the US jointly getting the bugs out of their new, under-development electromagnetic aircraft launch catapult system which is intended for use on the US's next-generation of supercarrier- the Ford class aircraft carriers??**

Similarly, rather than fitting their new big deck aircraft carriers with an irresponsibly cheap, functionally incapable radar, why couldn't the UK (work with the US and) do like the US and plan to fit the UK's new big deck aircraft carriers with advanced, multi-function radars that are optimized for ship self-defence??***....

** intended for use on the US's next-generation of supercarrier- the Ford class aircraft carriers:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/EMALS-Electro-Magnetic-Launch-for-Carriers-05220/
http://atg.ga.com/EM/defense/emals/index.php

*** http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-US-Navys-Dual-Band-Radars-05393/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/AMDR-Competition-The-USAs-Next-Dual-Band-Radar-05682/
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/Leading%20Edge/Sensors/03_Development.pdf
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/digital-battlespace/raytheon-completes-critical-design-review-for-cvn-78-s-dual-band-radar/4629/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/100110_LM_AMDR.html

Both the UK and the US are in the process of developing- and building- new classes of big deck aircraft carriers...

Both countries are intending to fit their new carriers with new, advanced-technology aircraft launch catapult systems...

Considering their operational military and security ties and considering the long-standing interoperability/joint-tasking of UK naval forces with the US Navy, what good sense can there be in having the UK and the US continuing what is arguably the most contentious and challenging components of their respective aircraft carrier projects- the carriers' electromagnetic aircraft launch systems and radars- in isolation from one another??
------------------

Counterproductive UK public/international perceptions of and lack-of-confidence-in the UK's 'big deck' aircraft carrier project and related UK industrial competence generally could only be minimized by the MoD, UK govt and UK's business community regularly playing up and ACCURATELY 'promoting' the planned-for capabilities of the planned aircraft carriers, their weapons systems and aircraft...

To do otherwise- as has been the case since the UK's big deck' aircraft carrier programme began- cultivates highly negative, damaging impressions of the UK govt, UK industries and of the UK generally, IE: disorganized; directionless; incompetent; wounded, an invalid country, etc...
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

18 May 2011

I'd be interested to know the details of the test if anyone has them?

Dauntless fired off against a Drone but to my knowledge no supersonic or multiple target tests have yet been conducted?

Did the Daring intercept a supersonic target by any chance?
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

18 May 2011

Robert.

Please, if you are going to have an opinion on a matter, please put all the facts on the post.

You failed to mention the ASaC Mk7 AEW system that the British currently operate. These are highly capable AEW aircraft, and have proved their capabilities overland on countless operations.

You should balance your argument against the Sea Viper interception of a sub sonic drone with a couple of other facts:

1. A direct hit on the target drone is successful is any language, did you not read this in the many press releases?The USN predominantly tests with similar sub sonic drones.
2. You fail to state that the RN does not operate super sonic drones.
3. For anti-aircraft operations, most will occur at sub sonic speeds due to weapon release limitations. The super sonic engagement capabilities are mainly for anti-missile defence.
4. The best anti missile defence is to actually engage the launch platform (aircraft) before it fires its likely payload of multiple ASM's.
5. The popup range detection of 20NM you state is grossly incorrect for the SAMPSON system. Note the height of the antenna array!
6. You fail to state that the USN predominantly tests with similar sub sonic drones.
7. Super sonic 'drones' are extremely expensive. The purpose of using the slower drones is part of an on-going validation process for the new in-service Sea Viper system. This is standard practise in any military programme...baby steps first, then bigger ones...
8. You fail to state that one of the purposes of the supersonic drones referenced (e.g ORBIT) are used in anti ballistic missile (ABM) programmes. Although muted as a future capability, this is not a core validation requirement for the Sea Viper system.
9. You fail to state the CVF was initially to be fitted with SAMPSON which is generationally more advanced than the SPY-1x systems you seem to find fault with (there are many!). Artisan was substituted as a cost cutting measure, though it is still an excellent AESA systems.
10. There are other links in use other than CEC. You need to understand this technology before attempting an informed discussion on the subject matter.
11. The EMCAT (EMALS is US) programme has connections with the EMALS programme. Perhaps some research into each company, and their histories is required, I have posted WrT this on another post on this site.
12. On commission, the CVF is slated to have CEC installed. You fail to mention that many warships are fitted with more sensitive equipment once in service (it keeps the build costs down).
13. The counterproductive arguments from the UK are from the UK government, and also from at times the other two services when debate focus on future budget constraints and not military capabilities. These are uneducated viewpoints and as such cannot be taken as informed. This is common also in the US as well in the current climate trying to cut the national deficit.

I would commend you though on your enthusiasm in your posts, but factual, not opinionated references (especially on radar matters) would better serve your posts and more balance is required to make a point.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

18 May 2011

...and just proving one of my points:
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=101059
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

18 May 2011

Roderick,

The difficulty in targetting a sea hugging ASCM is one of the reasons for the T45's design and height of radar.


"So, another Type-45 Destroyer- that: is not Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) equipped***; can not fire torpedoes from-ship; has no Close In Weapons Systems; has no Land-attack missile capability; has no Anti-surface (anti-ship) missile capability; has a crappy, inadequate sonar; has no from-ship anti-submarine weapons; and has negligible decoy systems.... has fired one of its scant few Sea Viper anti airborne threat missiles... big deal!!!"

So lets see... Ship born torpedoes... easily fitted in a couple of hours before deployment. CIWS again the software is in place and again fitted in a few hours. Harpoon again fitted in a few hours. Capability for 2 Lynx helicopters or 1 merlin to provide over the horizon ASW and ASuW. The Sonar is a slight worry but then again that is something that could see upgrading as the T22 and T42's are removed from service.

Or do you think that a T45 is going to be attacked by a multi vector ASCM and sub surface assault in and around the waters of the UK?
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

18 May 2011

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

I see you are back on your one man crusade against the Type 45, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned we should go out and buy a few Arleigh Burkes (you normally do when you start spouting off about the Type 45) because thet can carry about a million missiles each (in Roderick land) and have all the bits and pieces you mention below.

Just to back the other guys up, do you remember the introduction of the Spruance class destroyers into US Navy service, everyone at the time mentioned how little armament and sensors the class carried for its size. Look how the ship evolved and how quickly it did, Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom is correct, all the items you have mentioned (CIWS, Harpoon etc) can be fitted when required, not ideal I know, in the ideal world the ships would carry them all the time, however they can be fitted that is the important thing.
Rob - Telford

19 May 2011

Living in a state of denial and defending the indefensible...

In effect, those above that are critical of myself are taking the position that the Type-45 Destroyer and 'big deck' aircraft carrier programmes are hunky dory- IE: perfectly OK in terms of the planning and implementation of the respective ship building programme and perfectly OK in terms of the quality of and capabilities of the end products...

If asked to provide an opinion, would the head of naval design at General Dynamics or Newport News agree?

If asked to provide an opinion, would the head of the US Navy's ship building programmes agree?

If those that could demand immediate rectification of Type-45s' egregious, highly dangerous lack of weapons, communications, sensors and defensive systems don't do this and instead criticize persons who point out these deficiencies- what sort of attitude does this cultivate in MoD and RN decision makers and defence-related bureaucrats??
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

19 May 2011

Roderick V. Louis

We are not saying the program is perfectly okay. We are merely saying that your view that we should buy 12 Arleigh Burkes and 2-3 American Super Carriers plus their air groups is an unrealistic one.

Britain doesn't have the manpower, the training (not worse training just different I would like to add) or the money to operate such large and expensive platforms.

As demonstrated by the fantastic artcile in Seaforth World Naval Review 2010, or by mr Beedalls website (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/t45main.htm) you will find that many of your statements are incorrect.

1) The Radar on the T45 rivals or exceeds the radar capability of SPY systems due to having a dual radar setup allowing long range search and target direction to be done by seperate systems. Allowing for the radar bands to be assigned proper levels for each task.

2) Sea Skimming ASCM is WHY the T45 was designed the way it has been. Sampson as discussed in the website above and the book I mentioned allows a much earlier detection of Sea Skimming missiles. Aster with a PIFF PAFF system and an active radar seeker COUPLED with ability to take course corrections from the T45 is also exceptionally manouverable and thus able to engage the said missiles.

It has hit the targets in it's tests. With Dauntless and now Daring scoring direct hits.... A success. No doubt the RN will work up to bigger trials but you don't run before you can walk do you?

3) The communications of the T45 are very good. GPS, Radio, Satelite connections, inbuilt ability to take CEC when the Queen Elizabeth come into service... I don't see what your problem is there?

4) You mentioned in a post that it's "soft kill" suite is very poor. I have it from good Authority (recent ex service personnel) that the soft kill systems are very capable. For starters Sampson is very difficult to jam due to the speed it can change frequencies and the fact that it is made up of multiple small radar emittors.

5) Weapons fit isn't ideal. But then we haven't seen a operational deployment weapons fit on a T45 yet?

Case in point being the Hunt class MCMV's. Around home they are as standard. Deployed in the gulfs they have 3 mini guns for self defence as well as the 2 standard GPMG's and the 30mm cannon. The guns all recieve night sights and infra red sights. Furthermore the gun stations are given a thick kevlar housing to protect the gunner from small arms fire. In short they are kitted up to help defend against expected foes.

So when a T45 is deployed to an area considered to be of some danger, or potential danger. It wouldn't surprise me to see them suddenly sporting 2x Phalanx CIWS, Multiple Miniguns/GMPG's to repel small craft threats, 2x 30mm Orlikeons, 4.5 gun, 1 Merlin or 2 Lynx (current or Wildcat), 8 Harpoon and the standard 48 missile Sea Viper fit. Given the retirement of the T22 we will also see ship born torpedoes I expect. Some of the hull sonars from the T22 or T42 will probably replace the current navigational and mine detection sonar fitted to the T45.

Please note finally that many people agree in part or in whole with these comments. As they are taken from Richard Beedall an ex royal Naval reserve and currently working as a writer and consultant. Founder of the Navy matters site and also a main contributor to the Seaforth World Naval review series.

Conrad Walters who is a banker by profession but is the editor of the Seaforth World naval review WHICH I might has Norman Friedman among it's writers, a well known and respected naval analyist from the USA.

I'm not sure how else we can get across to you that while the T45 has not been handled correctly it is not the death machine you make it out to be. It is capable enough for it's current duties. It has the space to grow like the Leander, the Spruance and many other GREAT naval ships. Furthermore the truly important things like Sensors, Propulsion and Software are already installed or have been supported so that it's a simple matter of plugging them in.

Weapons are actually a very small part of a warship. You seem hung up on the fact it doesn't have Harpoon, CIWS, or Ships Torpedoes which if you have to use your ship has done something wrong anyway when it's primary mission is an AAW destroyer AND has Helcipter capbility for 2.

All these weapons can be fit within hours before deployment. Even the addition of 16-24 A70/MK 41 VL cells to allow for SCALP, TLAM or more Aster would probably only take 36 hours solid work from the dock hands.

Finally on a seperate note;

Why should the forces give information on it's new missile test?
I read a book the other day by Rear Admiral Hill (I think) called the Royal Navy today and tomorrow. Things like weapons ranges, sonar ranges, radar frequencies, payload... All of them classified.

Transparancy is good but can you tell me why a British public member should be able to access information on the T45 easily that could be used against the ship?

Then tell me why a Canadian should be allowed access to that information?

Not being racist just point out that the Navy exists to do a job, not to satisfy my, yours or anyone elses dreams of what it should or shouldn't be.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

19 May 2011

Anthony - Bristol:

Agreed that "too much" transparency is not compatible with any country's defence acquisition programmes and services...

But too little transparency- especially in high-profile defence acquisition programmes- can and regularly does act to neuter and dangerously degrade the capabilities of the products that are eventually acquired...

The United States and its 'Congressional Research Service', 'Government Accountability Office' and various government and non-government budget oversight bodies safely provide that country's politicians & their staffers, interest groups and concerned citizens with- compared to the United Kingdom- vast, timely and very powerful factual information regarding the US's defence programmes...

As a consequence, US defence programmes are subjected to regular, (comparatively) in-depth scrutiny by politicians, news media and others leading to what are undeniably some of the world's best weapons systems at costs that otherwise would have been much higher...

That the UK does not have a similar culture of (responsibly calibrated) openness, honesty and transparency in its defence programmes and political apparatus contributes greatly to the UK's serial inability to competently administer defence programmes and regularly results in the delivery (and operations) of dangerously compromised weapons systems...
--------------------
Large displacement Destroyers (IE: over 6000 tonnes) became the international standard during the mid-1990s...

This due to recognized needs for countries with blue water navies (or occasional blue water duties) to field 'multi-mission'/multi-role surface combatants that had large power output capabilities (needed to run what was then 'next generation') radars, communications, weapons systems, etc) and with weapons systems that could take on broadly varied types of duties and threats...

During the last 10-years countries other than the UK that are building/have built Destroyers/large Frigates) don't put them into service with 80% of their weapons, communications and related systems missing.... (Holland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Australia, the US and France to name a few)

For the UK to do this invites ridicule and greatly damages the UK's industrial competence profile internationally.... which degrades potential business for UK firms overseas...
---------------------
Countries other than the UK with aircraft carriers (US, Italy, Spain, France, Japan (Hyuga class), Brazil) don't remove their missile-based anti-airborne threat weapons systems to save money (as the UK dis with its Invincible class carriers in the late 1990s)...
-----------------
Er, what caused HMS Astute to run aground? Similar to Type-45s many absent weapons systems, her electronic charts weren't installed yet.... to save money....
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

19 May 2011

Er, what caused HMS Astute to run aground? Similar to Type-45s many absent weapons systems, her electronic charts weren't installed yet.... to save money....
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Course I can argue that she shouldn't have crashed even with normal charts. If she was in that shallow and difficult water she should have accepted help from tugs and/or a pilot.

As for other European nations doing well with projects... What a load of Tosh, Typhoon is a European project... not a good one.

The Horizon frigates initial meant to be English, French and Italian are not being built in the numbers planned by either the Italians or French.

Now here is the big point I'm going to try and get across.

Do you want TWO hulls with weapons fully built in.

OR Do you want SIX hulls with software, sensors and soft kill capabilities at operational standard and a minimum weapons fit. Any other capabilites have the option of being fitted rapidly should something happen. By rapidly I mean a full Harpoon, 4.5, 2 Phalanx, 2 30mm, Ships Torpedoes, 2 Lynx, 48 Slyver A50 cells and 16-24 MK41/A70 cells fitted within 3 days.

I'm pretty sure I would go for the later.

Also did you check the website I mentioned? Do you have a well stocked Library near by you can get hold of the books I mentioned? I would be interested to see if they change your opinion on the capability of the radar. Seaforth World Naval review 2010 has an interesting article on the T45, Seaforth World Naval review 2011 has an interesting article concerning radars and discussesthe whole Aegis vs Sampson argument.

Makes for some good reading by some very informed people.


Carriers being able to do anything other than self defence seems like adding cost for no extra purpose to me. 4 Phalanx. 4 30mm and 16-32 self defence missiles is definitely adequate enough. The queen elizabeth is planned with Goalkeeper and 30mm guns. CAAM will be in service by then and so I wouldn't be surprised to see a 32-64 cell CAAM(M) VLS fit.

FInally, the one thing I really agree with you is the following.

The UK public doesn't take interest enough in it's Navy. The Media doesn't like or do the Navy justice. Unfortunately the army gets good attention from the recent conflicts. The RAF has a BEASTLY Public relations office and campaign.

The RN falls short by being quiet, modest and having a "can-do with what we've got" attitude. Being the "Silent Service". While that works well when deployed and as a professional attitude.... it does seem to mean the politicians and inter service rivalry gets the better of them.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

22 May 2011

"The UK public doesn't take interest enough in it's Navy. The Media doesn't like or do the Navy justice. Unfortunately the army gets good attention from the recent conflicts. The RAF has a BEASTLY Public relations office and campaign.

The RN falls short by being quiet, modest and having a "can-do with what we've got" attitude. Being the "Silent Service". While that works well when deployed and as a professional attitude.... it does seem to mean the politicians and inter service rivalry gets the better of them."

The Army and the Airforce get the publicity because they are doing the operations! Fact, the Navy is getting on with its normal tasks, which are its downfall, it isn't newsworthy, Fact.

This issue with the Army is it has been heavily involved in Major conflicts where it hasn't been correctly equipped and there has been a massive campaign to ensure that it has received the best possible equipment to do the job the politicians sent them into to do.

If I remember correctly, after the superb job the Navy did during the Falklands and because of the well deserved recognition it got for fighting a full on shooting war with sub-standard equipment, it managed on the back of that war to get hold of decent equipment.

As you know I fully agree with you on the subject of inadequate funding for the Royal Navy, but to blame it on the Army and airforce is slightly narrow minded. If the politicians send our Army and Airforce to fight in wars, they should make sure they are correctly equipped but not at the expense of the Navy. It is the politicians that are starving our armed forces of the correct funding not Army and Airforce PR.
Rob - Telford

23 May 2011

"Anthony- Bristol":

"If you want to (continue) play(ing) with the big boys you got to have 'big boys' toys!!''...

Continuing with the dangerously neutered, over-economized Type-45 Destroyer and big deck aircraft carrier programmes- without bold, intellectually honest corrective actions- puts at risk the UK's ability to justify its retention of long-standing top-table positions on the world's most powerful and influential economic, political, legal and military bodies and will put into question whether the UK is appropriate for the leading global roles it plays today and has done for hundreds of years....

Right now, due to their egregious under-arming and lack of equipping with basic, industry-standard weapons, communications, defences and similar systems... ALL of the Type- Destroyers are liabilities to the UK's armed services...

By masquerading neutered, dangerously stripped-down highly vulnerable to sub-surface threats warships to the rest of the "not stupid" world as 'world beaters'- the UK govt's and defence industry representatives look dishonest and implicitly- but very strongly- discourage consideration of UK naval equipment and platforms for purchase...

What do Type-45s need?

Fit all Type-45s with proper, up-to-date technology* CIWSs**; land-attack missile systems; missile-based anti-ship weapons; torpedo launch capabilities; up-to-date technology, capable sonars and combat management systems; (extended range guided munitions) ERGM-capable deck guns; AND:

... sufficient anti-airborne threat missile/weapons launch tubes, IE: at least the 72 missile/weapons launch tubes that Type-45s were designed to accommodate... or stretch ALL of the currently built/undergoing construction/fitting out Type-45s to enable the fitting of 96 missile/weapons launch tubes- equal to what typically fitted out US Navy Burke class Destroyers have...

** Close In Weapons Systems (CIWSs):
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/MillenniumGun/index.html
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/phalanx/

Typically, CIWSs are for use by surface combatants against fast-attack suicide boats/similar threats and when, for example- a Destroyer's main anti-airborne threat weapons system misses its target or runs out of missiles...

Considering that Type-45 Destroyers each can be armed with only 48 anti airborne threat missiles- this could be a regular occurrence for any Type-45s deployed to hostile/conflict zones...

Similar to other nations' large displacement Destroyers/Frigates, after running out of anti-airborne threat missiles Type-45s can not be re-armed at sea as the delicate job of re-arming requires Type-45s to be in comparatively calm, port or port-like waters...

Which could be hard to find for any Type-45s deployed to hostile/conflict zones- such as the the south Atlantic- and that require re-arming there with no friendly ports nearby...


* not recycled from 2-3 decade old decommissioned RN vessels....
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

23 May 2011

Rob - Telford

The normal jobs that the Navy does aren't news worthy? I disagree with that entirely, Misrata and the recent mining attempt only highlight how imporant the normal "boring" jobs the Navy does are. Obviously another nation could have done MCMV and other nations took part however that doesn't exclude the point of Misrata demonstrating the importance of such events.

I'd also point out that Merchantmen probably view counter piracy and counter terrorism as pretty important things to be done.

That said you misunderstand my comments. I am not saying the RAF and the Army are solely to blame or even primarily to blame.

My point is that the Army and the RAF have much better PR campaigns running. That means that people are more interested in them and I suspect they would be better at PR even if the country was completely at peace.

It was my point therefore that the RN really needs to bring awareness to the large amount of jobs it does. Jobs that are important.

Regardless, you can point out that politicians don't give us the right funding. This is true. However what is also true is that last 60-70 years the RAF has attempted to take as much funding as possible, often at the expense of the RN. There will never be enough money to fund a military to it's perfect levels. The RAF has demonstrated an ability to really screw over the RN even to the point of moving the location of Australlia on maps...

You'll be hard pressed to convince me the RAF isn't a threat to the RN. History and current events have proven me right. Hell out of the 3 services the RAF has the biggest slice of the pie and almost double the other two in terms of spending.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

23 May 2011

"Fit all Type-45s with proper, up-to-date technology* CIWSs**; land-attack missile systems; missile-based anti-ship weapons; torpedo launch capabilities; up-to-date technology, capable sonars and combat management systems; (extended range guided munitions) ERGM-capable deck guns"

Roderick, so the Sampson Radar and it's associated long range search radar is not Up to date? The combat management systems on the T45 are not up to date?

What a load of crap. Sorry but the Sampson and the T45's combat management system is very up to date. In fact it's as new as any modern warship.

As for your other requirements.

Phalanx can engage surface craft, Phalanx is capable and proven as a CIWS... T45 can have Phalanx.

Torpedo capability... oh what the T45 has the capability to take Torpedoes... Hmm guess that's also true.

Harpoon... It can take Harpoon.

All these as we keep trying to point out CAN and WILL be fitted before a proper deployment.

As for the 72 VLS. Well the T45 can take additional cells if need be. Currently there is no need and the British military have more important worries.

Also we seem to be going in circles. I can present reasons for why the T45 is like it is. I can present arguments and point out well known facts with how quickly the T45 can be equiped with Torpedoes, CIWS, Harpoon and an additional Helicopter.

You fail to recognise we have a BUDGET. That budget means we got 6 under armed hulls because that's still 6 constructed ships that are easily upgunned in the matter of a week at most should the situation really require it.

France and Italy, Australia, Canada etc are all expected 2-3 hulls, maybe 4 at the most in the form of a comparable warship.

See it's much easier to add weapons than to build an entire ship in a week... Especially when the ship is DESIGNED that way.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

23 May 2011

Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

I'm not knocking the navy, or the tasks it completes on a regular basis, The type of jobs I meant (pre - Libyan intervention), Falkland Islands Guardship, Standing Naval Force Atlantic, the counter narcotics patrols in West Indies/ South America. All damn worthwhile jobs, but do not sell papers. There was a brief spell when the Somali Pirates were having their moment in the news but this tailed off after the RFA Wave Knight incident. The navy should be funded correctly without a doubt, we need three strong well equipped services, though I tend to agree with you that there is an RAF (discreet) campaign to remove the fixed wing element of the FAA.
Rob - Telford

24 May 2011

"Anthony- Bristol":

If the UK is going to build 'big boys' toys'- such as the (large displacement) Type-45 Destroyers and 'big deck' aircraft carriers- but does this with the end products perceived as standing jokes around the world due to their hugely dangerous under arming and sweeping lack of industry standard weapons, sensors, communications, defensive and DAMAGE CONTROL (IE: carriers) systems.... how does this impact the UK's international standing, international confidence in its military capabilities and international perceptions of its defence industries' competence??

If the UK is going to build defence mega-projects- that function as 'national power projection statements'- such as 'big deck' aircraft carriers (and large displacement surface combatants, such as the Type-45 Destroyers)- should the UK make sure that the end products say to the rest of the world that the country is capable of producing high quality, technologically leading edge, exceedingly capable multi-mission warships 'that the rest of the world's militaries would want for themselves (if for sale)'??....

... or should the UK make sure that the end products of its defence mega-projects inspire ridicule, damage confidence in the UK and destroy interest in the UK and its defence companies??
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

24 May 2011

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Your asking the same thing over and over again for goodness sake.

Can you provide a link to suggest that the damage control of the T45 or the damage control of the QE class will be terrible? Everything I Have read suggests multiple redundancy through systems due to any screen being able to accept any station software (You can do that with computers you see). Effective double hulling by having the non combat essential modules on the outside section of the ships inner hull. Multiple electrical pathway points to ensure that power can be re-routed from multiple points around the ship. Sounds like damage control is being covered pretty extensively no?

What's wrong with the T45's sensors? It has all the newest abilities with IR sensors, A dual radar set up so that long range search and target aquisition can be done well despite requiring different radar frequencies etc.

Communications? It is definitely way above board than anything the RN or most other Navies have with communications. It already has a measure of CEC (which is just a catch phrase. The subject is more difficult than just saying I have CEC and that's a media spin off without a doubt), and full CEC will be integrated upon completion of the carriers no doubt.

Finally you keep refusing to accept my point about the lack of weapons; please listen carefully.

The French built 2 Horizon class destroyers, The Italians built 2 Horizon class destroyers, The Australians will have 3 new AAW destroyers. These are direct competitors to the T45. Now they might already have weapons but together thats only 7 HULLS from 3 quite rich nations.

The UK has built SIX destroyers. It is not planning to, not thinking about it, it HAS SIX destroyers. These SIX destroyers have the required sensors and software to accept any new weapon that needs to be fit in the immediate future. The space, facilities and software needed for Harpoon, Ships Torpedoes, CIWS and another helicopter are already allocated. So all it requires is to have them fitted. Something skilled dockhands (which we possess) can do in a mater of hours for each item.

To demonstrate, lets say there is a sudden crisis that we have to dispatch a group to help out with. A T45 is going to be sent. The T45 is alongside already, while it's crew is called up, while the other sections of the task force are made ready with ammunition etc the T45 is quickly fitted with Phalanx, Torpedoes, 8 Harpoon and another Lynx.

Suddenly it goes to war with, 2 Phalanx, 8 Harpoon, 48 Aster missiles, 2 Lynx Helicopters, 4.5 inch gun, 2 30mm guns, 4-6 Stingray tubes...

Hmmm looks like thats every bit as capable as the spannish lightweight aegis destroyers, or the Horizon class from Spain or France, or the planned Canadian destroyers (that don't exist yet I might add) or the planned Australian ships (again they don't exist), or the Provenice class from the Netherlands....

As for needing 96 missiles. Again I'd rather have 2-3 ships with 48 missiles than 2 Horizon class with more (which incidently the don't have) or 4 provience class.

Aster is every bit as capable as SM and in some respects far more capable. It's agility is exceptional due to the piff-paff technology that it incorporates. It can be guided to the target but also has an active seeker in the event that guidance is lost. Allowing for redundancy and also the ability to respond to a swarm attack more capably without overloading the radar system (point and shoot).

As for the carriers, they aren't built yet. How do you know what's actually inside them or what the final spec is? Been to the future?

Seriously, we all have to make do with what we have got. The fact remains that the RN could wipe the floor from most other Navies out there still due to it still being the largest navy in europe in terms of tonnage. And more powerful than many of these navies you keep mentioning throughout the world.

You ofen link media sites as a source of information, may I humbly suggest that you start reading some books, maybe Janes? Seaforth World Naval review? you know books constructed by unbiased experts seeking to build a constructive analysis of a class... As oppossed to information from the media pipe line?
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

25 May 2011

The 'large displacement' modern warship trend has two main principles. One, larger internal space and upper deck areas allows for future growth. This includes adding additional electronics and weaponry – In some cases the doubling of the number of individual weapons carried. Second; the larger volume aids maintainability of the vessel. This is two fold; maintenance wise, it allows maintenance to be carried out without having to 'unbuild the vessel. Simply cut a hole in the side and through the relevant decks and even gas turbine replacements can be carried out simply. Two, survivability during battle damage; a larger number of internal compartments increases the survivability of the vessel after it has been hit, making damage control much easier and more likely to succeed.

There is no evidence to suggest that damage control on the T45 is any less than say a T23 (which was built with 1982 experience in mind).

Building a large displacement warship, doesn't imply you are on the world stage as a credible defence force, merely one following current trends to get the most out the limited number of warships any one nation can build and operate.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

07 July 2011

Dear Roderick V. Louis
Of Iraq a certain old warship engaged a missile in real warfare scenario targetted at an even older warship. Needless to say the missile was destroyed utilising procedures learnt in a skirmish of a remote island. That was then, many software and hardware updates later, I think we know we can engage a missile.
I think all the armchair theorist need to get to sea and understand, it will be a jammed microswitch or incorrect procedure that is more damaging.
degradable - UK