Italian Destroyer Andrea Doria has joined HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group.

The vessel, sharing some design heritage with the type 45 destroyer as you can see, will sail with the fleet for 10 days.

The vessel will effectively replace HMS Kent as the Type 23 Frigate heads off to work with Standing NATO Maritime Group Two to promote maritime security in the Mediterranean.

The Andrea Doria

The Andrea Doria is an Italian example of the Horizon class, a class with a similar origin to the Type 45 Destroyer as you can tel.

According to Naval Technology here:

“The programme started as the Common New Generation Frigate (CNGF), a multi-national collaboration to produce a new generation of air-defence frigates. In Italy the class is known as the Orizzonte class, which translates to “horizon” in French and English. The UK then joined France and Italy in the Horizon-class frigate programme; however, differing national requirements, workshare arguments and delays led to the UK withdrawing on 26 April 1999 and starting its own national project, the Type 45 destroyer.”

The class is in service with the French Navy and the Italian Navy.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

45 COMMENTS

    • France already has a CSG on sea + amphibious forces in South Atlantic and Pacific so I guess no vessel avaible for the Queen..

    • Next up is an exercise with the French CdG Carrier Strike Group I believe, Portugal, Italy and Spain have all been involved in the previous two exercises off Sctoland and in the Atlantic. The idea is to have only Evertsen and The Sullivans from allied navies permanently attached, but others will join for specific legs or exercises. Expect to see many nations send ships to work with the CSG for a week or two along the way, while CSG21 ships are detached for courtesy visits, joint training or stints with other task forces. As for all the ruckus over Gibraltar, its too early in the cruise for a run ashore, but probably a stop over on the way back.

      • Stop over with a Carrier Battle Group and a SSN, if that not a message! I don’t know why but I keep thinking that the Carrier Battle Group should be based for operations in Gib. It could cover the Med, Mid Atlantic, get to the Falklands quicker. It could be seen as a more agressive stance. To get to the Falklands or the Eastern Med would be reduced by 3 days at 15 knots cruising. Three days does not sound like much but it can be the diffrence of winning or losing.

    • Ok as a former 76 mm Super Rapid Oto Melara Level 3 Base Maintainer and System Instructor I’ll bite…

      A gun is only as good as the ammo, command system and tracking radars/electro optics directing it. When detected by the Surveillance radar, passed over to the command system and then the target is tracked by the radar director /electro-optics, a 76mm will be fine having a go at a sea skimmer but its going to have a very limited capability against a top diver.
      Oto will only elevate up to 85 degs then its in the stops and wont fire.
      Thats a nice big cone right above midships for a top diving IR homer to fly down your funnel even if you are using guided ammo rounds.

      • Good morning Gunbuster,
        Great comment as always! In your opinion, what would your preferred layered defence look like?
        The scope: one ship, not a group.
        Systems: Let’s say, tracking, systems and power requirements are whatever you need.
        Rules: existing weapon systems only.
        Budget: unlimited, but let’s keep it somewhat realistic.
        I guess… what would your Type 83 layered defence look like!?
        Cheers, M@

        • Using the RNs current systems…
          The upgraded son of Sampson
          LPI AESA Nav radar
          A bigger VL system
          Viper 30
          4 x Camm to replace 1 x Viper 15
          5 inch gun
          Phalanx Block 2 or by then 3 with THIM
          2 x 30mm Bushmaster/40mm CTA mount ( The army will now have surplus CTA guns as the Warrior upgrade isn’t happening,)
          Possible use of 50 cal or minigun RWS to replace Gunners. However there is little to go wrong with a Gunner… they are for the most part reliable ( except for the scoat I had in my Division who went on the trot in the States!) and simple in operation!
          ESM in various guises
          ECM in various guises
          Sea Gnat launching Chaff Distraction, Seduction, IR Rounds, Off board Jammers
          DLF

          Bow sonar such as the current 2150
          Sting Ray
          Wildcat with Sting Ray for ASW MATCH. ASuW with Martlett and Venom
          Airborne Drones for Surface Surveillance and use in OHT scenarios and the possibility of dropping Sonar Buoys.
          Torpedo Defence system
          Boat Drones with the possibility of a Thin array fitted for ASW.

          A new ASuW missile with data link and land attack capability that is VL capable.

          Lasers? I remain unconvinced that they will be of any use beyond a few Km’s for burning boats and drones. You have enough Kinetic systems already to do that and unlike lasers they are not weather dependent.

          • Can/ should they have an ability to RAS / reload VLS at sea? I have no idea how complex it is to load a VLS or what would be required but not having to detach an escort from your group to reload would seem likely to be a benefit in hulls required…

          • RAS VL is not a great idea.
            The kit was there for Sea Wolf and it was so dangerous to do in a sea way it was abandoned. I athink for Viper they never even bothered to spec it for the same reasons.
            MK41 has a crane in one of the launch tubes but again its so iffy the USN binned it.

            Best bet find somewhere sheltered and raft up to a Supply Boat and crane them in. Then again, a supply boat is not going to carry a full outfit of missiles for one ship let alone say a task groups worth.

          • Port and Stbd. Large firing arcs and its easier to open them up through maneuvering.

            B and Z if positioned well they can cover each others arcs to some extent.

            It depends on the ships profile , masts, funnels, flight deck, aerials. All of these constrain firing arcs not just left and right but also in elevation.

        • As a CPO for 10 years and then as a Charge Chief/ Warrant Officer for 15 I learnt early on in my career… Don’t give people options… Use your experience and knowledge and tell them the solution… People/ Grown Ups don’t like to disagree with a viable solution… They don’t like being given options to decide which is the best when they are not SME. .

      • If the gun is fired at maximum elevation and uses the Dart guided ammunition. Would this be able to be directed at a top diving attack at or near 90 degrees?

        • You would need a Radar to track the target at 90degs first before you even fired the gun. That’s the issue… You need radars, command systems, trackers to do their bit first before you even get anything to go bang.
          After that it’s down to trig. If the Dart sensor has a 60 deg either side of its center line field of view it probably won’t ever see a top diver coming at you… It will always be travelling in a direction away from the target. Plus the fore mast and bridge are probably in the way anyway for safe firing arcs.

          • So basically as a quick fix, a top hat Sampson array would do the trick to fill in the dead zone above the ship.

            Or perhaps for less top weight, give the two Sampson arrays a swash plate similar to the Captor-E’s. Instead arranged to swivel around the horizontal plane. This could then give the array the extra +30 degrees to look straight up and actually past the vertical.

            I’ve only read the blurb on Dart so have no knowledge of its real world effectiveness. According to the blurb the semi-active sensor has been able to steer the round a ways off bore sight. However, Leonardo haven’t said by how much, as every maneuver it does will remove some of its velocity. Which I guess would be valuable information to some Countries/Companies?

          • Hopefully son of Sampson will get a third plate to cover the top arc. That said beam steering and the fact that the current plates are angled off vertical anyway must give some near vertical coverage.

            As for Dart the look angle and sensor range is going to limit how far off boresight it will go.

          • An AESA array in general has a +/- 45 degree field of view in the vertical plane. Having a ship’s AESA set up so the array is vertical is a waste, as most of the look down angle will be straight at the sea near to the ship. I think Sampson is angled 20 degrees back from the vertical. This still gives it a good look down view, but increases the look up angle to +65 degrees, hence the dead zone immediately above the radar.
            An AESA array can look past the usual constraints of +/- 45 in the vertical plane and +/- 60 degrees in the horizontal plane. However, effective transmitted beam power is exponentially reduced the further past the norm. Plus you get into weird ghosting effects which require lots of signal processing to remove.

            A top hat array will fill in the dead zone. But can the ship take the additional top weight. The other issue is that the array would be spinning, which adds further software complications.

            Hence my thoughts on using a swash plate to oscillate and tilt the array further back, less weight and less complication. Might send it in as a GEMS to the T45 desk?

          • And this is why I leave the Pinkie stuff to Daveb! Stuff that goes woosh and bang doesn’t give me a headache… Radar theory, Radio priniciples and EW… Its all magic as far as I am concerned … I discovered early on that I didn’t néed to understand it that deeply… Just take it as writ that it worked… Hydraulics, control engineering, weapon systems are so much easier!!!

      • Aye man Great to see from you the usual high pressure fresh water blast of cold hard fact to spray away the stinky poop on here. 👍🏻👏🏻

        🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

  4. I’m reading this morning of HMS Britannia incoming.
    That will have the usual suspects spitting out their cornflakes!

  5. Does anyone know how much of a performance difference there is between the Horizon class and Typer 45s? I know both use the same Aster missiles and Sylver launcher. Does the T45 have an advantage with Sampson?

    • Yes Sampson does have an Advantage over EMPAR used on the Horizons,im pretty sure it has more Effective Range.

      • Yes the current EMPAR is a PESA based radar, unlike Sampson’s AESA. However, the Italian Horizons in particular will be getting a new AESA based on the Leonardo Kronos radar. France were supposed to be part of the project, but they have stalled saying that there is a lack of funds and are probably going their own way.

        Sampson also operates in the S band (2 to 4GHz), whilst Empar operates in the G band (4 to 6GHz). Technically Empar should have better target resolution, as it uses a higher frequency/lower wavelength to illuminate a target. However, I do know that the Sampson’s signal processing is significantly better than Empar’s, so its target resolution is just as good if not better. Sampson with a similar radiated power output will have a greater range than Empar due to it operating at a lower frequency. Then there are the technical advantages an AESA radar has over a PESA based one, such a frequency agility, low probability of detection, faster sweeping beam, multiple simultaneous beams, more difficult to jam etc.

    • Has about 25% more effective range (400km vs 300km) and is active with beam forming rather than passive though otherwise quite closely related with Sampson working from 4ghz down while its sister operates from 4ghz up. Sampson was designed to be capable of theatre ballistic missile defence as well though the weapons equipped to the type 45 have very little capability in that role.

    • Yes, not in the same league. It is however better in some respects than the Aleigh Burke’s AN/SPG-62 continuous wave tracking radar used for controlling its SM2s. The Empar is multifunctional, whilst the AN/SPG-62 are single purpose. The Empar replicates the CW that AN/SPG-62 provides to direct semi-active missiles, but also does horizon search, volume search etc.
      However, being PESA it operates around a single base frequency generated by a single oscillator. This oscillator can vary its frequency within a certain range. However, it won’t have the same bandwidth or agility that the Sampson AESA’s transmitter-receiver modules can individually generate. Furthermore, yes you can make PESA generate multiple simultaneous beams as used by Patriot, but at a cost in transmitter power (has to be shared) and very complex (costly) time delay circuits. Whereas, with AESA it’s really easy (relatively) to generate multiple transmitted beams. But also the beams power can be shaped to the requirement much easier.
      Sampson has a greater detection range than Empar. That is partly down to the operating band being lower, I.e. S as opposed to G. Whereby atmospheric attenuation doesn’t affect the signal as much. But the other reason is the signal processing. Compared to Empar, Sampson has nearly double the signal processing and that’s a rough estimate. People say Sampson hasn’t been upgraded. That’s not true. The backend has been with a new signal processing blade farm and constantly evolving software. Being a digital radar, this is where the money goes and the greatest performance increases are seen. In theory the Empar should have better target resolution, as it uses a higher frequency. But because of the better beam generation/shaping and signal processing Sampson is actually better.
      Whenever a T45 and Horizon take part in a live fire exercise together. The T45 always finds and identifies the target first before the Horizons, especially against very low flying targets. This is partly the reason why Italy in particular will be replacing their Horizon’s Empar radar’s with an AESA one, probably based on Kronos according to the latest info.

  7. Anyone else getting the weird optical illusion with the forward funnel? Raked forward on the 2nd photo but raked rear on the 3rd. But in reality i suspect raked outward.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here