How much does it cost to operate a Type 45 Destroyer?

I’m not doubting it. I’m interested in what limits it to 4 8 16 what ever the number.

The answer is mutual interference and the electromagnetic spectrum.

Each missile will have a discrete data link frequency for updates from the ships radar and computer so that it flies to the calculated future intercept point before it goes active.

If the frequencies are all the same then all of the missiles would receive the same update info and all fly at the same target. (Analogy=An under 10 soccer team on a sunday morning all run around the pitch following the ball instead of going into space to await the ball to go to them ) Same goes for the missile homing heads . All will operate on specific frequencies so that no missiles can cause radar interference to another missile in the same area.

For more fun you then need to add in other units. Another T45 adds another 16 discrete frequencies to the spectrum for its missiles. T23 will need the same for Sea Ceptor data link frequencies as will any other T23 in the area.

Then you get into Task Group units with their missiles and data links and tracking radars …all those need discrete operating frequencies so as not to interfere with any other ships systems or missiles.

@GB I have precisely zero actual knowledge of the actual system.

But I’d be amazed if it really did use 16 discreet frequencies. It is much more likely that they use the same frequency agile channels and that the digital transmissions are uniquely coded for the missile (say, for arguments sake, by serial number or other UID).

I would **guess** that there is an individual missile control server in the rack. And that the main controller hands off the missile to the individual server post launch. And that this is the real limit.

At some point, with any software system, you have to prioritise robustness of operation over number of engagements (parallel operations). If you saturate the server hardware you are far more likely to have anomalous events caused by increased latency.

The real question is whom is going to have enough aircraft to launch more that 16 against a T45 or if you have a pair of T45’s in theatre 32 aircraft?

The loss of 32 attacking aircraft is massive to anyone and that ignores anything that can be done with SeaCeptor which has a pretty decent range too.

I agree, the data links are almost certainly spread spectrum otherwise they would be too easy to jam or intercept

Commercial/civilian frequency hopping systems use various flow control and error correction mechanisms to produce more useable bandwidth at the cost of increased latency. So for Viper, I’m guessing that besides any limitations on processing power, it’s likely that (overall) spectral use still becomes an issue due to the ultra low latency required for guiding supersonic missiles in real time, because this requirement will limit the useable bandwidth.

So I suspect that GB’s (albeit simplified) explanation above is essentially correct.

I was thinking that after I answered. Digital coding is the other way of doing it with the data link. However the frequency issue with homing heads will be valid. 16 active radars in and around the same area would cause lots of issues with regarslds to interference.

I agree the radar frequency hopping will have to be choreographed – no question. But even that will have to be coded.

I also agree that making sure things don’t interfere with anything else, in the fleet as a whole, is a bit of a project.

Did some checking… Its discrete frequencies… 16 in number allocated before launch

Hi GB, does the Aster 30 have a 130 mile range? That’s roughly 200km. I thought it was only around 80 miles. Happy to be really wrong on this.

I should clarify and say engagement range.
You detect a target and launch to intercept at the missiles max range of around say 80 miles. Allowing for flight times of the missile going out and the target coming in you can shoot with a target at say 150 miles.
You don’t shoot directly at the target, you shoot at a future intercept point, a point in space where the target is calculated to be at a point in time. This point is updated to the missile via data link using the ships radar and computers. If all goes well the target arrives, the missile arrives and goes active, the target is hit and destroyed all at the max missile range but you actually shot with the target way beyond the missiles intercept range.

Interesting reads from everybody here. I still think an extra couple of silos of Aster and or Camm would make these ships even more formidable. Pity we didn’t get 8 T45s so we could have 4 (maybe?) at sea at the one time.
Does anyone know if these silos can be replenished at sea?
It always p’s me off when in descriptions of the T45s ability every weapon system is mentioned except ASMs or Torpedo LS regardless if fitted or not. The omissions are glaring. I think we can all imagine what a fully fitted out T45 would be like…something like..bloody marvellous! Lol. 😆

The Merlin helicopter it carries provides a very capable ASW capability with dipping sonar. A fancy ASM would be very nice, but in reality, they are probably not the priority they are made out to be. Anti ship warfare is incredible difficult to pull off, and rules of engagement would probably put serval restrictions on use anyway. And nations just don’t go around firing off heavy ASM’s on a wim. If the RN truly believed having a heavy ASM was absolutely essential, they would have sacrificed another capability to have them. Harpoon is still in service until 2023, them a new interim weapon is being purchased to fill the gap until later in the decade.

VLs replenishment is pretty much a non-starter.
Its been tried by the RN and the USN and they have binned it on practical and safety grounds.
HELO VERTREP is a non-starter as well. The safety case would not allow it. Imagine the incident…helo hovering and an engine fails with an underslung ASTER above a T45 missile silo with 47 missiles in it…The helo either emergency releases the load onto the silo in an attempt to stay aloft or stays with the load and tries not to spoof into the silo in a fiery ball off AVCAT and explosive death and destruction…as i said a non-starter.

You could raft up to a supply ship and crane them in to the ship when in sheltered waters but I doubt there is any supply ship that can carry enough VL missiles to refill a whole ship outfit.
Rafting was done on T22s to replenish damaged exocets which are not supposed to be a RAS’able weapon. I was involved in doing it down south on Brilliant as a baby Tiff but it was in a sheltered inlet and benign weather (for a change). Broadsword nearly wrecked the crane on Fort Austin when the damaged exocet container she also had (from the same storm) was still full of water and was to heavy to lift. We had drained the water from ours and put a bit of ply over the hole in the front of it to keep any more water out .
I will say it’s a bit disconcerting looking through the front of the container door at an Exocet with a big dent in it and bent nose cone . Funnily enough the same thing happened again when I was on Brazen 10 years later… damaged door and a dented missile. That one was changed when we got back to Guz.

Best bet is head for port at max speed and fill up there.

HI Quentin,

From what I have read it is not really possible to reload VLS at sea. The USN fitted a lifting system to some of their MK41 VLS systems and tried re-loading their AB’s at sea. As the weapon was effectively hanging off the end of a crane cable it needed crew on deck to guide it into the VLS which was quite a difficult undertaking even in the slightest of sea states. In the end the USN removed the cranes.

Paradoxiically, the T42’s could reload their Sea Dart system at sea. There was a rigid frame or fork arrangement in the deck. The missile was laid flat on the deck and these ‘forks’ lifted the missile vertically so that is engaged with the twin launcher which then ran through the loading sequence in reverse to replenish the magaxine. It still needed people on the deck and obviously the missile needed to be lifted on to the deck, but as I understand it there were locating arrangements on the deck so I think there was less demand for precision manual handling. The impression I got from what I read was that it system was more widely used by the RN which suggests it could be used in more difficult sea states compared to the precision handling requirements for reloading a VLS.

Cheers CR

I have done a Sea Dart RAS once and once only to get the tick in the box.
The container comes over and is landed on the deck and disconnected from the ras gear. As you say you then lift the canister to the vertical and the launcher pulls the missile out and into the mag.

I have been thinking about how you might do a ras at sea for a VLS system.

It is not an easy proposition and as far as I can see there are two main requirements:

1. RAS limitations should be as close to ‘normal’ RAS conditions as possible;
2. Minimum manual handling, especially when the weapon(s) is still suspended (advantage of the T42 / Dea Dart RAS).

As far as I can see the T42 / Sea Dart RAS system was quite successful, if not often used (emptying Sea Dart mags in peacetime I guess would have been seriously frowned upon!).

So assuming that the T42 / Sea Dart RAS system main advantage was the vertical approach to the hatch was via a rigid mechanical system, rather than manual handling, how to swing a missile in its canister from the horizontal to vertical seems to be the crux of the problem.

The best way I can think of is a self lifting framework in which the cannister(s) are transfered during the RAS. The reason for a self lifting approach is that the lifting fork used on the T42 was predictated on the fact that there were only two access hatches to the magazine, whereas a VLS has multiple hatches – so no room for multiple lifting forks.

So the transfer frame is also part of the transfer handling system that can be ‘easily’ located into the right position and then lifts itself into the vertical, offering the missile to the VLS hatch. The frame would also have to have a lowering mechanism as I assume the VLS does not have such a mechanism already as the system does not self reload.

Should be doable. 🙂

Cheers CR

The only issue is that Dart was relatively short and fat whereas Aster is quite long and thin.

So the initial issue becomes having enough deck to lay the missile flat on under the relevant RAS gear.

I agree that having a frame that pivots from the deck horizontal -> vertical is not insuperable. It does need to do it in a oner as any articulation is an issue in any sea states over millpond.

However, what will get in the way is the protective edge to the missile silo.

Robert above says even though can track 1000 bad guys it can only route 16 missles at once due to data and passing info to missles

Like I say Andy, the ability to engage 16 targets at once is something currently no other class of warship can do. Except maybe the very latest Burke class. But we have had this capability for over 10+ year’s. And what makes the T45 such a formidable Air Defence Destroyer. Especially in the hands of an RN crew.

Very impressive just wish they armed it to make full use, another vls, anti surface missles maybe quad packed cam for short range? Is it compatible with the t45 radar setup?

I don’t know, but most things can be achieved when the money is available. It would be nice to have all that capability, but it comes with a very large price tag, and other assets like T23 and Astute do have those capabilites. Adding that kit to T45 would mean another project going without. So as always, it’s a balancing act of requirements over cost.

Should have used a Mac with latest version of OS!!

We used to use Macs for doing quick look weapon analysis. Down load the data from the radar track extractors, trackers etc run it through a program and see if you hit or missed. I hated using them.

You forgot Olympic Swimming Pools…..