The purpose of this article is to examine the options the Royal Navy has for improving the BMD (Ballistic Missile Defence) capabilities of the Type 45 Destroyer.
This article was submitted by Ethan and is an opinion piece. Please note that the opinion of the author may not necessarily reflect that of the UK Defence Journal.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
With a primary role of AAW (Anti-Air Warfare) and long-range defence of the fleet from aerial threats, the Type 45 is the most suited class of surface warships to receive a BMD-focused upgrade.
Background
While ballistic missiles have existed for over 50 years, the prevalence of anti-ship ballistic missiles has increased dramatically within the past decade with both Russia and China introducing new anti-ship capable ballistic missiles.
To clarify, the focus of this article is not to analyse the potential of procuring ship-based defences against ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles), as is the purpose of US Arleigh-Burke class ships based in Rota, Spain. This task is somewhat insurmountable for even land-based systems and the US ICBM defence presence remains a token force of deterrence at best. Regardless, these ICBMs are impractical in targeting surface ships and don’t pose the same class of threat as anti-ship MRBMs (Medium Range Ballistic Missiles) recently fielded by China and Russia.
China has begun to employ batteries of the Dong-Feng 21D ballistic missile which can threaten surface ships up to 1500km away from a coast. Because of this capability (and a certain amount of geopolitical rivalry), the DF-21D has often been touted as a ‘carrier-killer’ missile to deter American carrier strike groups in the Asia-Pacific region.
The UK’s primary military presence in the Asia-Pacific region will be primarily through intermittent CSG (Carrier Strike Group) deployments, the first of which will be underway in a few months time. In a hypothetical war against China in said region, due to the <1000km unrefueled combat radius of the CSG’s primary strike aircraft, the F35B Lightning II, a UK CSG will be limited to distances within the DF-21D’s 1500km reach.
This is exemplified when it is known that RAF F35Bs will not possess long-range standoff weapons until at least 2024. A CSG will have little to no luxury of simply ‘staying out of harm’s way’, should it intend to conduct deep strike missions against Chinese land targets.
Although it is acknowledged that the ability to lob a projectile long distances is one small step in a very large kill-chain, it is logical for the Royal Navy to invest in a hard-kill BMD capability.
Notable previous events
As has been previously reported by the UK Defence Journal, the UK has expressed interest in procuring existing BMD-capable missiles (Aster Block 1 NT in particular). However, this potential order was suggested in tandem with a French purchase of Brimstone missiles, suggesting this order had greater concerns about supporting local industry (Aster B1 NT has very little industrial links to the UK workforce) than of improving the UK’s BMD capability.
BMD focused exercises have also been conducted with a Type 45 Destroyer in 2013, using its SAMPSON radar to locate and track two ballistic targets and its Command and Control infrastructure to provide real-time estimates of the launch and impact points of the targets.
The 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review had also expressed intent to ‘investigate further the potential for a BMD capability in the Type 45 Destroyer’.
SAMPSON MFR
SAMPSON MFR (Multi-Function Radar) is the Type 45’s primary search-and-track and fire control radar. It consists of two back to back AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar panels which rotate at 30rpm to provide near constant 360 degree coverage of the air. SAMPSON’s primary function is to provide air search and track against incoming threats, whilst simultaneously guiding intercepting Aster 15 and 30 missiles to their targets during their mid courses.
BAE has shown intent to give SAMPSON a BMD-focused upgrade in 2024, however very little is known about the program. It could be speculated that this upgrade will introduce a third planar array, pointing directly upwards and giving better coverage of the ship’s zenith from ballistic threats with a steep trajectory.
During the aforementioned ballistic missile tracking tests of 2013, SAMPSON trialled an experimental software upgrade to improve SAMPSON’s performance against ballistic threats. This software was reported to have worked ‘better than expected’ and so it is feasible that a development of this software could be installed as a bare-minimum upgrade to improve tracking performance.
It is interesting to note that SAMPSON has not received any major upgrades since it first entered service on HMS Daring.
SMART-L/S1850M
S1850M is the second major radar system onboard the Type 45 Destroyer. It is a long-range air search and track radar with reported ranges (against aircraft-sized objects) out to 400km (provided the target is at an altitude high enough to be seen over the horizon at such a distance). S1850M is a development of the Thales SMART-L radar, sharing the same front-end PESA (Passive Electronically Scanned Array) radar panel and using some back-end processing components from the Marconi Martello S723 radar.
While the S1850M and SMART-L systems have already shown limited ballistic missile tracking capability, Thales Netherlands have continued development of the SMART-L system with the SMART-L-EWC (Early Warning Capability), later referred to as SMART-L-MM (Multi-Mission). SMART-L-MM uses an upgraded AESA radar panel over the original PESA, allowing for the use of a new radar emission frequency tailored towards ballistic missile tracking whilst also continuing to operate in AAW frequencies unaffected. (For context, PESA radars are limited to using one narrow frequency band at a time due to the use of one TRM (Transmit-Receive Module) to control all antennae on the array).
Other changes include improved return signal processing to better identify extremely fast moving targets and improved coverage at high beam elevation, allowing for a better track of targets with steep trajectories (a defining characteristic of ballistic missiles). This upgrade has been implemented on the four Royal Netherland Navy’s De Zeven Provincien class frigates, amongst several land-based installations.
These upgrades intend to improve tracking performance against fast moving ballistic targets whilst retaining existing AAW search and track capability. Instrumented range has reportedly also been increased to 2000km (it should be noted that a target at this range would need to be detected at an altitude of ~230km, similar in altitude to the apogee of a 1500km range MRBM like that of the DF-21D).
Real world tests of a ground-based system have demonstrated SMART-L-MM’s ability to easily track ballistic targets at an average range of 1500km and transmit this data to the appropriate weapons platform.
S1850M’s capacity to receive this EWC upgrade has been confirmed by Thales Netherlands and would undoubtedly improve the Type 45’s early detection of incoming ballistic threats, albeit with the downside of further Type 45 dry-docking in addition to their PiP (Power improvement Project) dry-docking periods.
Aster (block 0/1/1 NT)
The Aster missile family is a group of surface to air interceptors designed to combat agile, supersonic, low flying anti-ship missiles which appear over the horizon with little time to react. The Aster missile’s design has been tailored to this requirement by emphasising extreme agility in its final stage and high intercept speeds (up to Mach 4.5).
The Aster family comes in two sizes, Aster 15 and Aster 30. Aster 15 and 30 share an identical final phase hit-to-kill ‘dart’, whereas Aster 15 has a shorter first stage booster to allow the missile to fit in the smaller Sylver A43 vertical launch cell (Aster 30 fits in the longer Sylver A50 and A70 cells).
The Type 45 Destroyer uses a mix of Aster 15 and 30 missiles in its 48 Sylver A50 cells.
Once an Aster missile is launched, it is initially guided inertially using onboard sensors and a pre-installed location of the target. At the same time, the first stage booster is ignited to propel the missile up to a certain speed and altitude. Shortly after launch, a data link is established between the missile and the ship which guides the missile towards its target. The first stage booster is also detached once its fuel has been exhausted.
In the final stage, closer to the target, the Aster ‘dart’ interceptor engages its active radar seeker to locate and destroy the target. It provides real-time input corrections using aerodynamic surfaces and thrust vectoring perpendicular to the direction of travel (a system known as ‘PIF/PAF’) which gives Aster its renowned agility. While Aster is a ‘hit to kill’ interceptor, it is also equipped with a small fragmentation warhead should a kinetic kill be unachievable.
Aster 30 has undergone multiple iterations to improve its effectiveness against ballistic missiles of different classes. Block 0 is the first iteration and is used by almost all naval applications of Aster (including the Royal Navy). It has relatively little ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) capability, however it can theoretically intercept a short range ballistic missile in its final stage, low in the atmosphere.
Block 1 is an iteration funded by France and Italy for use in the land-based SAMP/T BMD system. The improvements of block 1 include software improvements to the guidance of the missile and integration with SAMP/T’s Arabel radar. Block 1 also uses an improved warhead which reportedly explodes into larger fragments to better destroy a ballistic target. These improvements officially give block 1 the ability to intercept SRBMs (Short Range Ballistic Missiles) of the 600km range class.
Block 1 NT (New Technology) is a further iteration for the SAMP/T system, to first be delivered to the French Air Force in 2022. There have also been orders for naval use, including implementation on some of Italy’s PPA frigates. B1 NT uses an improved seeker operating in the higher frequency Ka-band. This gives the missile an improved target acquisition range and a thinner angular resolution. This allows for B1 NT to better handle target selection against ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. This gives Aster B1 NT a confirmed ability to counter MRBMs in the 1500km range class. This puts interception of DF21D anti-ship ballistic missiles within the operating scope of the missile.
However, it should be noted that Aster block 0, 1 and 1 NT are constrained to intercepting ballistic missiles of any class within an altitude of ~20km or lower, due to the nature of the missile using aerodynamic surfaces as the primary means of course correction. Aerodynamic surfaces lose effectiveness with an increase in altitude.
Intercepting ballistic missiles in their final stage is not ideal because it proves the most challenging period of interception; the incoming missile is moving at its fastest speed and any movements can change the missile’s course by large distances and nullify interceptors that are already in the air. Granted, it is an improvement over virtually no capability at all and is a welcome upgrade to the UK’s Aster stockpile.
The latest iteration of Aster is block 2 BMD. Little is publicly known about this block besides an increased focus of BMD against targets greater than the 1500km range MRBM class. It has been speculated to use an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle to target ballistic missiles in earlier stages of flight, albeit to a lesser extent than similar competitor missiles due to the supposed requirement to fit in shorter Sylver A50 Vertical Launch Cells.
With very little input from MBDA on the state of the program, it may have been cancelled in favour of the land-based TWISTER European BMD program. One notes that a land-based system may be more feasible for a mainland European project which is more focused on ICBMs from Russia than creating a BMD umbrella over a naval fleet/carrier strike group operating near the South China Sea.
Standard Missile 3
Endo/Exo-atmospheric interceptors focus on intercepting ballistic missiles in a far more vulnerable stage of flight, the mid course. This occurs high in the atmosphere (from ~80-250km in altitude for an MRBM). At higher altitudes, the effectiveness of aerodynamic control surfaces is greatly reduced and subsequently a ballistic missile’s ability to sharply manoeuvre is hampered. This makes for a far easier target, provided the interceptor is technologically capable of reaching and manoeuvring at such altitudes.
The SM3 (Standard Missile 3) is an American ship-based BMD missile with versions capable of intercepting IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) of a range class far greater than that of the anti-ship DF21D. The SM3 is a four stage missile with 3 propulsion stages in order to propel the interceptor to such high altitudes that it can intercept ballistic missiles in their vulnerable mid course stage.
The final stage of an SM3 works differently from that of Aster through the use of a LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile) and a TDACS (Throttleable Divert and Attitude Control System) to intercept a warhead when aerodynamic surfaces are not a viable means of course correction. The LEAP will use onboard sensors to locate the ballistic missile and align its trajectory with the target, relying on the release of kinetic energy at the point of impact to obliterate the target.
This method of interception, albeit unreliable in early iterations, has proven to be far more successful at intercepting a greater range of ballistic targets than focusing on a re-entry phase interception like that of Aster block 1 NT. A missile that operates in this way should be a procurement focus for the Ministry of Defence, should they (rightly) consider BMD a priority upgrade for the Type 45 Destroyers.
A procurement of SM3 would also benefit from continued testing and funding from both the US and Japanese governments (of which SM3 is in service for both nations onboard Aegis ships). However, there may prove to be increased costs due to the necessary installation of 16 additional Mk41 strike length cells to facilitate the larger missile and the costs of integration with the Type 45’s Combat Management System.
Summary
Should the MoD finally decide ship-based BMD is a capability worth investing a useful amount of money into, there are a variety of options available to develop both the search and track and hard-kill interception of ballistic threats. With a continuing doctrinal shift in naval deployments to the Asia-Pacific region, it would be plausible for this requirement to grow past the statement of intent exhibited in the 2015 SDSR.
While the CSG2021-attending Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS The Sullivans will be capable of providing a BMD umbrella over the group with the use of SM3s (a capability refined by the inclusion of the Type 45’s radar abilities), the MoD should not become complacent in regards to BMD and invest in a sovereign capability to improve total BMD capacity and reduce the ever-increasing reliance on US military presence to achieve (albeit often aligning) British goals.
Italians are replacing the S1850M in their MLU of Horizon destroyers with Leonardo Kronos radar which will also replace the Arabel on land.
https://www.portaledifesa.it/index~phppag,3_id,3954.html
really good, informative article.
I think part of the conversation also needs to include SeaCeptor as these can be quad packed which increases the current capability.
Assume 48 Sea Ceptor in 12 cells leaving 36 cells for the block 2 NT, the really good thing this article points out is that for a relatively limited set of upgrades the UK’s capability is dramatically increased in terms of BMD.
All of these are upgrades rather than new, even the missiles, so really good VFM potentially.
Should be said that these ships should also be given 16 mk41 strike, to ensure they have a more lethality, again this is a relatively cost effective upgrade and all of these items, radars etc can move to the T32 or similar platform when the T45’s retire.
The T45 has so much to offer and in the T26 and T31 we are building platforms that could also offer a lot more (the Danish Huitfeldts are BMD certified after all).
Were in agreement yet again mate. The T45’s have huge potential for upgrading.
Sampson upgrades…
Quad packing Sea Ceptor (ER variant perhaps) to replace Astor 15 and replace the 30’s with the NT and we have an incredibly effective air defence umbrella.
Baring in mind we will only ever have 4 operational T45’s, we need to make the most of them.
Considering Daring is now approaching it’s mid life point, I certainly hope we have learned the lessons of having to rebuild T23’s and have started serious TXX design studies.
The first TXX needs to be ready to take over when Daring hits her 30th birthday.
Sea Ceptor is not as capable as ASTER 15. However I do agree it should be fitted to T45 to increase missile numbers and give an additional SAM system. I totally agree that the extra 16 VLS should be added. I would go for 40 Block 2, 8 ASTER 15 (as a shorter range Golden Bullet), and the 16 MK41s with Sea Ceptor. I would upgrade SAMSON and the S1850.
I would also remove the main gun and put in the T32 main gun. I would also remove Phalanx and replace it with the 40mm guns to be used on the T31.
These upgrades would give good BMD, improved anti-air both from additional missiles (number and type), but also from more capable guns.
SeaCeptor could be made just as manoeuvrable as Aster which is capable of 60g turns. Back during Asraam’s development, the missile was going to be fitted with fuselage reaction jets (just like Aster). However, when the US decided to upgrade Sidewinder and pulled out of the project. The requirement for super-manoeuvrability was shelved and the space was used for more fuel for the main rocket engine. It would be possible to reclaim this area for the reaction jets, but it would slightly reduce the maximum effective range.
The other major difference is mass. SeaCeptor weighs slightly less than 100kg, whereas Aster 15 is a lot heavier. Both missiles have a hit to kill ability along with proximity fusing. But on some larger targets it may require more than one SeaCeptor.
Hi interesting. I did not know that about Sea Ceptor. Of course you could fit the jest and add a booster as in the ER version.
however as all this would cost money it will never get done.
Interestingly the Marina Militare plans to replace its Aster 15’s with CAAM ER, it would be interesting to know the specific reasoning for their decision.
It would be great if we could have both. T45/23 with a batch of ERs would improve the fleet defence a great deal. Aster is more agile but you can quad pack Sea Ceptor.
Dragon fire.
I don’t often disagree with you, but on this I will have to politely dissent; I don’t think we have the resources to upgrade the T45 significantly in the way you describe, even if we were to offload the hardware onto T32. T45 is already very good at what it does, I would just make the light upgrades to radar and missiles to get a modest BMD capability at this point. Beyond that, enhance the whole fleet’s networking capabilities.
Put that Mk41 money into T46 development, give it more of a chance of being the benchmark against which air defence destroyers are measured. Right now, the T45 is excellent, but there are arguments against it and the flight III Burkes that will soon be coming online will have the edge with their latest radar systems and SM-6. T46 should technically, if not literally, blow it out of the water!
The Fight 3s still use upper hull mounting for their flat panel SPY-6. So the T45 with its Sampson placement will still detect a sea skimmer earlier. The main advantage of the four panel SPY-6 is handling simultaneous multiple e targets, as it doesn’t have a rotating dead zone.
Thanks Davey, good points as always.
My thought process was more along the track of them being able to engage fully active with the new radar and missile combination by my understanding, so no need for the Burke to keep a lock on the target and allowing more of a “one shot, one kill” approach like T45 does. I believe Burkes currently have to ripple fire against each target, to give reliable probability of kill, which we don’t have to.
Maybe I’m wrong in that, but with the magazine depth on a Burke, that would make them more capable overall than a T45 I’d expect- even with the latter’s better radar horizon.
Yes that’s right. The Flight 1 and 2 Burke’s use semi-active SM2 missiles which require a separate continuous wave radar to illuminate the target. Due to the way radar bounces off a target when it’s moving around, the reflection strength will vary, so at times the missile may only see a very weak signal. To get round this they send a pair of missiles per target. The angular difference between the two compared to the target means at least one of the pair will have a better chance of intercepting the target. The Patriot system before it went AESA and had the missiles upgraded to active homing also used this principle.
The Fight 3’s upgraded with Spy 6, the missile it fires are also upgraded, so active ESSM, SM3 and SM6. The legacy Flight 1 and 2 will be getting Spy-6, but the panel’s cross sectional area will be smaller as they can’t handle the additional top weight. I don’t k ow if they will carry over the dual firing per target using the newer active missiles? If SM6 is as good as Aster then there shouldn’t be a need. Which means they’ll have at least double the missile capacity compared to T45, perhaps more if they include quad packed EDSMs.
I do not think that SM6 will be as agile as the ASTER dart. SM6 is a huge missile and I think it must be less agile. This could be a factor in taking down very fast manoeuvrable targets. This could lead the US to still shoot twice against some targets.
The main weakness of T45 is the small number of VLS cells.
i would suggest adding the extra 16 cells would greatly enhance the ships combat persistence.
when Duncan was buzzed by 17 Russian planes we saw limitation. If such a forces fired a couple of missiles each…
A T45 may be able to stop a single attack but what happens when the planes return…
Do not penny pinch MoD it could loose us ships…
It’s true that the Burke’s have deeper magazines, and T45 arguably has better radar. Well that’s great, because we are both on the same side! With networking and CEC, we may even one day soon be able to combine the two capabilities, which would be formidable.
In the UK I think we like to obsess over sovereign capability, which is understandable given what happened in 1982. But the reality is UK will never face a true peer opponent like Russia or China alone – we will always be part of a much larger international team, together with the depth that brings.
Against any current second or third tier opponent, one that UK could be forced to face alone, isn’t T45 more than adequate? A single T45 could wipe out the entire air force of most countries, without breaking into a sweat, and we have six of them. When you start to add in the rest of the fleet, T23, T26, Sea Ceptor etc. it almost gets silly, and that’s without even mentioning QEs and F35…!
There are plenty accusations that can be leveled against RN in terms of shortfalls in capability. But honestly, I don’t think lack of adequate AAD is one of them. If anything, besides perhaps ASW it’s the one thing RN take very seriously.
“If SM6 is as good as Aster”
You should note that the SM6 on more than one occasion has recorded the longest surface to air engagement on record. It has also on multiple occasion successfully hit medium range ballistic missile targets. It also has an anti surface capability and is being re-engineered as the first anti hypersonic missile in the US arsenal. I honestly can’t think of a more capable missile in existence.
Depends on against what target. Whilst SM6 is undoubtedly a far more all-around utile missile, it is not a given that it outperforms Aster in the AAW role against supersonic cruise missiles.
I think that’s a fair point but based on the reports coming out of testing over the last few years I wouldn’t be surprised if it does.
What it proves most significantly imo is that a clean sheet design is not always needed to have a leap in capability. This missile was created from piecing together parts of 3 other proven missiles. Finally i’m not knocking the Aster in any way. It’s an impressive family of missiles but I believe the SM-6 has taken a huge leap forward.
Yeah, it’ll be a real game changer for the Burkes. I’m hopeful that the T4X will be a step change again in capability, but I guess we’ll have to see where we are in 10-15 years.
Nice to know the science behing the headline!
Db, I understand where you are coming from however the AB Flight III SPY-6 although has a good tracking ability the ship itself can only launch and control three missiles at a time. From my understanding the T45 can have upto 17 missiles in the air in a single salvo and control them. So as a sensor platform the T45 is a much more capable anti air platform than an AB. If the T45 was built with the original capabilities planned for, such as ship to ship sensor and weapons control ( I have forgotten what it was called) they would have outclassed anything afloat. The major issue with the T45 is weapons fit, I will use the South Korean Sojong the Great class destroyer as a comparision. These ships carry a 5inch gun a Goalkeeper and a SeaRAM, they also have 80Mk41’s for the Standard missile, 48 VLS launchers for S.Korean VL-ASROC, and supersonic cruise missiles that have a range of 1,000 km, 16 anti ship missiles, 2×3 anti submarine torpedo tubes, a hanger for 2 helicopters Oh and a towed array, the older ships have the SPY1Dv the ones being built now will have the SPY-6. These ships cost about £800 million each ours cost £1.2 billion, so we could have had 9 of the S.Korean ships with a capacity for 128 missiles each not including the 21 SeaRAM and 16 anti ship for the same as 6 T45s with 48 missiles each not including the 8 anti ship. Let me think on what I would rather go into battle with. My ideal would be to have the T45 sensor suite and missile systems but with the S.Korean destroyers VLS tube numbers. To do that a 14m insert would be made possibly aft of the funnel.
I totally agree with the idea of removing from the T45 the 4.5 in gun and replacing it with a 57mm gun. I don’t know how much life is left in the 4.5in or how many shells are available. The reason for my thinking is budgets are limited, I know the T32 is able to have anything upto a 5in gun. It is highly unlikly that a T45 will go on the gun line, so if there is life left in the 4.5in then give them to the T32s and give the T45s the 57mm. By doing this it gives the carriers a better close support. When money is available the T32s could then have either the 5in or the 57mm. When I think of the T32 I do sometimes wish that we had either a modern version of the twin 4.5in. or twin 5.25 in., with the advancies in shell design and AI they would have made a powerful anti ship, ship to shore and anti air battery.
Thats just wishful thinking bacause if I could design a future carrier destroyer escort it it would be a lengthend T45, forward would be two 5 inch turrets with HVP shells, better yet two twin turrets, midships would then be two UK version of the Russian Panstir-ME based on the GAU-8 gun twin mounted and twin quad packed Sea Ceptor with a reduced range of 15km for CIWS duties, and aft of the funnel but forward of the hanger which would have two Wildcats a 80 round VLS for everything from Aster, VL-ASROC, cruise missiles and 16 canister launched supersonic stealth anti ship missiles. All based on an advaced SAMPSON and a T26 anti sub sonar suite. As my concept for a T46 would be to escort carrier and amphibious battlegroups they would never need the space for 60 Royal Marines, boat bays for RIBs or 30mm guns as they would also have frigates around them for anti boat swarm attacks etc. Again yeep guns, the HVP has a range of 50-70km for the 5in. BAE naval gun or its advance gun system and a rate of fire of 20 rounds per min. These shells are also capable in the anti air situation. What many people forget is an enemy ship is only as good as far as it can see, so if my radar can only see you at 20 miles the range of SPY at sea level horizon and the enemy can see me at 25 miles the range of Sampson to sea level horizon that means I have about four minutes of gun fire at 20 rounds per minute per gun that is 320 rounds of 5in coming down on you. That will really give you a bad hair day.
If I remember correctly BAE had the idea or concept of a five plane array for SAMPSON, four of the planes were of set by 90 degrees meaning it could operate in both fixed and rotational operation the fifth was straight up. I’m not sure but I will go out on a limb here, if there was a four plane system it would be of advantage as you could have one set of frequencies on the one plane and a second set on the other. This would give jammers a real headache but with some clever software you could make a 3D image of the target. If I also understand correctly the T45 if it had this four/five plane array does not need the 1850M. That would save deck space and power use. The combination seems to stem from the older radars where you had survalance and tracking systems. Its almost as if the T45 is useing the SAMPSON for missile guidance and the 1850 for the general picture. Again with the four plane array, you could using diffrent frequencies for each plane have two in general picture mode and two in threat mode offset by 180 degrees rotating every two seconds from survalance to threat. Then if need be all four planes could go to threat mode giving 100% covrage no delay. So the government MoD and the RN have possibilities for the future based on what they have now, but do they have the will power or understanding of what can be done.
The T45 is a good ship but God oh God can the government just invest to the ability they have.
I’m pretty certain you are confusing the radars on the flight 111 AB with the older flight 1 and 11 burkes. The SPY 6 is a completely new GaN based AESA that provides its own terminal illumination as well as volume search, ABM, periscope detection and even electronic attack.
Understandable and I think a T26 AAW is on the cards as the follow up.
The reason I mentioned the Mk41 is down to when I watched the Warship programme and the crew stated that the Russians did not see the T45 as a threat as it didn’t have Mk41 and chose to shadow the Burke.
As long as we can move them over to another later platform I see this as a long term proposition, but fully understand where you and others are coming from.
Yeah, likewise, I absolutely understand your point of view.
That’s an interesting anecdote about the Russians, do you know whether they were Russian surface ships or aircraft? Burkes don’t carry any surface warfare weaponry in their Mk41 at all, only ASROC (not considered very helpful) and air defence missiles. Burkes just carry two four-packs of Harpoon, like T45 does. They definitely have the reputation as the bigger badder vessel though- with our potential adversaries too apparently. If nothing else, I bet the T45 crews will be happy to know they’re not priority targets!
It was the shadowing Russian Baltic Sea fleet.
Famously on the programme the Russian Air Force sent 17 aircraft in a show of force against His Duncan I think.
As you would expect all crew were cool as cucumbers…
Ah, yes, I’ve been meaning to watch that on cath up and just haven’t got around to it yet…! I think you’re right about it being Duncan.
I’m not surprised they handled it well. One can criticise many things about the armed forces, but not the professionalism of the forces we field- land, sea or air. I can’t claim to have any personal experience, I’ve never served, but I’ve never seen a bad word said about the men and women of the UK armed forces by anyone who’s served with them or against them. Some of the senior leadership I wonder about, and there’ll always be some who don’t live up to the standard. But by and large, they’re great.
Harpoon is not on all ABs only the Flight ! versions who dont have a hangar.
Good point, although I thought they were bringing them back with the latest Flight IIIs? or maybe they’re just sticking with SM-6. I didn’t realise that it was to make room for a hangar, that makes sense!
Very good and agree on article. Sea Ceptor ER anyone + Sea Viper Block 2 NT? Also Sky Sabre ER on land to push out the Area Denial umbrella.
Informative as always. The key issue I can see with this is that any upgrade programme would likely cost as much as another T31 or T32, at a time when when global presence and rebuilding the fleet are big political promises.
As much as we can all see the clear need for such a system in purely military terms, I have my doubts as to if any politician, and for that matter many admirals, would choose BMD over more usable ships.
Thats a tough one isn’t it especially trying to look forward a decade when what are only theoretical, erratic, unproved or inconclusive threats now against our ships will be anything but most like. Having an extra ship or two will certainly be attractive esp in a non conflict environment where numbers have the biggest impact by far as they are visible, in time those numbers will become increasingly meaningless if the capabilities don’t really allow them to operate in any meaningful way should a conflict develop. Again who and where that conflict is against has a powerful influence in this regard but the general rule that without this defensive ability they will be sitting targets against higher threats eventually remains and as we have seen even lesser adversaries due to geo political momentum can operate very effective systems that have been fed down to them or most dagerously operated surreptitiously by elements of the top rank military nations. When weapons start having ranges of 1500 Km and more that one very big play to ignore for long.
I’m always skeptical about weapons that emphasise max range as one of their key attributes, because it’s incredibly different to effective range.
Just look at the data we have in this article. If detecting a target at 2000km requires that target to be 230km in the air, how do you target a weapon with that sort of range against a mobile ship? Even an AEW aircraft like the E-2, which has a max altitude of just over 10km for reference, would have to get within around 400km to even have a chance of detecting a ship.
As the article points out, the weapon and its range are just one part of the kill chain, and as it stands the Chinese and Russians don’t have the huge surveillance fleets needed to make these weapons viable. They’re like the Yamato; those huge guns might’ve outgunned everything afloat, but without radar fire control she would quite likely have lost a surface engagement against the Americans.
Satellites. Not much cost to put one or few up in orbit and have visual and synthetic aperture radar detection. Then your icbm is programmed to go to this grid square and search. Not sure how your radar return works at hyper sonic speeds but presume you can do that before you enter atmosphere, and optical once in lower atmosphere?
Somewhat concerningly, it may not even take satellites. A submarine, positioned as a picket at choke points, passively picking up the noise of a CSG and while still submerged, might launch one or more small UAVs to do the accurate spotting, to obtain GPS coordinates for the kill chain before the UAV is destroyed. Its then an issue of the missile being able to accurately target a ship when it arrives in the area.
Hi Callum,
You are quite right to highlight the detection and effective targeting of the Carrier Strike Group at long range. It would be very difficult if the carrier was to stand off. However, the Ballistic Missile threat has in effect reduced or neutralised the carrier as an effective force by forcing it to stand of at extreme range.
So if a carrier is to close to effective ranges it will need some kind of BMD capability or risk being sunk by a weapon it has no defence against.
As for stand off targeting for the Ballistic Missiles this could be achieved to some extent by satellite and of course it would be possible for a peer enemy to be able to narrow the search area by monitoring the electromagnetic emissions from the carrier and escorts. Not easy but potentially doable and gets easier the closer the carrier gets to the target. Also, the missiles may be able to detect the target autonomously provided it is given a sufficiently small search area, although I am not sure how easy this would be during the re-entry phase…
Cheers CR
That’s an interesting perspective. In many ways the cold war was very simple, it was an industrial arms race punctuated by a few proxy wars like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Vietnam. Ultimately, the superior economic resources of the west were able to overwhelm the capacity of the Warsaw pact to continue in the race.
9/11 and GWOT changed all that. A small number of non state actors like AQ, Taliban, Daesh etc. have been able, through asymmetric means, to provoke the west into shifting almost its entire defence posture, resulting in many changed priorities for capability, equipment and strategy. Ultimately it has left the west in a bit of a mess, not really knowing how best to respond.
What we now start to see, is lesser state state actors like Russia and Iran, adopting the same tactics of constant, vague, asymetric threat, coupled with much posturing and deception. As such it’s arguable that this situation will never be solved by an arms race, because it wasn’t one to start with. In fact by responding with high end armament, you are falling into the trap of entering a single sided arms race, which obviously costs one side much more than the other. Instead we should perhaps consider that the very use of asymmetric threats is itself a sign of weakness, before deciding how to respond.
So I think we need to be careful about saying we must have X or Y, be it in regards to depth or breadth of capability. We are not fighting the cold war anymore! That’s not to say that there are no longer conventional threats to which we must respond – clearly there are plenty – but overall the geopolitical situation we now face is hybrid, so it needs hybrid solutions. This may be difficult for some to swallow, but it is the reality we face.
Sorry replied to wrong comment – was meant for spyintheskyuk but you get my point.
The author does not appear to be current with the capabilities of the SM-3. The US has demonstrated that it is capable of intercepting an ICBM, not just IRBMs, as demonstrated in November 2020 using AEGIS and a SM-3. This is a demonstrated capability far beyond any ASTER theoretical capability.
US successfully intercepts ICBM with ship-launched missile in historic test – ABC News (go.com)
Author of the article here.
You are right – I should have made it clearer that SM3 is far more capable than just intercepting MRBMs. However, I focused on MRBMs because that is the threat that a fleet would need to deal with.
I’m pretty sure I read a write up on that test and it was very much a limited test,It was a simulated ICBM, the range ( and therefore ballistic apogee) was not what you would see from say a North Korean missile fired at the continental US or was really what you would see for any other true ICBM interception. The target had no penetration aids, the ship was specifically placed ect.
The conclusion was that although it was a nice test of the potential of the SM-3 it was pushing the limits of what you could expect from a SM-3 which is 1.5 ton 21 foot long ship launched missile vs a 24 ton, 52 foot long, 3 stage orbital booster based system that is the GBI. It concluded that although you could have some reliable hope of an EKV from a GBI making an intercept (as part of the GMD system ) you would not be wanting to pin much hope of aN SM-3 being able to make an intercept.
infact the conclusion was even the GBIs were of limited use and the cost of creating them was far more that the cost of throwing Reentry vehicles at someone. So they were only really effective if deployed by a nation that already had a very effective deterrent ( the us) against an opponent with a very limited capability ( say North Korea) and if you were looking to combat say Russia you would better off investing in more effective and greater numbers of strategic weapon systems. So for instance GBI would never be an option for the U.K as for us more nuclear warhead would be always more effective option for increase strategic defence spending.
You are correct that at this point in it’s development, the SM-3 could not realistically defeat an ICBM. Even the GBI has a spotty record after the US has spent an enormous amount of money developing it. This is the thing though, the engineers believe that given enough time and resources they will get this to work and Russia certainly believes the US will make a breakthrough in ABM technology. That’s why we’ve seen all these new “wonder weapons” being developed by them over the last few years. It’s a hedge, a “just in case” there is a breakthrough that basically render’s their second strike capability useless.
That’s your conclusion. The US Navy disagrees with you and so do I. US GBD is a totally different system and has nothing to do with the AEGIS/SM3. An AEGIS ground system has been deployed in Romania under NATO and others are planned. The bottom line is that the US has deployed ABM systems and all the UK can do is write papers about the theoretical possibilities of British systems.
I don’t think I ever said that the GBD had anything to do with AEGIS or the SM3. The test record of the GBD is well known and the official line from the US government/military has consistently been that the system is not design to stop a all out Russian ICBM attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense
Feel free to educate yourself on this topic. You can even read the government accountability office report on this project. Having said that, i personally believe that in time they will get it to work but it’s simply not there yet and in terms of an all out Russian or Chinese ICBM attack, we’re several decades away from coming up with a solution for that one.
I am perfectly aware of these matters. You are the one who apparently isn’t. I don’t need to educate myself but you do since you use wikipedia as a reference. The AEGIS SM-3 system has shown that can defeat an ICBM. You just refuse to accept the fact.
don’t get me wrong what the SM-3 can to is nothing short of amazing for a ship launched missile. But what they tested was about pushing its intercept and engagement envelope as far as it would go. the test was not a simulation of a potential real intercept of an actual ICBM launch against the Continental US by any realistic enemy. For that you still need a GBI. Range matters in the ballistic arc of an ICBM and that means the physics of intercept gets more challenging the greater the distance and the US is a long was from its enemies. So in reality SM-3 is still a theatre based ABM defence.
Wow…this article needed reading more than once…very good. I have to be somewhere else but I throw this in as a parting shot.
The other and/or option is the land based Aster The SAMP/T, essentially the same Aster missiles but with deployed radar units etc.
Author of the article here.
I had noted that currently Aster block 1 is in use in the SAMP/T system but the focus of the article was ship-based defences.
Thanks for the comments.
Yes..understood. I have an article here as well where I suggest that the army look at ABMDS for U.K. defence using the Aster. Once again …very interesting read.
Thanks!
Interesting thanks. Somehow though l cannot see any probability of an F35 ever being over the Chinese mainland….However, the protection of the UK mainland IS worth attention. Rogue states like Iran pose a far greater threat imo than China. I think the last SAM to protect the UK mainland was Bloodhound. Israeli Iron Dome has no doubt protected innocent Israelis from some attacks, maybe it is time the UK looked at protecting its own citizens from similar. Sadly it seems UK Government thinking does not extend to protection of the homeland beyond a few QRA Typhoons.
The UK government can’t even protect the UK from rubber dinghies from France
Not sure that’s fair. Everyone that arrives by dinghy is sent back to the first country they could have claimed asylum in or to their homes countries if they have not come from an unstable country
You are Joking ?.
They no longer have a right under EU Law, which states all persons of refugee status must be given shelter, EU wants to house everyone then fine. good luck.
since we left the EU they can be returned….
Thats a Border Force Issue and not MOD, now they have no right of EU Passage and can be taken back to where they left without any formalities. EU PROBLEM.
I always chuckle when people start saying that the army and navy need to defend our borders against people in rubber dinghies.
Personally I think the main job there’s is saving them from drowning, then you decide who goes where and pays for what.
Best way to solve this old problem is at source, people don’t really want to travel thousands of miles and risk drowning in the cold sea. You just need to make sure they have a choice not to do that.
At some point we are going to have to face the fact we are all interconnected, if the second and third world can’t keep their populations healthy, we will all get the pandemic that nations won’t come back from. If they can’t feed themselves they will burn all the forests and we or our child may just get a that lookey likey Venus to live on that my old climatology lecturer would witter on about.
It does really depend what you are trying to defend against, any ballistic missile threat on the U.K. from Iran or anywhere is going to be at least an intermediate range ballistic missiles. That is not something that can be intercepted from the U.K. unless we decide to invest in something like the US GBI ( this is literally a three stage orbital booster, proper space rocket and you need around 10-20 with launch facilities to work).
you have to remember not all ballistic missiles are the same and the complexity and difficulty of intercept is not linear at all.
You have three phases in which you can intercept an Ballistic missile:
1) Boost phase, this is actually the most technically easy time to intercept a ballistic missile as: it very easy to see as it will not have separated( it’s big) and is very hot, as well as going slow as it struggles against gravity. It will not have launched any counter measures. Trouble is This is a short phase so your sensor platform needs to be close And quick , as well as the Kill vehicle being close at hand and able to chase down ballistic missile.So this works for tactical or short range Ballistic missiles, but is not an option if you’re 4000kms away.
2)mid course, this is the longest phase but it’s A very challenging intercept for longer range ballistic missiles… the weapon will hit its apogee In this phase as well as it’s top speed, it will be very fast and very high…ICBMs will be well over 1000km high,IRBM 800km high both travelling up to 6-7 Kps as they come back into the atmosphere. to intercept this you need your own space rocket and exo atmospheric interceptor. But medium and short range Ballistic missiles will only have an apogee of around 250kms and potter along at a sedate 1-2 Kps.
to add to the challenge the Ballistic missile will have also separated off its warheads, be smaller and have deployed its counter measures ( so your suddenly intercepting lots of small targets, needing 5-6 big old space rockets and exo atmospheric kill vehicles for one ICBM, IRBM launch).
3) last chance to intercept is the terminal phase…what can you say about this…handful of seconds, 6-7 Kps…. it’s just not happening for an ICBM or IRBM. Shorter range and slower ballistic missiles, that’s something that THAAD and it’s like can potentially intercept at this phase.
So when your looking at ballistic missile defence for the U.K., yes we could have one but it would be something that was only able to shoot down shorter range ballistic missiles that would never be fired at the U.K. ( unless we pick a fight with France). We would be bonkers to simply burn the equivalent of our entire budget for strategic defence to get GBIs that if your lucky will prevent a couple of ICBMs from landing…far better to spend the money on a deterrent that would throw 50 warheads back….
Excellent article. Thanks.
Don’t forget lasers! They might be the answer for the RN come the type 46.
Possibly. Given the additional requirement of anti ballistic missile defence, will or should the next ‘T45’ be much bigger? Should those vessels be purely tasked to support the carriers, in which case is 4 not the number we need.
On the other hand if they have ABMD, then may be they themselves should be escorted, not be the escort?
Could you ever do a gun based ABMD. Or would that have to be massive or at best rail gun like, I think lasers still some way out?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19285/the-pentagon-wants-to-use-big-guns-to-shoot-down-big-missiles/ seems you could
The seeker can also be used to ‘home on jam’, where the target is jammed by the Aster interceptor’s radar seeker as it approaches.
Typo there, that’s not what ‘home on jam’ means, it means the seeker can passively target ‘the target’ by locking on to narrow & broad band jamming signals.
Apropos of very little in the article, merely the aside over Aster B1 NT likely tied to a French purchase of Brimstone, I did wonder if the latter was ultimately for the chop, now that we have apparently agreed to join the US on the AGM 179 JAGM.
Yes I wondered this though it’s more likely they will be a hellfire replacement for Apache/protector/ reaper or perhaps for our f35’s since brimstone is unlikely to ever be qualified on the f35 .
I believe brimstone 3 is supposed to be a common missile across the typhoon/protector and Apache fleet. The costs of qualifying brimstone on protector and Apache might be prohibitive though
Just as likely a scenario on past performance, but hardly represents rationalisation of the weapon inventory i.e. one or the other, as one may have thought in keeping with IR.
Good article, thanks.
I would agree that a BMD capability is important, but I’d argue that this should be limited to “soft” upgrades of the radar and missile systems; there are other areas that could do with addressing with greater/equal priority if we do this.
Get the simple radar upgrades and the newer block Aster 30s, fine. But T45 (as well as the wider RN surface warfare force) could also do with a better-networked set up. I know that we have some set up that allows some kind of performance similar to the USN’s CEC, but I believe it’s a bit cobbled together, we also have a very patchy spread of data links across the fleet and fleet aircraft.
A wider buy of ASMs would also be helpful, as would a review of whether we can get CAMM-ER quadpacked into Sylver 50 cells (I believe the ER booster makes it wider than normal CAMM). I know that Aster 15 is better, but how much better than CAMM does it need to be for the threats we’re facing? I think it’s likely only the fabled hypsersonic ASMs that would really benefit from Aster, and Russia hasn’t even got them out of testing yet.
I personally am against recommendations to fit out T45 with Mk41 VLS and SM-3; save the money and such significant changes for the T46. Get the money and research in now on improved networking that benefits the whole fleet for decades to come, and go for involvement (and UK workshare) in the next iteration of MBDA missiles that follow on from Aster and CAMM, for both traditional AAW and BMD. We’ll never get a lot of look in on the US Standard Missile system, but our advanced weapons partnerships with France and Italy are a real success story- build on them.
‘but our advanced weapons partnerships with France and Italy are a real success story- build on them’
Very true – a rare example of European collaboration where the partner nations somehow manage to put ego and national industrial interests aside, allowing each to bring their best capabilities to the projects.
Pretty successful with international exports too, which benefits all involved.
Exactly- play to our strengths, and advanced weapons is one of them!
I think it works so well because MBDA and the partner nations have agreed workshare spread by each country having specific areas; if I recall UK has guidance and warhead, France has boosters and something else, that kind of thing. That way, each country has guaranteed work on either one’s projects- meaning there’s less/no feast and famine and loss of skills. It also encourages successful projects, because there’s a clear and fairly spread industrial stake from the beginning. Collaboration on common weapons (Martlet, FC/ASW etc.) is also encouraged, as it shares the development cost and increases unit production- again good for domestic industry.
Beyond advanced weapons I think your underlying point is a good one.
In the last few decades a lot of things have gone very badly so it gets all too easy to get overwhelmed with all the negativity and doom mongering. Ultimately it gets very difficult to even accnowlege where things have gone well, to use that as a model for other projects.
To a certain extent I think that’s just the British disease – we love to champion the underdog and are often uncomfortable with beeing too proud of our success (at least when compared to USA, not that that is saying much!) It’s not always such a bad thing in itself; as they say, pride comes before a fall…
But like you identified there have been some real successes, and if we are comparing ourselves to other countries, don’t we all have our skeletons! So ultimately it’s just a case of putting all the negativity to one side and focusing on what works.
@Joe: “I believe the ER booster makes it wider than normal CAMM”
A very common misconception. Yes the dimeter of the ER booster is larger but that’s not the limiting factor for its VLS. That’s the diagonal width over the fins which is exactly the same as on a regular CAMM. Bottom line is that ER will fit any launcher that can contain CAMM as long as the extra one meter length will fit.
Yes that is correct, CAMM-ER is 190mm diameter, compared to CAMM at 166mm.
Thanks Ron, I didn’t realise that! Good news. I think there’s room in a Sylver AS50.
They’ve done a similar job with the Meteor I believe, in order to get it to fit in the F-35 bays.
Type 45’s don’t have enough cells to give up space for ABMs. Barely enough to cover area defence as well as self defence. First-class radar will definitely see the kill missile coming. Fit a stern cell assembly and things might be different. Seems that Type 45 batch 2 stretched would be a good way forward.
To be honest there is space for additional cells on the Type 45 and if we’re talking about ABM defence we wouldn’t need a lot of them; perhaps a dozen missiles at most.
There’s no such thing as a Type 45 Batch 2 stretched. Nor will there ever be.
The fastest way to increase destroyer numbers and capability apart of upgrading existing ones is to build 5 more type 26 that are destroyer variant. This ship are as large as a type 45 already and need no new design from scratch and the industrial base is already there. Delaying destroyers build further is dangerous at this time in history .
“fast” does not belong in any comment on Type 26 build.
T26 isn’t really suitable as it doesn’t have the top weight capability for the high mast and top weight mass that an AAW destroyer requires.
ASW you need the quietest running hull form so relatively flat bottomed and shallow.
For AAW you need stability to get the best radar picture from a high mounted sensor. Sure you can digitally stabilise but there are links particularly in high sea states.
Yes the stern section of the T26 is long and shallow, just deep enough to store the towed array sonar(TAS), and cable drum, winding machine.
It looks like, future AAW destoryers, will need a beem in excss of 22m.
The days of networked firepower are finally here.
This means, the tendency to create ever larger surface combatants to accomodate sensor plus weapons will stop, at some point.
I think, BAE had it exactly right with their famous UVX-“drone-carrier” concept. AAW will be AEW-drones/helicopters, controlled from a mother vessel, connected to ordnance-truck drones and arsenal ships. Same goes for ASW.
I hope, this is what T32 will be all about. A relatively simple GP-combatant, having space for two helos or 4-7 VTOL-UAVs. Basic self defense kit, improved by incorporating NAMMO-RAM into Sea Ceptor, and lasers. Lots of comm equipment, including LoS-laser-comms.
The arsenal ship is even simpler. 8 x 48 Mk41 VLS cells in a simple hull.
Interesting article from 2017 on AIP website attempts to review the effectiveness of ABM systems. Because so much is kept secret, its conclusions were rather tentative. But some interesting observations:
* Success rate of Patriot missile in gulf war turned out to be nil
* Aegis seems to have a fairly high success rate
* Tests of GBM defence system very artificial (and expensive at$244m) with limited relevance to a real attack in numbers
* Anti interception systems likely to be effective
The USN current big worry is the area denial capability being developed by China. A missile launched at a particular map reference will probably have terminal guidance and manoeuvrability. If launched in numbers, accompanied by decoys, effective interception might be impossible.
Surface warships look vulnerable.
Nice, a very good a succinct piece.
During the Formidable Shield Exercise in 2017, part of the tests were to detect, track and destroy a ballistic test missile (Terrier-Oriole) launched from the Hebrides. However, the shooter, the USS Donald Cook, would not illuminate the target with its own radars. This job would be provided by the the Dutch Ship HMLNS De Ruyter using its SMART-L radar. What is really important about this exercise, is that the ship’s radar was a standard SMART-L PESA, not the later AESA version. It just had some software tweaks based on the data from the T45’s S1850M.
Part of the test was for Qinetiq to launch the missile on the last day of the exercise, without giving any prewarning to the task group. This would give them a more realistic scenario to react to. The De Ruyter detected the missile, which has a top speed of 10,800kmh (Mach 8.75) and can reach a height of 320km (200 miles). This information was past to the Donald Cook, that then fired a SM3 Block 1B at the target. There is little information on the actual height the missile was intercepted at, but it can be assumed that it was engaged towards the apogee of the ballistic missile, i.e. exo-atmospherically. The SM3 scored a direct hit and destroyed the test missile.
Coincidentally, at Hengelo in Holland, which is the Thales site that builds and tests the SMART-L radars. The new SMART-L MM (AESA) was being tested. It detected the launch of the Terrier-oriole missile and then tracked it until it was intercepted, which had a measured distance to target of over 1500km.
Qinetiq and the Exercise planning staff, rather than make the exercise easy. Through in a curve ball, of three simulated sea skimming anti-ship missiles that would pop over the horizon as the ship was about to engage the ballistic missile. The Spanish ship SPS Alvaro de Bazan fired an ESSM and the Dutch ship MNKMS Tromp fired a pair of ESSMs, to shoot down the targets.
What does this all mean for the T45? The Exercise proved that the current S1850M/SMART-L was more than capable of searching for and continuously tracking a very high speed ballistic missile. But also, that it can provide the necessary quality targeting data used for the interception. Therefore, the ship’s S1850M is good for ballistic missile defence, even though it wasn’t primarily designed for it. However, the latest Thales SMALRT-L MM AESA radar has been designed to search for and track ballistic missiles and would provide much better capability.
However, as your piece suggests it is far better to intercept a ballistic missile in either its boost phase or mid phase, rather than the terminal phase, where it will be travelling at its fastest velocity. If MBDA have quietly shelved their Aster BMD in favour of the Twister program, then that only leaves SM3 as the viable ship based anti-ballistic missile, which actually isn’t a bad thing. After years of teething problems associated with fuse timing issues amongst other things. The SM3 has reached a level of maturity and shown that it hits more often than not. The USN have poured millions into its continual development which has been bolstered by Japan. Would it be such a bad move on our part to join the SM3 club?
It would mean the T45 would need Mk41 strike length VLS installed. Along with the integration of the missiles with the combat management system. Hopefully including an upgrade to the Smart-L MM radar. Yes, it would be nice to have Sampson upgraded to include a high angle ballistic missile search and track. But for this purpose, the replacement of the S1850M with the MM version is much more important. As we want to intercept the threat in either the boost or mid phases, so you need the earliest detection and therefore require very long range. It would be a major financial undertaking. But also with only 6 T45s, one of which would be offline for a considerably amount of time, which also includes the testing. Therefore, it wouldn’t be available to provide protection as part of the carrier team. In some respects, it would be better to list this as one of the primary requirements for the T45’s eventual replacement. However, that will still be some time far in the future. To my mind, it would be better to get the T45 so equipped now. Therefore, we will have more time learning the system and then can develop it along with the tactics of using it!
Thankyou for your comments and insights Daveyb.
Hi Davey,
I think part of the answer on supporting an ABMD capability is in the Formidable Shield Exercise in 2017 that you describe, i.e. use T45 sensors for detection and use T26 MK41 cells for SM3 and perhaps SM-6. We don’t even need CEC for this, although I think the RN should, like other navies, move to support a CEC like capability as the T26s commission. This systems approach to ABDM defence avoids taking T45s out of service for a significant time, along with what is probably significant cost, when the ships are 2/3 or more into their life.
Sure, this means no ABMD without both ships, but our most critical requirement is defence of a CSG or ARG where we are likely to have 2x T45 and 2x T26 as escorts. Then down the road T4X is fitted with MK41, for a single platform capability.
The reason I say its only part of the answer, is because manoeuvering hypersonic missiles may not present the same targeting option that ballistic profile flight paths do.
BTW I notice HMS Dauntless is apparently getting “latest multifunction radar” and “latest long range radar” installed as part of its Upkeep 2020 program, whatever these statements mean, per Navel News link below.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/thales-completes-hms-dauntless-s1850m-long-range-radar-overhaul/
The T45’s are about halfway through their planned RN life.
Probably a little less assuming a ~25 year commissioned life, which seems to be approximately what’s planned for a 2035-38 current OSD. What I meant though was by the time we add MK41, update software, test and accept into service missiles like SM-3 or SM-6, then T45s are 2/3 or more into their life. Now I think about it, its probably more like 3/4 or more into life.
In all UK exercises to date, the RN has used the Sampson radar for BM detection. The Tye 45’s S1850M is primarily carried for aircraft controller duties.
By the tone of your comments, I suspect most of information comes from Thales.
I suspect that the first two S1850Ms to be upgraded will be on QEC and PoW.
The rotors are up higher: more coverage. This then sort of makes sense of why Sampson was not fitted to the QEC’s as was in the original designs. Although as I opined in an earlier thread if QEC has Sampson that much higher up that would probably have spelled the end of CrowsNest.
Then CEC must be the priority. With CEC the VLS silo can be on any ship in the task group.
RN are incredibly proud of Sampson and it is incredibly good. I don’t believe that it has not has some software upgrades since inception. That is the sort of thing we will never know about nor should we.
The Thales is also a great system with complementary abilities. But it is good to know that the T45 has two rotors up to the job: that gives options and redundancy.
I suspect that T45 will get its Mk41 VLS (obviously it has got 48 Aster VLS) once the direction of travel on this is settled. However, there was little point in putting Mk41 VLS on them initially as all that would have gone into them was well…….?
Dauntless has just had its S1850M fully refurbished, the first of the Type 45s. A decision must have been made not to go with a Smart-L MM upgrade instead. This seems a pity, as it would have circumvented the extra drydocked time mentioned in the article.
Some details on the test can be found here:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/thales-completes-hms-dauntless-s1850m-long-range-radar-overhaul/
Are you sure about that? I am not going to discount it. However, at the moment the I know the T45 splits the load of volume search with target of interest tracking between the two radars. Admittedly the Sampson could do all the work, but the load placed on the system would be very high. I’m still at a loss why the T26/31 is only going to have one primary radar?
Mainly, it is the difference in physical performance between the S1850M’s L band (1 to 2 Ghz) and Sampson’s S band (2 to 4 Ghz) radars, that would make me contradict the fact. Due to free space losses caused by atmospheric absorption, the longer wavelength radar, i.e. L band will have a longer detection range on a like for like basis if they have the same total power output. However, a radar with a shorter wavelength, i.e. S band, will have better target resolution than a longer wavelength radar due to the transmitted beam’s smaller angular dispersion when using a linear array. Both radars use a linear phased antenna array, but S1850M is PESA, whilst Sampson is AESA and work on a similar principle for beam steering using constructive interference. Unfortunately, you can’t place the transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs)/phase shifters as close as possible to each other due to mutual coupling, so they need to be at least a 1/4 wavelength apart or at best 1/2 wavelength apart. This means an antenna array operating at a higher frequency can pack in more TRMs/phase shifters for a given area. Thus with more TRMs/phase shifters you can make the transmitted beam much narrower and thus increase its overall detection range.
However, for doing volume searching you don’t really want to use a very narrow beam, as that takes time. Yes, we are only talking doing a full sweep in around 2 seconds, but we are doing this sweep over 400km away. At which point another complimentary factor comes into play, which is the radar’s pulse repetition frequency (PRF) versus its pulse repetition interval (PRI). For very long distance searches you require a low PRF and a longer PRI. This is to stop multiple transmitted signals interfering with each other. As a target gets closer you can increase the PRF and decrease the PRI and so on. However, the PRF/PRI combination also affects the radar’s detection range. This is very important in how pulse-doppler radars work. However, both Sampson and S1850M can and do use a more modern transmitted waveform technique called frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW).
This is quite complex so bare with me. If you imagine a sine wave, then chop it up into equally spaced vertical columns. These columns are now called steps. This is kind of what FMCW does. It chops the radar’s carrier wave up into multiple steps. It can then transmit these steps as a codified pattern and in any repeatable order. As it is a form of continuous wave radar it doesn’t rely on PRF/PRI and uses a form of doppler shift to measure the targets velocity. But because you now are using defined timing steps you can measure the target’s range. Therefore, its detectable range performance is further than a comparable pulse doppler radar. However, Sampson being AESA can take this a stage further, as it can transmit using multiple frequencies. The next evolution in FMCW waveforms are where the steps are digitally codified. Which means you can in theory use an infinite number of range gates. However, in reality this is constrained by the signal processing power.
The published range for S1850M is 400km, whilst Sampson is also 400km. Either one is serious under working or the other is overworking to get this published range. I think it is Sampson that has had its power output ramped up, as other comparable S band radars usually have a published range a lot less. I would also say that the S1850M figure is quite low figure for a L band radar. In theory at least, the S1850M should have a significant range advantage over Sampson. From what I’ve been told it does.
When BAe were developing Sampson, it was born from a program called multi-function electronically scanned adaptive radar (MESAR). Part of the program was done at Benbecular in the Outer Hebrides. The objective of the program was to determine if MESAR could be applied for ballistic missile defence. It proved itself to be quite adaptable to various threats and then went on to become Sampson.
I must admit, I have a couple of friend working for Thales, but not in the radar sector. One does aircraft flat panel instrumentation, whilst the other is a field service rep. However, I do have quite a few contacts in Qintetiq, which is where the majority of info has come from.
Owwww….That just took me back to my systems engineering time ….I will be having nightmares about all that pinky stuff.
If I remember rightly ( I did guns and missile systems not Radar or EW) the use of modern AESA radars with complex waveforms also make the radars less easily detectable so they also become LPI.
Most EW systems have a fingerprint library of known PRFs and frequencies to compare against. As Sampson is using steps and various different transmission beams it is difficult to compare against a library and provide a detection alert.
Yes, that’s correct. The Sampson’s TRMs can operate over a much wider operating frequency range within the S band. ESM gear and aircraft RWR in particular look for pattern repetition. The radar’s PRF is one part of the pattern that these system’s look for. However, Sampson and other AESA radar use a combination of different waveform techniques rather than the standard pulse or continuous wave. These are clearly not advertised for security reasons. But as an educated guess it will be using something along the lines of frequency modulated carrier wave. This has the benefit of using a relative low power continuous wave transmission, but digitally stepping the rise between say frequency A to B. These steps in frequency can be linear, i.e. increasing in frequency at each step. Or more sneakily the steps can use a pseudo random pattern to basically hop all over the place between A and B. This makes it really hard for radar detection systems to detect, as the pattern appears random and not repeated, hence the LPI.
AESA has a party trick, in that you can use it to replicate the transmissions of older generation radars along with their waveforms. A lot of radar will use a safe radar waveform to scan the area. Reverting to a war warform when the sh*t hits the fan. I’m not saying Sampson does this. But I know the first variant of Captor-E definitely could, as it not only used and replicated the Captor-M waveforms for test and evaluation. But the RAF let slip that it could mimic the Foxhunter radar of the Tornado.
A lot of effort from all sides goes into capturing radar data. The RN were and probably are still very good at this, as the T boats use to do this all the time “up north”. The RAF have the dedicated Shadow R1 that does this vital job. As you quite rightly say this data is used to construct the recognition libraries.
Now my head really hurts… EW stuff as well. As far as I was concerned I didn’t need to understand how an EW set did an intercept I just took it on good faith that it did it…. It was Magic .
Regarding war waveforms this will be true. The old 967 for Seawolf usually operated on 3 frequencies. London went active on all of the frequencies with full multi hop during the Gulf War. They where rapidly told to go back to 3 as the threat level didn’t justify full multi hops across all of the set frequencies.
Fingerprinting radars was a full time job for B2 T22. The ESM kit was a mix of regular surface Fleet fits and the stuff the subs had plus various other special fits covering all of the electromagnetic spectrum including lasers.
Sorry, I’ll go hide in my cabin. They only let me out if I’ve been good!
I won’t mention what the Nimrod R1’s used to get up to in provoking Soviet/Russian air defences networks to go live?
Great info Daveyb. Also I think any synergies for BMD detection via the Type45 and USN (eg Burkes) should be investigated as we could borrow a Burke to escort our carrier ( which will be acting as a component of a US carrier TF – we won’t be fighting a peer enemy on our own). The 45 could detect the incoming missile for the Burke to use its SM3).
The scenario you describe has already been tested on 2015, a Type 45 used its SAMPSON radar to track a short range ballistic target and give targeting information to a nearby Arleigh Burke. The Arleigh Burke then used an SM3 to intercept.
The biggest issue facing the Royal Navy is that the fleet can easily be saturated by incoming missiles.
As it currently stands the T45s can take 48 missiles. If there are two T45 destroyers and 2 x T23 with CSG that means combined the fleet will have 160 missiles. (if fully loaded)
A single Chinese Type 052D destroyer has a 64 VLS and a Type 055 destroyer has a 112 missile VLS.
Just two Chinese destroyers can field more missiles than 4 UK ships. When you add the need for defences against aircraft and land based ballistic missiles it is obvious how outgunned we are.
—-
I would like to see a replacement announced for T45. We should commit to building a stretched T26 with extra VLS capacity. In an ideal world 8 x T26 and 8 x T26 AAW with say 5 x T31 + 5 x T32 would make us a credible force to work with the US and countries like Australia + Japan.
You are not going to fill your VLS with only ASMs . It will also include AA Missiles for defence against ASMs aimed at your own unit.
Not that it would make much difference anyway when an Astute sticks a Spearfish under your keel at 70 knts from many 10’s of miles away.
The T45 has been a classic example of “spoil the ship for a halfpenny of tar”. First, they were cut from 12 to 8, to 6. Then the 155mm gun was switched to 5″ & finally, 4.5″. The 4 panel Sampson was cut to 2 panels. CEC was cut. Torpedo tubes missing. No rush to fix the intercooler problem. By the time they are put right, they will be going out of service. It is probably only worth spending serious money on the newest 2. I would fit Standard, but go for SM6. It has surface attack capability, as well as anti air. It is expensive at $4m a shot, but that is half the price of the $8m+ SM3. One 8 cell Mk 41, as well as the existing Sylver.
I have been thinking about what a T45 replacement would look like and how it would be equipped. Given recent moves by the RN and RAF to bring ‘future’ technologies forward onto current platforms e.g. the T26 propulsion system on a T23 and the recently announced Captor Mk2 radar for Typhoon, I was also thinking about what technologies could be fitted to T45 as a lead into T46.
BAES proposed a number of upgrades for the SAMPSOM when it was first introduced these included a 3, 4 and even 5 panel versions and the option of developing a Gallium Nitride (GaN) version of the arrays (discussed in an article on Navy Lookout). The latter development offers better energy efficiencies and power, whilst the increased number of panels obviously improves coverage.
So with my fantasy design hat on, what would I do for a T46. First consideration is that the money will still be tight even after the £16b up lift. (By the way can anyone confirm that it is a consolidated uplift, my assumption is that it is.)
So I would look to an evolutionary development rather than a completely new design. Much has been made of the possibility of a T26 AD variant, but I think that would be a step backwards given the advantages that size has apparently given the T45. So I would start with the current T45 hull. Options for the hull could include a modest increase in beam and or length along the lines of the Broadbeam Leander class or the Stretched T42’s. The increase in size would recognise that at some of the current ‘spare’ payload capacity built into the T45 would already be taken up by the much needed PiP engine upgrades. On that subject I would drop the WR21 for a suitable version of the highly successful MT30 and keep the larger diesels (assuming we will still be using maritime diesels mid century).
As for radars I would support BAES with a development programme for the SAMPSOM Radar as an absolute minimum. This is a world class UK radar and we should nuture it and keep it up todate. The BMD version discussed in the article is a good start but I would also look to developing GaN arrays for system to keep UK engineers up todate with the latest technology. Whether further panels would be of significant benefit would need to be assessed, but that would be a further option for development.
I would probably adopt the AESA version of the S1850 radar for the T46 given the current system is already in service with the RN and much of the development work has be paid for by the Royal Netherlands Navy. Obviously, by the time we get to building the T46 the S1850 will need to have been further developed to keep it current, but the combination of the two radars does appear to provide significant complementary capabilities which may well be considered as core requirements by the time we get to the late 2030’s early 2040’s, given the new threats that are emerging.
Another argument for sticking with the large T45 hull over the T26 is that in addition to the emerging capabilities offered by Autonomous Vehicles requiring a significant mission bay to be provided, there could be a requirement for Directed Energy Weapons and their supporting power systems. If Dragon Fire is available and effective it would be an obvious addition to the T46 weapon suite.
As for VLS I would seek to increase the the current number of tubes possibly with additional Sylver A50 tubes, but with a minimum of at least 12 MK41 Strike length VLS for increased weapon carrying flexibility. This assumes an increase in ship size if sufficient flexibility is to be retained for a future LIFEX.
Such a specification for the ship would obviously enable a wide range of weapons to be carried, including future upgrades of Aster, CAMM, and SM-3, plus the SPEAR family of Surface to Surface weapons. Guns would be a pretty standard fit of 5″, 40mm Bofors and smaller weapons.
Cheers CR
There is very little difference in size between the size of T45 and T26 in terms of hull size. However the hull of T45 isn’t very good. T45s sound ‘like a bag of spanners’ underwater. It make more sense to stick with the T26 hull and maybe stretch it by 10m to accommodate an extra VLS. T45 = 6 hulls where as T26 = 8 x UK 12 x Canadian and 9 x Australian.
This will keep costs down and improve commonality.
Hi Order of the Ditch,
On reflection a fair point so lets go with T26 hull with a broad beam and a few metres stretch. The increase in beam would enable the retention of the 10 deck / 40m positioning of the radar.
Cheers CR
Not wanting to spoil your fun, but this very suggestion was discussed at length on Navy Lookout, IIRC posters much more knowledgeable than me pointed out that a major part of the T26 design effort is the hullform itself.
Apparently all the various dimensions, compartments, machinery layout etc. are ‘tuned’ somehow to eliminate resonances and thereby reducing radiated noise. If you start changing the length or beam it throws all this out and you have to do the whole expensive exercise again. Or something like that!
Hi Sonik,
That’s interesting and would go some way to explain the cost of the T26 and perhaps why the RN AD ships are not so quiet as the ASW ships. So my original suggestion of stretching a T45 hull would be the most sensible way forward.
Without going into detailed justification again I did highlight that AD ships are likely to operate differently to a ASW platform as they would need to maintain station on the High Value Asset being escorted whereas the ASW platform may need to break off to prosecute a connact or effectively use the ‘tail’. So less need to make a destroyer as quiet as a frigate.
So enhance T45 hull with MT30 turbine and AESA radars.
Thanks for the post – learn lots on here.
Cheers CR
The T26 is at its L/D limit for stretch so that’s not going to happen.
Hi Ron5,
Which is why I suggested a broad beam a al Broadbeam Leander and a ‘few’ metres stretch to preserve the Length to beam ratio.
Cheers CR
Stretching the hull, without broarding the beem, can decrease stability of the ship if you substantially increase top weight.
T45 is a whats it called a ANTI AIR DESTROYER, NOT A ASW SHIP.
The Australians will be using theirs in the AAW role. Ships having specialisms will increasingly be a thing of the past. When the hull sizes are almost identical it makes a lot sense for the new destroyers to be based off the T26 hull.
I thought that the ‘bag of spanners’ noise claim of the Type 45’s had been refuted – admittedly it won’t be as Quiet as an ASW Ship but the issue had been exaggerated.
@CR A few thoughts for you:
On the T45, the Sampson wasn’t capable enough to perform aircraft direction as well as AA so the second radar was fitted. A future Sampson probaby doesn’t have that problem even if the aircraft direction requirement survives. So just the one radar would be needed.
Secondly, the Bae radar team are researching spherical arrays so that equal power can be sent in any direction. Interesting eh?
As for reusing “hulls” for a Type 46. Much is made of this but it really doesn’t make any sense. Hull shape design is cheap and reuse doen’t save any significant money. Reuse of systems is where big savings can be made.
Sylver has proven to be a dead end. Very few missiles are qualified and they are mostly french and expensive. I’d bet a lot that the RN will go Mk 41, just like what a significant number of RN folk originally wanted for the T45.
Hi Ron5,
Thanks for the thoughts.
I was not aware of the aircraft direction issue which is interesting. However, there might still be a case for the two radars. Firstly, the S1850 reportedly has a greater effective range than the SAMPON. Secondly, because it operates in a different waveband to the SAMPSON the T45’s performance against stealthly threats is reportedly improved. Also, each of the radars has the ability to take over the others job to some level, so a significant level of redundency is provided. Obviously, there would need to be a proper assessment made, but much of the development work appears to be already underway and as an AD system the radar fit and SEA VIPER system is supposed to be hugely effective so makes sense to take it forward.
A spherical array sounds very interesting. Obviously, it would negate the need for a rotating drive on the top of the mast so potentially reduce the weight. I suspect there may also be significant improvements in target detection and tracking performance as well, because you would not have gaps in coverage which I assume have some impact on performance.
I realise that reusing hull forms does not make that much difference, rather I was thinking about the ‘systems’ within the hull. I should have made that clear. If you take either the T45 or T26 hull as a system you potentially reduce the risks involved as you are developing an existing system which includes hotel services, as well as fire fighting and damage control, etc.. It makes a difference within the context of the MoD’s decision making processes which are shambolic as we have pretty much all commented on at one time or another.
As for Sylver well fair enough – if MK41 or the cold launch variant of it offer a better solution go that way. The main thinking for Sylver is political, keeping the relationship with the French moving forward given we are working with them on a number of projects.
Cheers CR
Ok, my pennies worth is that the T45 needs to be a clean sheet design. As this keeps up the momentum of ship design matured through the T26 process. On that basis, I think the ship will follow a similar line to the current T45 even though the navy probably want a more rounded vessel. So it will still be optimised for anti-air.
The air threats it will faced will become more diversified which the inclusion of hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV), with perhaps loitering munitions also included. However, I don’t think HGVs should be treated anything less than a ballistic missile threat. They will be able to do evasive manoeuvres, but at the speeds it will be travelling, they will be quite smooth compared to a sub-sonic missiles manoeuvres. The current Aster should have no issues countering this threat, as they also have the mid-body reaction jets, which can literally throw the missile in the target’s path. As I’ve mentioned before SeaCeptor could have reaction jets installed mid body, as they were part of the original Asraam design, but it will knock off some of the range through. The main area that I’d like developed on Aster is the missile’s radar. This currently a very good pulse-doppler radar, which is ok at the moment. But with more radar absorbent materials being used in anti-ship missiles, these may start to struggle keeping lock on a target. Therefore, if the tie up Between the UK and Japan progresses with the Meteor getting the Japanese AESA radar. Then perhaps this should also be looked at for Aster?
So that’s the outer layer sorted or is it? The recent proof of concept trial done last year in the States, used hyper-velocity rounds to take out some pseudo cruise missile drones. It has been a bit of a wake up call on the possibilities that tube artillery can still deliver. Perhaps this will lead to a renaissance in the application of “big” guns on ships again? However, there is a marked difference in performances between the guns used on the trial, from the Naval 5″, to the Army’s 155mm and 203mm guns. This is all to do with the chamber volume behind the shell. The bigger the volume, the more propellent you can use to propel the sabot. The sabot’s projectile is same size fired from all three guns and makes p the bore difference through enlarging the sabot diameter.
When fired from the 203mm gun the HVP travelled at hypersonic speeds (Mach 5+), when fired from the 5″ it was about Mach 4.3, with the 155mm being about Mach 5. The BAe sabot round was developed from their rail gun project and is a guided round, using technology developed collaboratively with Leonardo on the Dart program. BAe have said the 155mm sabot can engage targets out to around 40nm (74km). With the 8″ (203mm) artillery, the engagement distance during the trial was the same as the 155, but a lot quicker. As much as I’d like to to marinize the 8″ (203mm), it would probably be easier (cheaper) to do the 155mm gun. This raises an interesting possibility. The rocket assisted shells fired from 155 artillery are currently hitting targets around 70km away. Whilst the newer ramjet rounds are hitting targets 120km away. For a ship, the 155 gun will offer significantly more mission capability and target flexibility. Therefore, on a cost per shot basis the 155/HVP/ramjet shell combination should be seriously considered. As it can fulfil both air defence as well as surface attack. The US Navy and BAe have said that the HVP round can be used against more than cruise missile types of targets. The trials they were supposed to be doing this year are planned against more manoeuvrable targets. However, the US Navy’s aspirations are that they can be used against high speed diving targets like ballistic missiles and even HGVs.
The ship’s situational awareness will be key to providing anti-air protection. There are three parts that are required for this. The ship must be able to provide the sensors organically to search its surrounding airspace. A land based or carrier based AEW aircraft cannot always be guaranteed. As the Falklands War proved, seeing beyond and below the horizon is pivotal in protecting the fleet against sneak attacks and sea skimming missiles. Therefore, just like the T45, its primary radar must be raised to increase the ship’s radar horizon. However, by placing a large top weight at the end of a essentially a long lever, you can make the ship very unstable. However, this can be counteracted by either widening the beam, which will make the ship less hydrodynamic (slower), or by using outriggers. There have been a few trimaran naval ships from the US Navy’s LCS Independence class to the Indonesian Navy’s X3Ks.
As for the radar, like the T45 I would pick two primary radars operating at different frequencies. Not only for redundancy but also to make it more difficult for an enemy’s countermeasures. Both radars would be AESA, with the higher frequency radar mounted much higher than the other, to extend the radar horizon. I would consider using four panel arrays for the lower wavelength radar, whilst also using four panels for the shorter wavelength radar. But have these mounted on a pivoting mechanism (similar to the Typhoons Captor-E) to increase the vertical coverage.
A trimaran has both pros and cons. It has the benefit of creating a larger deck area that can be used for manned/unmanned VTOL aircraft. These will be vital for the ship’s situational awareness. I have harped on about the benefits of Bell’s X247 Vigilant tilt-rotor UAV for maritime operations. If this aircraft is equipped with a half decent radar, it will allow the ship to see beyond the horizon. That could also extend the reach of its air defences. I do think the ship will need to operate 3 of these aircraft, so they can cover a 24 hour period. Therefore, the ship will need a much larger hanger to accommodate them. The Vigilant when folded up, has a similar footprint to a Wildcat. So the hangar should be proportioned to house at least four aircraft, i.e. 3 unmanned Vigilants + 1 manned Wildcat.
The third part of situational awareness is sensor fusion. This can be done through a cooperative engagement capability (CEC) network shared between the ships. It is vitally important in the near future for a ship within a task group to not only share its sensor data but also receive it. Therefore, the system must also be compatible throughout NATO, as we will normally have NATO allies as part of the group. The US Navy’s CEC is the obvious choice, as its used on the majority of NATO ships and has growth potential.
Should a ship primarily focused on air defence have an offensive capability? Duh, yes it should. Any warship, must be able to take the fight to an enemy. As has been seen in the last 20 years, ships invariably operate on their own, especially transiting from one area to another. Therefore, if it comes under attack it must have the resources on hand to respond in kind. Fitting the ship with a 155mm gun will help, as it will provide devastating firepower for engagements within visual range, but is also capable of firing beyond the horizon. When employed with a spotter aircraft this will significantly increase its accuracy at longer engagement distances. The problem, though is the relatively shorter range, so a missile system will be required for longer range engagements.
This missile must be capable of doing two roles, the first being land attack the other being anti-ship. My candidate would be the JSM/NSM by Kongsberg. This has a very low radar cross section, so will allow it to get much closer to a target before it is detected. It has also proved that it can hit moving vehicles on land. The warhead is large enough to do significant damage to another warship. Kongsberg have a vertically launched version waiting in the wings. This is a medium weight missile choice, but is considerably cheaper than the LRASM. I would not consider a longer range weapon at this point.
For ASW work, the ship must have its own sonar, but be sufficiently quiet to operate a towed array in the CAPTAS 1 or 2 category. To prosecute a target, the Wildcat would be the main means, but the ship should also have way of attacking a sub, when the helicopter is unavailable. Therefore, it will require a form of ASROC, preferably with a Stingray torpedo. To fire these missiles, I think it makes more sense to standardise on one form of VLS. This would be the Mk41 system over the Sylver, primarily because it integrated with more missile systems.
The T45 replacement I think will need to be bigger than the current 8500t and probably longer than its current 150m, probably closer to 10,000t and 180m long. This is so that it can house a much larger hangar, used for the UAVs and manned helicopter. But also for a much larger missile load. A trimaran should be considered, as it will allow the primary radar to be raised much higher above sea level, without affecting stability as much, but also allows for a larger landing deck area. In regards to armament, I agree the ship should be more “fighty”! But I would include at least 1, preferably 2, 155mm guns that can fire both HVP and ramjet shells at a sustained rate of at least 10 rounds per minute. For secondary gun armament I would look at a pair of 57mm guns. These have a high rate of fire and with the OKRA round can be used for CIWS. The 3P shell it fires also has a useful affect against high sped smaller craft. However, much like Phalanx, they should have their own dedicated search and tracking radar for redundancy.
Missile wise for air defence, if Aster can be upgraded with an AESA radar, it will still be a very potent weapon. But I would only fit Aster 30, or preferably the Block 1NT version. For closer stuff I would look at quad packing SeaCeptor. If MBDA could include the reaction jets along with an AESA seeker in a developed version, this would put it in the same league as Aster. For long range anti-ballistic missile defence, I would seriously consider getting the SM3 missile. This has proven itself over the years to score a direct hit on its target. But also because the US and Japan are funding it continual development, the missile will be kept up to date.
What about a laser? I don’t think we are there yet. But a laser like Dragonfire could prove useful in other ways. As there is a periodically updated almanac of satellites and their relative positions. A satellite would be a key target for the laser, either by dazzling its optics or damaging its solar cells. So yes I would include a laser for that reason alone. As a CIWS weapon, no not yet.
My gold platted T45 replacement.
Hi Daveyb,
I would agree with most of what you are suggesting, however, I have three points to make:
1) Yup, it is a gold plated solution so unlikely to ever see the light of day, sadly, but that does not mean that some of the idea would not see service. I particularly agree with the dual radar fit for the same reasons that you give and the 10,000 tons displacement;
2) The trimaran hull form appears to not be favoured for blue water applications because it apparently creates quite high accelerations in beam seas. BMT have developed a Pentamaran hull form with two out riggers on either side one behind the other. The forward one of each pair is nominally out of the water in calm conditions but as the sea state worsens it comes into play. This apparently reduces the peak accelerations improving conditions for the crew and reducing the loading applied to high mounted sensor arrays. Perhaps this might eventually see multi-hulls come into their own as I agree they offer greater space to weight ratio and potentially much improved stability for radars and other sensors;
3) I have also been thinking about the comination of AD and ASW functions on a same platform as you suggest. On the face of it it would offer great operation flexibility and reduced cost through commonality. However, there are significant differences in operations between AD and ASW roles. The AD role would require the platform to keep up with the High Value Asset (HVA) it is defending in order to be in the right place to engage any air threat, obviously. These days even merchant ships tend to be capable of about 20 knots and obviously carriers are in the region of 30 knots with a cruise speed in excess of 15 knots. Even at cruise speed sonar looses much of its effectiveness because, as I understand it, of boundary layer effects i.e. turbulance in the water as it runs past the ships hull (note this is not the wake). My understanding is that anything above 12 knots and sonar is pretty useless for detecting a submarine that is running quiet. Also, an AD platform running at speed will always make more than enough noise to be heard by a submarine in stalking mode and if said submarine is equipped with missiles the AD platform will be plenty busy enough. This might explain why the RN’s recent AD ships (T42 and T45) have both been described by more experienced people than myself on here as ‘noisy’ and the ASW specialists are ‘holes in the water’ when hunting. It also suggests that any ASW surface platform in hunting mode is going to have to break away from close escort with the HVA suggesting that more ASW platforms are required to allow them to operate together in a dash and hunt pattern to ensure there is always a platform in company with the HVA. I might be entirely wrong with this analysis but it does fit with what I have read and been told in the past, so I’ll stick me neck out.
Overall, I would suggest we are thinking along similar lines and I was interested in the HV sabot rounds you described. I have also quietly thought that a 155 gun would be a good way forward, but I would base it on standard NATO weapons, not on the USN Zumwalt version which apparently cannot fire NATO standard rounds and the ammunition programme was cancelled by Congress because of rediculous cost overruns. So big guns no shells is the result!
Cheers CR
Hi CR,
I’m not a hull designer, systems that go in it, not the shell. I kind of know what you mean by the beaminess of a trimaran affecting lateral acceleration. Not seen the pentamaran hull form before, it looks interesting and a good candidate for what I’m proposing. If you have ever been on the “vomit comet” from Stranraer to Belfast, you appreciate it! I used to sail Hobbie cats then Weta trimarans. What used to amaze me was how much sail the Weta could take in a strong wind compared to a monohull or even a cat. However, there was a fine edge, i.e. planning on the outrigger with the dagger just kissing the water. They are a bugger to right!
Back to the subject at hand. I do believe that a dedicated AAW destroyer will be needed to replace the current T45. With a specific role of providing area air defence. Which will be from sea level to exo-atmospheric. As countries look at ways to overcome a ship’s defences, more effort will be used on increasing the accuracy of ballistic warheads, but also intelligent swarming attacks. A ship’s means at countering a simultaneous swarming attack will become one of the key developments. Therefore, it will need a magazine that can cope with such an attack. I am pretty certain, following the “flypast” over HMS Duncan in the Black Sea was a bit of wake up call for the Navy. Forgetting the bravado from the ship’s weapons officer. If each of the 17 aircraft had launched only a pair of anti-ship missiles. The Duncan would only of had 14 left to counter the next attack.
This where I think it will be critical to supplement the missile defences with a credible artillery system, shells are much cheaper after all. The BAe HVP guided shell is the means to achieve this. It can provide an additional layer of defence out beyond the horizon when combined with 3rd party targeting. But more importantly more ammunition can be cycled through the gun that is ready to use.
I believe the chamber volume on the AGS is much larger, which is why it can’t use the standard 155 shell. However, the “standard” 155mm artillery ammunition is more than adequate. It is a standard NATO size so manufactures are continually looking at ways to outdo each other to sell their products. The Nammo ramjet shell is one route at generating more range. I know back in the day the Navy looked at marinizing the AS90 turret, but was binned due to cuts. However, even today, the shell and propellent bag automation should be more than doable, along with ammunition hoists from below deck.
However, I also think the ship should have some secondary capability for ASW and perhaps even minehunting/sweeping. The reason for this is that we don’t have enough ships to be earmarked solely as a part of a carrier or amphibious group. For example when the T45s, did freedom of navigation in the Black sea and when Iran was playing its shenanigans in the Gulf. At some point the destroyer must sail on its own. Therefore, I think it should have at least a minimum of resources to conduct these operations. This could be using the Thales Captas 1 or 2 systems, but more likely unmanned USVs for submarine surveillance and mine sweeping. Thereby relying on ship based systems to prosecute the threat. But these shouldn’t get in the way of the ship’s primary task.
One of my main requirements is that the ship must have a much larger hanger to house a number of UAVs. However, I would prefer the armament split with a 155 gun on both the bow and stern, then the Mk41 silos similarly split fore and aft, something along the lines of Ticonderoga cruisers, primarily for redundancy.
Hi Daveyb,
You are right to highlight the independent ops as an issue, however, I think we will see destroyers operating independently on rather fewer occasions now that the carriers are entering frontline service. Nevertheless, it is a fair point especially for the T83.
I posted about the mission bay for the T32 sometime ago and MCM and ASW mission packs were high on my priority list. However, I do not think that going full ASW on the accoustic treatement of the hull is necessary as I would use the destroyers and general purpose frigates as ‘force multipliers’. As such I would provide them with a stand off ASW capability provided by helicoper (flying frigate), and autonomous vehicles operating at arms length. The on-board hull mounted sonar would provide a ‘last ditch’ warning of torpedo attack, although I would suspect most submarines in a peer navy would look to engage a warship with stand off missies for obvious reasons. My ASW ‘pack’ would include submersible AV’s as well and air AV’s. The former would provide a persistant hunting capability whilst the latter could deploy, sono buoys and dipping sonar. There is a torpedo carrying air autonomous vehicle already under development as well. All of these and the helicopter would represent a significant threat to a submarine and a very worthwhile addition to any ASW screen. Note, this ASW pack would obviously be available for any platform with a suitably sized mission bay, so T26, T31 and T32 could all carry it, especially if the pack could be ‘scaled’.
I realise this is a compromise, but it recognises that cost is an issue and always will be. Spending the money in clever ways and adapting our operational doctrine to facilitate those compromises will also enable us to deliver a larger fleet, something we all recognise as being urgently needed. Also, by boxing clever with how we deploy key capabilities and on which platforms will enable us to match capabilities with the threat faced.
I do agree with the double ended approach to the design and for the same reasons. The Type 43 was a double ended version of the T42, cancelled in the early 1980’s so I think the RN would be interested to say the least.
Cheers CR
Excellent article. I wonder if this is relevant
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/17/exclusive-britain-pours-billions-race-develop-worlds-fastest/
To be Fair, read the comments and you see why Procurement is a mess, ALL BIG I WANTS, WITH NO BALANCE. 100 of them 60 of them 3000000 of them and lots of them. and you may USE 1 OF THEM IN ANGER.
THIS IS WHATS WRONG, all future ships should be based on a single hull, and changeable platforms to meet the fleet requirement. Arleigh Burke @ $2.5b compared to a type 45 @ £1b yet the AB still needs the type 45. flexibility over BIGGER/LARGER/LONGER. its not the 1930s,
I agree with your sentiments re defence procurement, but in fairness I would put the argument about 1930s the other way round.
WW2 was essentially an industrial war of attrition, several bigger and better toys didn’t help the axis win because they were out produced and overwhelmed by both west and east.
But in the shadow of MAD, 21st century conventional defence posture is all about having the biggest stick, for deterrent effect if nothing else. Numbers are a slightly different issue, minimum credible effect should be the base benchmark IMO, otherwise it’s not worth bothering. So flexibility is important like you say.
Why does an AB need a type 45, The Americans are going away from semi active missiles with new seeker heads and now they are putting lasers on quite a few AB’s and upgrading the AGEIS radar.
An excellent article that pulls together many of the considerations around adding ABMD to the fleet.
I responded at more length under Davey’s comment, so I won’t repeat it all, but two points.
Thanks for the article its (yet another) area I don’t know much about but it these long range anti-ship missiles are going to be a ‘thing’ then it would make sense to be able to deal with them. Its the old story of arms races throughout history isn’t it. I haven’t read all the comments, there’s quite a lot but aren’t we looking at lasers for this sort of thing ??? That’s going to be a while away so I guess missiles will be the short to medium term option. All down to cash I suppose. Cheers.
Current laser tech is not mature enough to be a consideration for anything but long term investment.
There is also the question of its effectiveness against a target already designed to withstand the immense heat upon re entry to the atmosphere are such high speeds.
keeping a laser on a target for the time needed while is travelling at speed measured in Kps is pretty none trivial.
T45 OSD is planned to be 2035-38. However, considering continuity in complex ship building, anything AFTER T45 replacement is T26 replacement. As the T26-hull1 is to be delivered on 2025, its OSD shall be +30 years = 2055 or so.
This means, T45 replacement build shall continue until ~2050, and therefore, the last T45 will be there until 2050. Thus, at least some of them needs mid-life upgrade.
I hope:
1: simply replacing 48 Aster30/15 blk0 with 48 Aster30 Blk1 NT and/or Blk 2.
2: adding CAMM (may be Blk2 CAMM, with dual-pulse motor). How about 12 ExLS = 48 CAMM.
In addition, as I think disbanding 114 mm gun at around 2035 will be good, replacing the gun with a 57 mm gun (common with T31), and adding 12-more ExLS will be an attractive option. In this case, it will be carrying 48 Aster30 Blk2, and 96 CAMM (probably Blk2).
Not bad, I think.
I’ve seen more than one claim in the Italian press that CAMM-ER was qualified for ExLS in 2020.
I’ve also seen the claim that MBDA is developing a new CAMM-ER VLS that would be simpler and cheaper than ExLs.
I’m not sure how reliable this informaton is.
Interesting. Yes, CAMM system is based on its canister, which is water proof by its own. There shall be many options to “densely pack” them.
Lots of talk about potential T45 replacement. Some great ideas and it’s all well and good.
Let’s not forget though, there will be many new technological developments, and the world will become a very different place, before any of this comes to fruition. It’s always good to plan ahead, particularly with long delivery cycles and strategic goals. But need to keep an open mind, and be able to make adjustments along the way. IMO, built in flexibility will be the key, and fortunately this seems to be something current RN leadership understand well.
The way I see it is this, the T45 is good at what she does but with some investment can be so much more.
For example the third Samson array can be fitted without to many changes to the ship, with the array being active I would think some extra coolant feed,power supply and a fibre link. There would also need to be a software update but no major hard ware, So thats the radar taking care of. As for a anti Ballistic missile, on this site many of us myself included have argued for the Mk41 VLS to be installed. Know I am starting to rethink that, possibly it would be better to install 2×8 Sylver A-70 VLS systems. The reason for this thinking is Aster 15, 30, 30 NT and Aster BMD if that comes on line would need the extra VLS as the BMD is longer than the NT but SAMPSON, the ships software etc need only to be upgraded rather than a new missile such as STANDARD which would need a lot of intergration. I’m not sure but I think the A-70 VLS can also take cruise missiles. Yes it will not be cheap but this method is more cost effective than the Mk41 idea as these launchers would need a completly new infrastructure. I am sure that if need be we could get STANDARD to work from the A-70 but that is a lot of hassle and cost for a limited return.
Again many of us and I include myself have said and argued about possibly quad packing Sea Ceptor in place of the Aster 15. This however whilst being possible needs intergation and a couple of data links. We could possibly do it in a diffrent way use the CIWS mount and have a bolt on quad pack. It will however leave the A50s and possible A70s for the more advanced Aster missiles. It might mean more powerful motors to turn the thing, a stronger internal frame and barrings and a new data link installed on the Phalanx CIWS as the quad pack with missiles would be about an extra 500 kg and say an extra 100 kg for the stronger frame, larger motor etc. The RN would also need to install on a T45 a Command and control cabinet and a launch cabinet. A Sea Ceptor quad pack bolted on gives the possibility of a independent CIWS missile gun combination and although slightly bigger than SeaRam the Sea Ceptor is cold launched and twice the range. This concept also make sense when the 20mm on Phalanx has an effective range of about 1 mile and the Sea Ceptor has a minimum range of about 1 mile. Again this will cost money but the combination and possibilities that this could give the T45s, QEs and other ships that depend on the CIWS could be well worth the investment. Only a pity that we cannot fit the A10 Warthog gun to the Phalanx mount, combine that with a Sea Ceptor quad pack and god help you. Oh I forgot we had that, it was called Goalkeeper. Why did we get rid of Goalkeeper? So I have tried to find ways to improve the T45 with limited upgrade investment cost, give the ship and carrier group a better all round defence whilst limiting cost, trials and time in the dock.
It is here that I have major problem trying to understand, Jackie Fisher once said he wants the fleet to hit first, hit hard and keep on hitting, so what happened. When I look at the South Korean Sejong the Great class, they are 14 meters longer, carry 80Mk41 launchers for STANDARD, plus a further 48 launchers for VLS ASROC/ supersonic cruise missiles, have SeaRAM and a Goalkeeper, anti submarine torpedos tubes and a towed array, 16 anti ship missiles and two anti submarine helicopters for $950 million which is about £780 million. What are we doing wrong? Why does our T45 cost £1.2 billion limited missile fit no towed array, a single helicopter and a powerplant that does not work the way it should. Yes I know that issue is being fixed, but its a work around to over come the problem which is it does not work the way it was designed to do. So what happened that the RN should always go into battle able to hit first, hit hard and keep on hitting?
Interesting suggestion to use Sea Ceptor as a CIWS. Our Canadian cousins are doing just that on their Type26/CSC, with ESSM as the main AAD weapon. The shorter minimum range on Ceptor means it doesn’t really have any disadvantage over a gun based CIWS, besides cost, and probably more reliable interception given the track record of Phalanx
Oh, and I suspect the South Koreans’ choice of armament has something to do with their neighbours…
There is no point in integrating Ceptor to a CIWS. You would end up spending a fortune doing it for little or no benefit. If you want Ceptor, stick it on and use it in the same way as the current T23 System.Its pretty compact and could be mounted just about anywhere for the launchers. Data link domes need a fairly clear LOS and somewhere where mutual interference isnt an issue.
Regarding Goalkeeper, we got rid because the RN mounts needed a lot of upgrades and to keep them running (even after any potential upgrade) would costs considerably more than Phalanx. It was also dependent on lots of ships systems to keep going (unlike Phalanx) and the footprint for the mount, below deck magazine, equipment room, power conversion equipment and chilled water was very large. It was a bloody good system though but it wasn’t cost effective to keep in service so the RN consolidated on Phalanx.
The Korean ship is based on the AB design. So a PESA radar, semi active missiles that require target illumination and 2 shots per target ( with back up IR homing capability), A 4 x GT drive which won’t be quiet so the towed array will be compromised . (The RN stopped using T22 for Towed array because of the noisy drive systems and went with V quiet T23 electrical drive)
Who are the SKs looking to counter? North Korea with its Diesel Subs and Fast attack Boats so ASROC , Sea Ram and Goalkeeper are a good additional mix for them to have.
950mil is build cost and wont include around 1.5 billion for Aegis and then the Radars plus all the missiles, Sea Ram, Goalkeeper, Towed array etc…Probably comes in at a total afloat and ready to fight cost at around + 4 Bil Dollars.
Would be great if other nations could help out America in doing the BMD role but not holding my breath.
Well I’m hopeful for UK but it won’t happen overnight for full capability. Theres also the Aegis upgrade to the Aussie Hobarts (starting 2024 so a way off yet). Not sure what this entails but I’m expecting it will introduce some type of advanced intercept capability. The RAN has a history here – their OH Perry frigates were the best ever in their later years and I expect Hobart will follow a similar path. When the QE deploys to the Far East I’m hoping the RAN will be there to test/improve RN/RAN deployment capbilities fully.
The most annoying thing is that we always talk about enhancing the capabilities of a platform just as we start talking about replacing them. Why can we never just deliver an incredibly capable platform right from the get go?
The Type 45 is an incredibly capable platform. The ships are only just reaching their mid-life and s typically would be due an upgrade. The Type 83 is decades away.
Would hope that the RN and MOD see fit to install the new MK41 strike length cells and the needed integration for SM3. If nothing else on a limited number of ships. The reason is because its available and can be done. The RN needs the protection and the world environment is rapidly changing which might not align with other projected options.
A third planar array on Sampson is totally unworkable and also unnecessary as scanning in the vertical plane should be able to achieve the necessary coverage.The comment regarding a single TRM is not understood as far as S1850M is concerned!
Whilst the two current arrays can reach completely vertical coverage, electronically scanned arrays lose transmitting power at sharp beam angles.
Could you elaborate on your comment on the S1850M’s TRM?
Sorry, I can’t!
I can say that there is more than one power amplifier involved. BTW the reason that a third Sampson array is unworkable is essentially top weight. Interesting that in the article/comments there is no reference to current or future decoy systems – the main driver for the Type 45 ‘stealth’ design.
Would I be correct in saying power amplifiers are used on the receiving channels of the antennae? Or can you not go into that sort of detail?
Couldn’t possibly say!
I thought as much, it was worth a shot 😉
Thanks for your comments.
Good article that sent me of into several months of thinking on what to do with the T45 if money was available and for that matter the T83. so here goes.
The T45 is a good all round ship however she does have some issues that needs to be resolved. The first is her powerplant, yes I know they will undergo some upgrades but that does not fix the issue. This will be done in the T83 of which I will write about later. The next is her weapons fit. The Sea Ceptor upgrade is a move forward but so much more could be done and at a reasonable cost. So the first thing I would do is to install seven MK57 VLS blocks, three between the Sylver A-50s and two port starboard of the hanger where the boat bays are. This means the removal of the boat bays but why would a carrier escort need to have RM boats.
If I remember correctly there is space below the Sylver A-50s for the A-70 vls system so I would replace two A-50 blocks with 2 A-70 blocks.
This would give the capacilty for 48 Aster 30s or a combination of Aster 30s plus Aster BMD missiles, 24 Sea Ceptors and 28 Mk57s to take anything from quad packed Sea Ceptors to Cruise missiles.
If the boat bays are removed then there will be more space for the hanger meaning that 2 Merlins could be carried or two Wild cats and four RUAVs.
Then come gun power CIWS ability. This could undergo a massive upgrade. The first thing to ask would a carrier escort go on the gun line, no so it needs something diffrent. Remove the 4.5 inch Mk8 and replace it with a 57mm, better yet if BAE could design a twin 57mm. Then the Phalax CIWS should be moved either 5 meters forward or aft of its current locations. I will explain later why. A raised deck between the Aster bed and the bridge should be built. On the raise deck structre and aft of midships 40 mm guns should be installed port and starboard. Central on the raised deck forward a half deck should be built there and on the hanger deck Dragonfly when it is available should be instaled. This then leaves space beteeen the main funnel and aft structure for 8 canister launched anti ship missiles. The 30 mm mounts should have the LMM for anti swarming boats etc.
With radar I would if possible upgrade to a SAMPSON 3 plane array and Iron Dome.
I know it is not possible but if I could I would replace the turbine with two MT 30s rated for 36 MW each.
So what would that give me well guns 57mm single or twin mount, shell tracking radar in the gun mount, 4 40 mm, 2 30mm with LMM, 2 Phalanx ot RAM and 2 Dragonfire. Missiles Aster 25,30 BMDs, a combination of 48, 24 Sea Ceptors and 28 MK57s for anything from quad pack Sea Ceptors to cruise missiles plus 8 shorter range canister launched anti ship missiles. Or 78 flexi cells and 24 dedicated cells for a total of 102 cell. Yes the T45 will loose the boat bays. She would also have either two Merlins or two Wildcats with RUAVs.
Yes this rebuild would be expensive, but the space on the T45 is available, not only that but much of the euipment could then be used in the T83 reducing there cost. By increasing the length of the T45 to 170m and her beam to 23.6m, shp of about 76,000 the T83 could be born.