HMS Duncan is back at sea after a major overhaul.
The Royal Navy say here that the Type 45 Destroyer left Portsmouth on Sunday for the first time since November 2019 and is now in the waters off the South Coast putting her revamped equipment and systems through a series of comprehensive trials.
“The destroyer spent six rigorous years deployed across the Mediterranean, Middle East and Black Sea before spending 30 months undergoing her upgrade at the hands of specialists from BAE Systems, the MOD’s Defence, Equipment and Support organisations and the Royal Navy at Portsmouth Naval Base.”
Commanding Officer, Commander Ben Martin, was quoted as saying:
“This is a significant event in the life of HMS Duncan as she continues her journey back to front line operations. This has only been possible due to the strong relationship between BAE Systems, DE&S, our industrial partners and the Royal Navy. I am immensely proud of the sailors of HMS Duncan and what they have achieved so far; it is a real honour to lead such a capable, enthusiastic and professional team.”
You can read more here.
Best of luck to her and the crew,any news on HMS Daring ?
Due back from re-fit next year I believe ….
Thanks mate
I’m guessing she will be worked hard for a few years before going in for PIP.
Any list of what she has had fitted/updated?
mostly getting the cooling for the engines sorted but some minor upgrades and maintenance too – sadly she hasn’t been up gunned
https://www.navylookout.com/upgrading-the-royal-navys-type-45-destroyers/
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-45-destroyers-reaching-their-full-potential-with-addition-of-sea-ceptor-missiles/
There is some detail in the linked article …
Reading between the lines
– engine cooling upgrades
– radar upgrades. I think this includes new computers and a software upgrade. This was announced previously but given Mad Vlad’s antics the less detail in the public domain the better.
Given that T31 is essentially the huitfeldt class, the RN really should adopt the stanflex system, if this class had them we could have just slotted in the Seaceptor or mk41 upgrade during the 30 months and got the systems done as well.
lots of lessons to be learned from T45, it’s not all bad as ultimately they are great ships, but we need to stop FFNW for all future classes and whilst the next lot of T45’s are in PIP they should get their Mk41 and Seaceptor load outs as well, which then turns this into a far more fearsome adversary.
The Mk41s aren’t part of Stanflex. There are deck-mounted launch systems, such as for Sea Sparrow and Harpoon, but no silos.
I think while not ideal, deck mounted is fine as things stand, if we were fitting Mk41 now as we should have been, then great but as time passes the cost and time out of service starts to out-way the benefits I fear, as there is no plan to do so when they are in PIP, unless there is a very swift change of mind. It’s vital however that they actually have deck mounted missiles rather than just carrying around the ironwork for them. That’s probably the best we can hope for now and they are primarily Air Defence vessels so get that right, but please let’s just get everything else right for future generations of ships though, or is that wishful thinking.
It’s alright Johnson committing forces abroad or coming to the defence of allies ( if one’s cynical) to heighten his own image far and wide, but it’s others who will be risking their lives with inadequate equipment and supplies. We barely have much else we can send to Ukraine as things stand despite the big words from on top and yet he talks about talking to defence manufacturers ‘in the coming months’. Would have expected that over the past month or so.
Are deck mounted munitions a good idea. Not in the case of the cruiser Moskva.
Moskva had massive deck mounted munitions all down both sides. Regardless of the warhead, just the propellant fuel was enough to do serious damage. Some nations spend a lot of money on making explosive warheads & the like, ‘safe’. Other’s not so much. It makes no difference, till you take a hit. It’s like seat belts in motor vehicles.
The question now is, how much of a particular type of weapon to put on each ship? The risk of taking a hit needs to be weighed with defending against every eventuality.
Explosives are safe until you forget that their dangerous, something the Russian navy doesn’t adhere too when they Design those all singing and dancing weapon heavy ships cram as much as possible at the expense of survivability if hit
I do not think it is because STANFLEX or not.
For example, Danish Iver Huitfeldt class, has just test fired the SM-2 missile for the first time ever, THIS MONTH. It is 11 years after their commissioning. Their Mk.41 VLS was there, but no missile was there. Everything FFBNW until now.
On STANFLEX, I think it was clearly unsuccessful. No other navy adopted it. I understand it didn’t pay.
On the other hand, replacing T23’s SeaWolf with CAMM was done easily in both UK and Chili by different company. RNZN two Anzac frigates replaced their 8-cell short Mk.41 VLS (for 8 SeaSparrow) with 20 CAMM.
As T45 has a space reserved for Mk.41 VLS, adding it must be (technically) easy. As CAMM is lightweight and easy-to-handle cold launch, adding them to T45 will be also easy. So, it is not the technology but the “will, money and man-power”.
Danish Navy lacked it until recently, so that SM-2 was only made available this month.
Stopping FFBNW for RN ships is not a bad idea. But, it shall come with LESS hull number, because those weapons systems are not cheap. Why not sell some (say, 2) T31, to gain money and man-power to up-arm T45, T26, and remaining (3) T31?
Just adding Ceptor to T45 adds a lot by being all A30 load out.
As you say adding Ceptor is quick easy and restively cheap and can be done incrementally without taking g the ship out of commission for ages.
Mk41 is harder as it involves more cutting and welding type operations. Mk41 is also a big heavy lump as opposed to the Ceptor soft launchers that are movable with a heavy duty forklift.
With my background I’ve never been keen on deck mount as I see it as a vulnerability. With the fate of the Russian ships I can see no reason to alter that view point.
Yes I think a priority should be removing the ASTER 15 missiles and quad packing Sea Ceptor. Later MK41 could be added and the Sea Ceptor moved to those cells. This way we can get the missiles in service earlier…
It is a waste to fit CAMM to a hot launch system like mk41 or Sylver. You would do better to use the 3 cell ExLS or MBDA’s new system. Cheaper & lighter. Use the mk41 for what it was designed for – hot launch ESSM & bigger. The only missile that comes close is CAMM-ER, which is slightly outranged by ESSM (but generally regarded as in the same class).
Why not sell the T31s? Because we’d make a loss and the money would disappear.
But that is what France is doing.
Selling FREMM from their own production line (and add their own later years). Selling FDI from their own production line (and add their own later years).
The same happens to Italian FREMM.
Why not only UK?
Surely there’s a difference between selling new, and selling secondhand.
And France needed to buy the Greek business.
Do you know whether the Royale were happy about it?
France (and Italy) sold their brand-new frigates to enforce their ship-building industry and international politics. They have their aim. We all know Italian and French ship-building industries (both design and building) are performing far better in export world than UKs. UK is now good at DESIGN export business, but build export is limited to a single missile boat planned for Ukraina. Build and design supports different workforces).
I’m just proposing to sell some T31, to realize my proposal; to improve weapon fitout of RN’s top-tier assets (T45 and T26), by getting resource by reducing T31 hull number.
Just one proposal.
Reducing the Hull number of Type 31 makes maintaining,sourcing spares and even training crew more costly.. small bespoke numbers multiplies problems.
By the time your upgrade proposals were purchased, the engineering and refit cycles sorted out the Type 45 would be close to its retirement date which will be mid to late 2030s anyway.
Meanwhile the 6 plus 8 top tier would be worked even harder to cover missions that the deleted Type 31 should be doing.
“Meanwhile the 6 plus 8 top tier would be worked even harder to cover missions that the deleted Type 31 should be doing.”
I am talking about up-arming T45 and T26, ADDING their capability, in place of losing 2 T31. It means, RN will lose the capability which were to be provided by the 2 T31s.
Reducing hull numbers puts up costs, we saw that with the T45 and the USN suffered it disastrously when they cut the number of Zumwalts which then made the price of each shell for their guns too expensive to buy.
Reducing hull number puts up “average” costs, on both build and maintenance, but reduced “total” cost of the program. This is what happened to T45.
By selling 2 T31, build cost does not change. By co-operating 3 plus 2 T31 with the navy they are exported, maintenance cost can be setteled. However, surely maintenance cost in RN will rise a little, I agree.
But, it will reduce the total cost and required man-power, which is very much needed to make T45 and T26 capable of confronting tier-1 threats.
This is the heart of my proposal.
And average cost is what killed the munitions for the Zumwalts guns after they reduced the number of hulls.
There would also be no buyers.
Any nation that could afford them would want them built in their country to develop their ship building skills.
That’s why we’ve seen sales of the T31 design to foreign nations, but not hulls.
I do understand your point.
But, this proposal is NOT to make RN weak, but to gain money and man-power to up-arm T45/T26. And anyway this is just an proposal.
If it doesn’t work, we need to find more money AND man-power to up-arm T45 and T26, because they lack some critical capability (like BMD defense) or significantly short of its radar capability (T26 only has Artisan 3D radar).
What’s makes you think these vessels are under-manned? The RN approach is to automate where possible to reducing manning requirements. Not only does it means less lives put in harms way but lower OPEX cost year on year.
Again don’t see you point. We should do something because other navies have done something? Maybe they thought that was all they needed to build. But the 5 T31s are meant to replace the 5 T23 GP frigates.
There’ll be dozens of T26s too if you count the Aussie and Canadian vessels, your point? If it’s to keep shipyards busy there’s plenty already for that, in fact they’re the bottleneck at the moment.
Probably because we’re not so inclined as the French and Italians to give bribes to foreign officials and politicians.
Given the upgrades we’ve signed up to for the Asters on the T45, it would be highly surprising if they don’t come with BMD be default.
Again, I am proposing this only to up-arm T45 and T26.
Why I think RN lack crew is,
Even so, now only 12 escorts are manned. Clearly RN lacks man-power.
And, even with such a shortfall of man-power = reduced man-power cost,
So RN lacks money, as well. That’s it. How to enable BMD, improve T26 radar, add punch on RN escorts? One solution is to accept reduced hull number. This is my sole point.
Ok so you mean the RN needs more manpower, not that the T45 and T26 need to carry more sailors.
• The RN isn’t funding an interim surface-to-surface as Radakin said it’s not a worthwhile spending of money given how long it would take to get them operational.
• There’s not going to be Sea Ceptor on the carriers due to the FOD risk, that’s why it was never planned.
• The decision has been made on Aster 30 upgrade on T45, but even with the money allocated, you can’t just make it happen by snapping your figures. As it is, it sounds like they are going for something better than B1NT
If you have the hulls, then can be up-armed over time, such as Sea Ceptor on the T45 or the FFBNW Type 41 VLS on the Type 31. We’ve also seen the RN do fast uparming when the urgent operational need has arisen. You don’t have these options without the hulls in the first place.
The RN needs more money, but cutting hull numbers isn’t the answer. Making more intelligent use of the hulls is better. So perhaps instead of dedicated mine-hunting, ocean-survey, etc, etc vessels we have T31/T32 frigates which then have the required capability added and removed as needed. Hence the investment in autonomous systems and the PODS concept.
Adding capability to T45 and T26, and (remaining) T31 do need man-power for sure. And, what is needed there is “skilled” man-power, not new comer. That is what RN is in short of now.
Up-arming escorts without additional crew is impossible. Adding BMD and CAMM and re-introducing ASM on T45, filling T26 Mk41 VLS, all needs good amount of skilled man-power, in addition to the money. At least 40-50, or even ~100, in total. Meanwhile, RN is already short of 72 crew to man HMS Echo.
“The RN isn’t funding an interim surface-to-surface as Radakin said it’s not a worthwhile spending of money given how long it would take to get them operational.”
I do not believe it. There are plenty of examples with shorter introduction time scale. Also there are plenty of historical example the brand-new FC/ASW will be delayed for a few years. Also, FC/ASW is clearly a high-end missile, and surely be deadly expensive. Like NSM vs LRASM in USN, there are almost no overlap between NSM and FC/ASW. In short, I-SSGW has a good place to live, but they just lack that money.
“No CAMM on CV for FOD”
Ask French navy. Also, SeaRAM does have FOD (clearly visible in its movie), but commonly used on USN CV and LHDs, Japanese DDH, and other carriers. It’s just a matter of how to locate the launcher, on which CAMM has a flexibility. Of course, CAMM on CV is the last layer of defense, among the “layered AAW defense”. Why bother FOD when hyper-sonic missile is reaching?
“…we have T31/T32 frigates which then have the required capability added and removed as needed. Hence the investment in autonomous systems and the PODS concept.”
No objection it is a promising way to go. But, the idea requires good amount of very-very skilled man-power, to cover many tasks. Doing all (uparming T45/T26 and T31/T32) is very difficult, I think.
What I am afraid is, after 5 T31 and 5 T32 come in, RN will be putting some of them into extended readiness, just because of lack of skilled man-power. This is actually what happened to, and still happening to RN, now.
Not necessarily, it’s all depends what’s added, the degree of automation, and if onboard skills are required can they be handled by existing crewmen with overloading their workload.
Echo currently doesn’t need a crew, but the RN needs people with their experience to work in planning her replacement, which is where they’ve been assigned to.
Great, let’s have even more crew on the carriers to do more FOD inspections because we have installed stuff that causes it. The best air defence of the carrier is its fighters, but you’d be reducing availability because we’d do more inspections.
There’s a reason why we have AAW destroyers with the carriers. I’m surprised you don’t want the carriers to have towed arrays and anti-submarine missiles, or anti-ship missiles either. Maybe it should do NGS support to, so add some 16” gun turrets too.
(And let’s not mention the concerns from the air-wing over the carrier’s air-defence missiles locking onto them by mistake.)
Uparming is only difficult in;
• knowing the optimal up-arming required because you can’t stick everything onboard and you don’t want to waste money with unnecessary duplication
• choosing the solution that can be delivered fully functioning and integrated with existing systems and ideally not add too much to the logistics chain
• money to fund
• crew if needed.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the whole of Britain is undermanned – well maybe not local government and civil service. Everywhere has problems recruiting the staff they need at the moment, it’s not just the RN or the Army that are under strength.
Thanks.
“Not necessarily, it’s all depends what’s added, the degree of automation, and if onboard skills are required can they be handled by existing crewmen with overloading their workload.”
How can a T45 be added with BMD without increased crew? BMD needs very wide-range situational awareness with good amount of network. It also needs dedicated consoles added in CIC, maintenance and logistic chains.
For example, we all know T23 crew has been increasing. It was said because of added capability (new sonar, new CMS, higher situational awareness, better communication network, etc). The same happens to many escorts world wide.
Are there any example added capability (not replacing it) without adding crew? I see none, sorry…
Just to interject a couple of observations here.
“And, what is needed there is “skilled” man-power, not new comer. That is what RN is in short of now.”
True. But that doesn’t mean those same skilled shortages will exist in 5, 10 or 15 years time. There is a time of implementation element here. The RN has seen major increase in recruitment in the last two years and that will lead to increased skilled crew in future, providing the RN works on retention as well.
“Also, FC/ASW is clearly a high-end missile, and surely be deadly expensive. Like NSM vs LRASM in USN, there are almost no overlap between NSM and FC/ASW.”
The FC/ASW program is currently two missiles. A sub-sonic, low observable, long range solution and a supersonic version. The sub-sonic version might be a spiral development out of Storm Shadow/Scalp and the recnt SPEAR Capability 4 introduction in January, which would explain the relatively aggressive 2028 IOC for ship launch and 2030 for Typhoon air launch.
It doesn’t make financial sense to have multiple different ASM missiles that drive increased costs to support both in service. Also to note that LRASM is not qualified for surface (canister or VLS) launch by the USN, or anyone else that I’ve seen.
Numbers matter. A ship can only be in one place at a time. It’s like the argument as to if it is to better to have 40 soldiers with 100 rounds each, or 20 soldiers with 200 rounds or 10 soldiers with 400 rounds. To add to the straight maths, the soldiers with only 100 rounds each are much less likely to blaze away on full auto, than the 10 with 400 rounds each. There is still a total of 4,000 rounds, but the potential outcomes are not the same.
Exactly, that’s why I don’t think hulls should be cut.
I think you should be directing your comment to Donald.
Uhmm, not sure what you mean. At least, your comment has not much to do with my proposal.
As a result, 17-ship fleet will provide 12 active well-equipped ships, while 19-ship fleet with 13 active many-FFBNW ships.
I’m just proposing the former is better.
We’re making progress 😉 You used to require us to give up all five T31, now we get to keep three. More seriously, what are you thinking of to put in the UK’s Mk41 and when?
The earliest we’ll be able to integrate and qualify anything for Mk41 will be in the first T26, with HMS Glasgow fully operational in 2026, if we can keep to the schedule. Adding Mk41 to T45 and getting it fully operational earlier than 2026 doesn’t seem practical, judging by the PIP and Sea Ceptor schedule for T45, even assuming Mk41 could match the Sea Ceptor installation timeline. This slow roll out seems to be dictated by the requirement to have enough T45 available for deployment in addition to regular maintenance.
Integrating a variant of FC/ASW in Mk41 for 2028 would seem like the first priority, which also probably means we wouldn’t need Tomahawk as an option, because the option with the 2028 availability seems like it might be a sub-sonic LO missile spiral developed out of Storm Shadow/SPEAR capability 4. Then what?
We don’t need ESSM or SM-2. So based on current missiles that leaves SM-6, SM-3 and ASROC. But ASROC is old and has an ineffective range along with an old non-RN standard torpedo. So for T45 we already have Sylver 50 cells and adding Sea Ceptor frees up all 48 cells for Aster 30 variants. The current upgrade in progress will get us Aster 30 Blk 1 to counter SRBM (600km range class). Aster 30 Blk 1 NT would seem the logical next step to counter medium range ballistic missiles?
If we do decide that we want SM-6 and/or SM-3, then it would seem to make more sense to install CEC on T45 and T26 and then use T45 to take control after T26 has launched the weapons. When T83 arrives we can then decide if we want to qualify Aster 30 variants for Mk41 or commit to whatever other Mk41 options exist at that time.
It would probably make the most sense to get 16 syler 70 cells instead of mark 41 to ensure commonality across the fleet. These could be split between 8 FC/ASW and 8 aster 30 block 2 BMD (hopefully as good as SM3) with the 48 sylver cells having a mix of aster 30 and aster 30 block 1nt (hopefully as good as sm6).
Although T26 frigates are due to get mark 41 cells, they won’t be for air defence and given not many sm3’s need to be carried anyways it doesn’t really make sense to have to add a new missile in small quantities.
integrating FC/ASW onto sylver also won’t be hard as that is exactly what the French want to do.
Hopefully in addition to the 16 strike length VLS, space (perhaps behind the phalanx) could be found to add 24 Sea Ceptor as well.
On the topic of anti submarine torpedoes for T26 they should at least be fitted with torpedo tubes firing sting ray with a range of 11km. However this should be a worst case scenario with the integration of ASROC. Currently there are three options.
Reading between the lines, I don’t think the RN wants to commit to either more Sylver cells or Mk41 for T45. In part that’s because of the relatively short life before the T45s start going out of service in the late 2030’s. Also the possibility that integration costs including software development will have to be repeated for T26 and T43, unless it can be heavily leveraged from T45.
It also seems like the RN wants to commit to Mk41 rather than Sylver for the future for a couple of reasons. The US is likely to develop and fund more advanced missiles earlier than MBDA will, SM-6 and SM-3 being two current examples. Thus more options for the UK. Also there is a much larger world market for advanced Mk41 missiles, including many European nations, so potentially increased WW sales may help manage, or even reduce costs, for the UK.
Regarding ASROC and other usage options for the lightweight torpedo. The OSD for Sting Ray kills any program to do anything more with them, it would be a waste of resources. Whether we go for a VLA option for the new lightweight torpedo probably depends on what it looks like in terms of size and mass.
What I mean by that is that improvements in explosives and changing doctrine may enable a smaller, lower mass, shorter range torpedo, say something the size of SeaSpider. The goal might be to deliver similar or greater explosive effect, but to do so from a launch point closer to the submarine using P8 with glide kits, Merlin, Wildcat or future unmanned fixed- and rotary wing assets or even with VLA, achieving greater range due to its lower mass. Any waist launched use would be more likely to be as an anti-torpedo torpedo, because lightweight torpedoes just don’t have the range from a ship to effectively threaten a submarine at its likely launch range for a heavyweight torpedo.
The Royal Navy recently said it intended to fit mark 41 to more future vessels as well as current ones, which I took to mean T31 and T45 given no other current ship can take mark 41 and I was proposing that strike length sylver is fitted instead. My issue with going American is the UK retains the ability to nationally build warships, missiles and aircraft, (Tempest is a UK run programme) and when you lose these capabilities, for example vehicles, you end up with programmes like Ajax as no government will want to fully commit to US equipment made in the US as it will look bad on them but once this capability is lost it is extremely hard to build back up. (F35 is different as we have special status).
The possible fitting of Mk41 was in the context of T31 –
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-looking-to-increase-lethality-of-type-31-frigates/
I am all for the UK investing in its own military equipment development, but it has to be done wisely, financially prudently and where we can add value and/or maintain a strategically and economically important capability such as Tempest.
For example, re-inventing SM-3 for our relatively small demand would be insane. Worth bearing in mind the UK has no content in Aster (Eurosams French/Italian project) or Sylver (French) either, although we are part of PAAMS with the Sampson radar and the command and control system.
Aster 30 block 2 BMD is being developed by the French anyway, and will share parts with aster 30 already in service.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-45-destroyers-may-be-fitted-with-mk4-vls/
The most important parts of this are:
“We are seeking to increase the number of ships fitted with Mk 41 launchers beyond the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory of maritime offensive capabilities.”
And,
“Work is ongoing to explore a range of options to meet the RN’s Future Offensive Surface
Weapon (FOSuW) requirement to replace Harpoon which goes out of service in 2023.
This includes the potential fitting of Mk 41 launchers beyond those already planned
for the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide
commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory
of maritime offensive capabilities.”
The RN considering Mk41 for T45 is prudent insurance in case FC/ASW doesn’t deliver and if they need something like SM-6 Blk 1B and Aster 30 block 2 BMD is not available or viable. Or because the US produces a new compelling weapon that the RN considers necessary.
Installing Mk41 means the RN either need to pull out the newly installed Sea Ceptor cells, or implement only on the T45’s that are later in the Sea Ceptor upgrade path.
But FC/ASW is being fitted for mark 41 anyway. Sea ceptor can be installed in other places.
FC/ASW is being designed for both Mk41 and Sylver. The question is whether it needs strike length 7m cells like Scalp or can it fit in the shorter 5m Sylver 50 cells on T45. There’s a good argument for FC/ASW to be a shorter weapon, so it can also fit more easily into weapons bays on Tempest/FCAS and thus be short enough with its booster to fit in Sylver 50.
“Worth bearing in mind the UK has no content in Aster (Eurosams French/Italian project) “
That is a very bold statement!!
If you look carefully you might find that a few UK projects were folded into this!
“Bold” – Perhaps but Aster was test flying before the UK joined Eurosams in 1996, so is there any UK hardware or IP in Aster? I haven’t found anything suggesting it.
We get some involvement with the Blk 1 update but I’m not seeing any mention of anything significant. Happy to change my opinion if you have any sources that suggest otherwise?
Just to be clear, I’d like to see Europe with a strong missile/weapons capability, independent of the US. Not least because Europe is often demonstrating more innovation and game changing capability. I think MBDA should have put effort into qualifying Aster for Mk41.
“ I think MBDA should have put effort into qualifying Aster for Mk41.”
French + Collaboration = ……
“French + Collaboration = ……” I was thinking less about doing it because the UK might want it and more because it would open up wider exports for Aster … but that would mean less reason for Sylver so …
Agree that it’s important to retain sovereign industrial base, qualifying things like FC/ASW for Mk41 (and especially if also with TACTICOS as mooted on T31) opens up a much larger international market for the missile which supports UK industry and potentially reduces unit costs for RN due to larger production volume. Then there is also the possibility to do the same with a VL SPEAR3, CAMM and maybe others.
The late 30s OSD for the T45s is still a good 10-15 years away which is pretty substantial. The slots for the MK41s are already there. TLAMs v5, LSRAM, upgraded UK Asroc with the newer light weight torpedos would be very useful. The could also put a ExLS with 24 Camm in one of the slots as shown on one of the BMT Venator vessel concepts. Or as said before try for side silos for CAMM. Time, money is short and resources should be sensibly maximised. As everyone here is suggesting, there’s a great opportunity to give these T45s more than just 24 CAMM which can all be recycled onto future T31/32/83 ships. Let’s hope for the best for T45 v2.0.
You’re correct of course that OSD for T45 is 10-15 years away from today, but how far away will it be from when Mk41 is installed and we have the first missile integrated and qualified? That’s why I referenced the timelines for PiP and Sea Ceptor integration in my original response to Donald, because Mk41 integration on T45 wouldn’t be any faster and might well be slower, resulting in poor ROI for its short life.
Your selection of Tomahawk, LRASM and upgraded ASROC are popular so let’s consider them.
Tomahawk has been upgraded but is not a low observable platform so effective use against modern warships/sensor systems may be more challenging. The US will continue to use it with the latest Block V 15-year life extension because they have thousands in inventory so the upgrades make sense for them. Probably not much beyond that, at least for ASuW, because they plan late decade introduction of the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 missile. Tomahawk doesn’t make sense for the UK as a new ASuW missile adoption for the surface fleet. Especially because we will probably be able to qualify FC/ASW in a very similar time-frame. Whether Tomahawk makes sense for long range land attack may be more debatable, but it is not an urgent critical capability requirement.
LRASM hasn’t been qualified by any navy for surface ship launch from canister or VLS. Makes no sense for the UK to pay for integration into MK41. And again it wouldn’t be available in Mk41 much earlier than FC/ASW.
Why would using ASROC with the current ranges be useful when heavyweight torpedoes from the world’s navies vastly out-range it? If we cannot get VLA ranges out closer to those of a heavyweight torpedo then its value as a weapons system is questionable. BTW, a common assumption is that ASROC can launch when a helicopter may not due to weather, but ASROC is limited to Sea State 6 or lower.
Using Mk41 for CAMM is possible but not financially sensible option given the much lower cost of cold launch cells.
My main observation is that T45 doesn’t have to be all things to everyone. Its likely to spend much of the rest of its life as a focused AAW platform escorting the UK carriers, escorting UK amphibious groups or escorting allied HVTs. Don’t underestimate the value of adding the 24 CAMM to enable 48 Aster 30 cells, which is a massive increase in capability. Especially if some of those cells are Aster 30 B1 NT.
On T45 OSD. I agree the first T45 OSD will be around 2038 or so, BECAUSE the British high-end warship building line needs a ship to build after the last T26.
But, as the OSD of the first T26 will be somewhere around 2050-55, the LAST T45 OSD must be around 2050. If not, British high-end warship building line has no ship to build then.
Building 6 T83 commissioning in 12 years, will be a reasonable solution. This means, at least 3 or 4 T45 needs good modernization.
If all T45 to be disbanded by 2040-45, UK will lose its high-end warship building line. Note we are talking about a future with tight resource (as now RN is facing). Optimistic thinking is good, but relying on such idea is very dangerous. This is what happened to SSN.
Yes, indeed.
First OSD is is 2038 OR SO and that could easily be extended with the relatively light hull duties that T45 have experienced.
So I do agree that it is worth upgrading T45 but mainly because the threat environment dial has shifted rather a lot since the start of this year. And we have a crazy guy who started a rather large and messy war for no very obvious or predictable reason. And the crazy guy, and his ilk, only understand force and threat to contain them.
Ref “But, as the OSD of the first T26 will be somewhere around 2050-55, the LAST T45 OSD must be around 2050.”
There’s a lot of assumptions there.
First: 6x T45 + 8x T26 decisions were taken due to cost of the respective platforms; also in very different political climates, especially for T45. So T83 might reasonably be a run of 8x given the increased roles for the RN.
The argument can also be made that the RN needs more high end ASW assets that might be started after T83 production finishes, either with more T26 or an updated replacement.
All meaning that we don’t have to run HMS Duncan, the youngest T45, for 40 years since launch, or 37 years from commission date for an OSD of 2050. Arguably the latest OSD should be at most 2045 and probably earlier.
Second: The cost and BAES as the sole high end warship option. I know you favour a single national champion for naval shipbuilding, i.e. BAES, but that is what contributed to the high cost of the platforms due to lack of competition.
BAES have made it clear in the T31 competition that they have no interest in lower end/lower cost warships for the UK, or for anyone else either it seems. They also have no interest in commercial shipbuilding. Those are both problems because it requires MoD to entirely fund BAES shipbuilding.
The alternative is that BAES just focus on the naval architecture role, as they are doing in Australia and Canada, while someone else like Babcock can do the build. The Govt. are very clear that they aren’t going to guarantee shipbuilding work to anyone.
Thanks.
On the first point:
“On 1st-tier AAW plus ASW escorts number”: Firstly, I think you are optimistic. Secondly if we are lucky to get “8 T83 and 8 or more T26”, THAT EXACTLY means T45 service life must be extended. The same to my proposed “realistic” (pessimistic?) case.
It means, 1st and 2nt T83 must come as addition, not replacement for T45, and 1st T45 must go along with 3rd T83 coming in. This is what the “increasing AAW escort” must mean. As such, in both optimistic and pessimistic case, RN need life extension of T45. The same applies when RN orders additional T26. This is what I mean, and I hope we can agree here…
An increase from 6 T45 to 8 T83 could happen like you describe, which as a benefit would increase active numbers earlier, but it doesn’t have to, and it wasn’t how I envisaged it.
I was considering that production would start with a 1-for-1 replacement in 2038, and that the extra two T83 would be added at the end of the production run.
Which plan is executed would then depend on whether we want the uplift in numbers in the late 2030’s (your schedule) or a bit later in the mid 2040’s (my schedule).
Thanks.
Actually, T45 to T83 transition must come along with. Any sudden uplift on hull number will simply result in “escorts in extended readiness” = total waste of money.
So, the logical way to go is neither “uplift in numbers in the late 2030’s (your schedule)” nor “a bit later in the mid 2040’s (my schedule)”, but “gradually”. Say, replacing 3 T45 with 4 T83-batch-1 and another 3 T45 with 4 T83-batch-2.
(Although I strongly think, at best, it will be 6 for 6, seeing the history, and many “gaps” existing in RN and other sevices)
Anyway, I think the last T45 will highly possible to be there for until 2050s.
By the way, why do you want to early disband T45s? For what purpose? They spend relatively short sea-going days, and build to modern naval standard, so they can go as long as 35-plus years, for sure.
“So, the logical way to go …” Agreed, the increase would be more like you describe, I was just book ending the two options. I’d also agree that 6-for-6 is probably more likely.
The reason why we may increase T83 numbers is likely to be driven by how we perceive the high end threat in the 2040’s and beyond from hypersonics, compared to the number of simultaneous escort roles we believe we need to serve.
For example if we were to surge both carriers and also have an independent amphibious/sea lift operation, then we could only hope to escort two of those with 6 T83. But we do have allies, so that extreme example may not be considered an issue.
Ref T45 lifetimes. Daring was commissioned in 2009, it will be 29 years old by 2038. Duncan, the last of the T45s was commissioned in 2013, it will be 30 years old by 2043. Longer operating lives undermines the intent of the National Shipbuilding Strategy and becomes a false economy. Its not that they would necessarily be worn out, although it seems likely they will be used much harder from today on, than they were in their first decade of life. They may in any event be sold on to less advanced navies if they do still have life.
I’d suggest four reasons why we may not want to push the T45s to a longer life beyond the NSS justification.
The PiP turns the T45 into diesel powered ships using the gas turbine for high speed only. Its a fix but I doubt its optimal or efficient. There’s also a lingering question over why the electrical power management in the T45 failed in the way it did. Perhaps that’s also now fixed.
The second issue is noise. The T45s have been reliably stated to be noisy ships, that is clearly not desirable in a world of proliferating AIP subs, not to mention additional future XLUUV, especially when escorting HVTs.
The T83 designation suggests a ship with a greater ASW capability, i.e. more of a high end multirole ship than an AAW focused one. So a more quiet hull and a greater organic ASW capability, so that it can provide a layered ASW defence to counter a sub getting past T26 screening in a CSG or other escort role.
The T83 would also be likely to have a significant increase in electrical power generation, including for radar and energy weapon defence in addition to a modern IEP implementation.
On the second point, just for discussion :
“The cost and BAES as the sole high end warship option.” No objection BAES tends to be in high cost. But, there is no evidence Babcock will continue to be cheap. BAE is expensive for a reason; they pay more to their labors/engineers, and they do complicated works.
See Cammel Laird. With RV S.D.A. built, they are the most experienced shipbuilder (only second to BAES) in UK now. It was cheap, but actually they almost failed, and made a large deficit, almost causing bankrupt. See what happened to T45 PIP. There is a lack of skilled engineers, and BAES are finally forced to move some of the T45 PIP work to Portsmouth. In short, Cammel Laird is cheap and as such they lack skilled engineers.
Fingers crossed for Babcock.
And, if RN are to buy mostly Babcock escorts, not BAES, I think BAES will be just sold and cease. Keeping two escort builders is never an easy task for a navy with RN size. This is the heart of “competition”. In fare competition, losers do not just keep losing, they just disappear in due course.
BAES focusing on naval architecture role looks fine, but it is the detailed design which is important, on which most of the IP-work resides. Concept design can be done by BMT, for example, but this is cheap. Losing experience on actually ship building will directly mean losing detailed-design capability within a decade. It will just result on “single escort builder in UK”, and as “competition lovers” states, the builder tend to be high-cost. In short, in this case Babcock will simply replace BAES.
Just one idea, but I think this is logical thinking…
“BAE is expensive for a reason; they pay more to their labors/engineers, and they do complicated works.” I doubt that. For any given skill level they probably pay about the same, as they are only about 60 km apart and linked by motorways. Also remember it was BAES who were caught gluing on bolt heads.
BAES, CL and Babcock may all be challenged in recruiting experienced personnel, but somehow the UK managed to build two carriers, with modules from builders around the UK, so it is a solvable problem. The goal of the National Shipbuilding Strategy is to build a much more robust engineering capability in ship building, so its a recognised need. In any event I agree that Babcock must prove their capability with T31.
If BAES stopped building new ships then Clyde would probably close for that role, but that wouldn’t stop BAES from doing design there. Clearly BAES will be likely to make significant earnings from the Australian and Canadian projects, otherwise they wouldn’t have pursued and won the the projects. Worth noting that BAES won all three T26 contracts, with the only recent experience being the OPVs and modules for the carriers. And of course BAES has all the submarine business, so they wouldn’t go away as a boat building company either.
So the TL;DR is our usual stand-off on whether the UK can support two escort builders or not. I guess we’ll have to see. I enjoy the discussion though.
“For any given skill level they probably pay about the same, as they are only about 60 km apart and linked by motorways.”
No objection. I’m just saying Babcock work force must have lower “ratio” of highly skilled engineer. This is because, T31 is significantly simpler than T26, which requires less number of complex works.
Yes BAES stated in the T31 competition that they have no interest in lower end/lower cost warships for the UK. (This is why CL stood up with Leander design, with BAES as a design provider). At the same time, Babcock CEO said, he would be surprised if this ship cannot be built within £250M average cost.
And, he simply completely failed.
T31 program cost is £2Bn, not £1.25B. Yes, there is a contract with Babcock costing £1.25B and they continue to tout “£250M apop”. But, when Babcock CEO stated as such, the “£1.25B for T31” included everything, from design, build, training, 1st-year support, and GFX. We know actual “£1.25B for T31” does not include many of them, and HMG is paying another £750M for the program.
In some sense, the BAES guy’s comment was correct.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not a BAES supporter. I am just ALSO NOT a Babcock supporter. I’m just saying, there is a reason the 5 T31 is £2B and the first 3 T26 is £3.6B. That’s it.
It probably depends on how one reads the Babcock CEO statement that “£1.25B for T31 included everything, from design, build, training, 1st-year support, and GFX.”
I haven’t looked at this in detail, but isn’t the £750M for the GFX? Babcock wouldn’t include that in the £1.25B because those costs don’t pass through Babcock. He’s simply stating that the base ship spec and build for 5 T31 costs £1.25B, plus whatever the GFX cost is.
Thanks. Not specific.
Just I remember, the both comments were almost simultaneous, and in the early stage of T31e (not T31) program, that:
Yes, it was in the days the name of the project was “T31e”, and main aim was for building export.
Many have changed since then.
Later in the competition, both Cammel Laird (then the Leander-program lead) and Babcock (and maybe also Atlas-UK) insisted that the program cost will never be as low as £1.25B, and they negotiated with MOD to “exclude” GFX from their cost.
Yes, we can tune how to “read” Babcock CEO’s comment. But, in that case, we can also tune BAES’s claim, which could have meant that “GFX cannot be included in the £1.25B”, which actually happened later on the program.
I’m not saying BAE is right. Just saying Babcock was wrong at the time. Let’s be fair.
I recall the BAES comment. I can’t recall Babcock’s so I won’t argue the point any further.
It certainly seems that most customers want to build their own warships, although it would be interesting to know what persuaded Greece to give up their intent to do that, since it seemed to be a key requirement.
In any event, the NSS may need to focus on the design export business for new ships and the sale of RN vessels relatively early in their life, as the way to help generate a regular level of demand and continue to drive innovation in new UK ship design. It does underline the necessity for UK shipyards to diversify into commercial business though, which is why the BAES position is a problem, because I can’t see them ever doing that.
Ironically, of the two companies, BAES may have the better opportunity for an export sale, with T26 to Norway in the late 2030’s/early 2040’s. Although NZ might be a market for T31 sometime in the 2030’s, I can’t see them going for either T26 or Hunter-class.
Good afternoon GHF, firstly, thanks for your excellent reply. It was a good read. I’m just a bystander down here in 🇦🇺 and have no real experience in any of these matters but I do get a bit passionate (for some reason…lol) about what I see as under arming and under utilisation of sea platforms. I’ll try and answer in an as orderly manner as you too.
The 10-15 years may even end up being longer if T83 gets delayed. Five years implementatiom, 10 years service, give or take, that’s still a very long period of time remaining in service. The Italians and US already seem to have equivalent DDX/DGX designs already finalised – why aren’t we partnering with them on the T83 if we are sharing some/ same weapons/concepts/capabilities/platforms?
For a £/$1Billion warship, any real additional secondary sea/land/sub strike ability would make these six only ships even more potent. Look at the Aegis type vessels of the USN, Japan and South Korea and the latest Chinese ships – they’re loaded to the max and only seem to get bigger.
With the TLAM, the USN, and I think the RAN here soon (and maybe the Canadian navy too) seem to still have good confidence in its ability and latest iterations. It has good range, hitting power, not overly expensive and could be able to be made more stealthier electronically(?).
Mk41s are coming in with the T26s (and how long are they truly going to take to get in the water, armed up and operational?) so whatever goes in the T26s can potentially go into the T45s and v/v plus with the T31/32s for good utilisation.
Not saying we need to turn the T45s into a dedicated ASW platform but an updated Asroc type missile with the newer FLWT might be good if the ship comes under a multi sub attack and or the helo is engaged else where. Even just with x4 in the x8 silos. The balance can be for other missiles.
Mk41 will allow for US designed weapons which if the FC/ ASW falls behind (do we have any real idea of when it’s due into service and how much?) we may well have to fall back on. And in the present climate I think the TLAM on ships would be very complementary to the Astutes and be a force multiplier and should be able to be implemented in a short time frame. If we don’t want to fire a TLAM at everything then LRASM/NSM/others may need to be considered, some being cannister only.
I’m not sure if MK41 SM 3/6 will ever be purchased for the RN T26/83s but I think the RAN T26s will have some shared SAM ability and NSM/TLAM with the Hobart AAW Destroyers, that’s a combined fleet of 12 ships, which is pretty potent. And the Canadians getting 15 T26s, all with the same multi purpose capability. You’d think with the two carriers we’d need at least 8 AAW right now and what with PIP going on that will make us dependent on allied support for any further CSGs. If we can’t magically make another 2 T45s v 2.0 and we don’t know what the T32 will look like so I’d like to see maybe 4 Polish Arrowhead type 140s in the RN, as a second tier T45 role and complementary to the T23s. We have the shipyards to build this, I’d think in a pretty short time frame, some shared supply lines, inventory and can utilise CAMM/maybe CAMM-ER (if that ever enters with RA/ GBAD) and any other cannister/VLS missiles.
Hope I haven’t carried on too much here as I’m absolutely no expert and there’s always more to say. I’m enjoying reading everyone’s posts here. All good stuff.
We’ll have leave all the final choices to the powers that be. Hope the choice, cost, quantity and their timing is spot on!
Afternoon Quentin, an interesting post, just some observations in response really.
T45 are Air dominance ships designed to protect the fleet from air/missile attacks, hence the weapon fit. Comparing them with a US AB is a bit like comparing apples/oranges, as AB are designed as multi mission vessels, hence their weapon fit.
Another big difference between the two is crew size, ABs whilst broadly similar in size, have a 30% larger crew, for that difference in roles. Hence much more expensive to run.
IMO T45 doesn’t need Mk41 silos. We have nothing currently to go it. It will most likely get Aster30 Blk1 NT in due course, not as good as SM6 granted, but that’s a v expensive bit of kit. Going to something like SM6 would mean T45 having CEC fitted adding even more expense.
Fitting Asroc is a non starter on T45, as any ASW system needs queuing info from somewhere to launch an attack. T45 sonar is not a dedicated ASW system, but derived from a mine detection system rehashed to give it a ASW capability!!!! So basically pants.
I believe that the system is currently dormant as we are short of dedicated operators, having put them on our ASW T23’s.
Whilst they can carry a Merlin, they normally go with a Wildcat Lynx as it’s helo, they don’t have a ASW capability.
Turning a T45 into a multi mission unit like a AB, would be too expensive and counter productive given its OSD, we would probably be better off building a 3rd batch of T26 frigates optimised for multi mission roles with a vastly different CSM and radar fit. It would need more crew, a bit like the RAN/RCN versions and cost more then our current T26 frigates cost. Whilst it is doable, not sure where either the money or the extra crew would come from?
I think the ItalianUS next gen DDX type ships are something we should be seriously considering for our T83 requirement. If we got involved now, it should be a seemless transition to start building them once we have completed building our T26 frigates.
Rgds.
Good evening Deep, thank you for your reply. It’s always good to hear experience and balance come through yours and other posts here. I appreciate what you are all saying about not turning the T45s into an AB type vessel and upgrades with CAMM/ Aster, radar etc is all great but I and others here are saying that this can be made even better and be a force multiplier with the T23s/Astutes while we wait for the T26/31/32/83s to arrive. Mk41s across all these ships, except the 23s, would be an awesome spread of capability upgrade for the RN and something I think the RN needs sooner than later. The RAN here is accelerating its adoption of NSM (and I think TLAM) onto its Hobart/Anzac ships to be done within 2 years from now.
The 24 CAMM over already existing two MK41 slots I think is an insane waste of opportunity. To think how relatively quickly all this can be brought into service, probably same time frame with the first T26s and with potentially the same fit out of Mk41/missiles. I think you could easily put the CAMMs down the side, maybe even 3×6/8 each side giving you a 36-48 fit out. Plus 48 Aster. That’s really potent.
Sounds like your saying that the sonar on the T45 also needs to be upgraded or at least additional personnel hired. These ships need to watch the surface and especially sub surface and to engage with other vessels and or subs. What do they do it with? If there’s no sub around then it’s just Martlet and torpedos at the moment. I think a couple of 4 or 6 packed NSMs might be useful in the interim. These can be transferred to other vessels if need be. The Canadian/ Australian T26s will have both a NSM/TLAM mix. And to complement the T45 sonar, there’s no dipping sonar in the Wildcats which surely would be a great help with ASW? I wonder why this capability hasn’t been upgraded? Or even a ASW/UAV added to the T45s like the T23s are getting?
It’s a wish list and it all needs lots of money, resources, and more people.
Back to my couch.
Evening Quentin, always glad to add to any discussions, especially if they prove useful.
Mk41 discussion is always interesting, as it provides just as many alternatives as it potentially solves. I just don’t think it will be fitted on T45 rightly or wrongly. 1SL recently quashed the I-SSGW requirement (possibly NSM) on effectively cost grounds. Personally I think manning requirements might have also played a big part. Despite increased recruitment, we are still short of numbers, particularly in experienced crew. Only time can fix that issue.
I agree we need a effective heavyweight ASM, but firmly believe it should go to our fast air (F35) first, along with our P-8 fleet. Which, due to the issues with the F35 program won’t happen until 2027/28 at the earliest. Although as I understand things, we should have access to a shared pool of weapons for the P-8s??
I think that whatever comes out of the T83 program will be much more of a multi mission unit with a heavy slant to AAW, a bigger version of what both the RAN/RCN are developing. Not sure how many we will get. 6’8 probably on the cards though.
Rgds.
Hi Quentin. Deep32 has provided a good response to many of your thoughts, so I think it would be redundant for me to repeat his points. I will just opine on some of the longer term stuff.
As I responded to Donald, the decisions for 6x T45 + 8x T26 were taken under very different world political considerations, along with high platform costs. I could see 8x T83 as not unreasonable given the RN’s increasing commitments and the need for high end AAW escorts to counter the hypersonic threats. I could also see that production followed by an increase in high end ASW assets. So a follow on run of updated T26 or a new ASW platform would probably drive >8x numbers. This might all drive the last T45 OSD to the early 2040’s
An alternative to more T26 class might be T32 as a light frigate but with greater ASW capability. Something like the Italian PPA class or the French FDI class.
As to partnering with the US or Italy. AFAIK neither actually has a finalised design for a T83 class vessel. The US would have the numbers, but I’m not convinced they have the design expertise (including for efficient manufacture) for a new clean sheet design, given the issues in their naval shipbuilding programs. So it would depend on how much they want to dominate the design and equipment fit and whether that compromises UK preferences. The Italian’s have the design and manufacturing expertise but won’t have the numbers and again there may be issues on equipment choices.
Hi GHF, thanks also for your reply. I can see your getting similar threads from others too so I’ll keep it brief. I think it’s very pressing that RN capability could and should be increased now, or sooner than later and as fully as possible as well as what’s coming down the pipeline with the T26/31/32/83s. Not even sure if anything is on paper yet for the last two? Maximise the fleets potential across all its fighting ships, especially with upgrades with CAMM, Mk41s, UAVs and 57/40mm is just prudent common sense. I’m sure this is being or planned to be done so I’ll let the experts get on with it.
I should say… I’m hope some of this is being planned to be done…
Hi Quentin, no problem.
Ref “it’s very pressing that RN capability could and should be increased now”. The gating issue is having skilled and experienced manpower. The RN has been successful in recruiting the last couple of years but those personnel need training and experience.
Some of the manpower issues will be addressed by reducing River OPV numbers as T31s become available. It will also be addressed by the reduced manning requirements of T26 and especially T31, versus T23. But the RN has been operating at a manpower deficit with T45 and T23 tied up alongside in extended readiness, along with an Albion class vessel, even as additional T23 have been in lifex.
Ref T32/83 status, from a recent MoD statement, the “…concept and assessment phases for the Type 32 frigate and Future Air Defence System (T83) have commenced, or are about to commence, and this too will examine the benefits of a common launcher (Mk41)”
“Reading between the lines, I don’t think the RN wants to commit to either more Sylver cells or Mk41 for T45. In part that’s because of the relatively short life before the T45s start going out of service in the late 2030’s”
That is nearly 20 years!
That is like Cameron saying that it was impossible to forsee a use for an aircraft carrier for the next 10 years!!
What is the fence sitting really about?
I think it is really about how the T45 is modified for anti ballistic and that those 16 slots may well be needed for the longer full length Aster. Or is some or al of the exiting 48 cell silo lengthened?
“That is nearly 20 years!” Well 2038 for first OSD is ~15 years from today. It might be only 5-8 years from when we implement Mk41 in T45 and then integrate and qualify the new weapons for IOC.
The argument is then about when is the last OSD for T45. Donald estimates 2050, I think it could be early 2040’s. Not least perhaps because I suspect the RN would like a much more quiet AAW platform to escort the carriers, given the proliferation of modern nuclear and AIP subs around the world.
I think the RN is only entertaining Mk41 for T45 as insurance if FC/ASW dies, or suffers major delays. And/or because they need more than Aster 30 Blk 1NT, Aster 30 Blk 2 isn’t an option (either delayed or needing Syler 70 cells) and they need SM-6 Blk 1B.
“It would probably make the most sense to get 16 syler 70 cells instead of mark 41 to ensure commonality across the fleet.”
It is very unlikely that Sylver cells will be fitted to anything else.
Mk41 can take most weapons but Sylver cannot without loads of expensive R&D and testing work.
Almost all new weapons are developed to work with Mk41 by default. Typically the french decided that a different standard was needed when the Aster family missiles could perfectly well have been fitted into strike length Mk41.
It is RN, not me, talking about adding Mk41 VLS to T45 and T31. But we can guess what is foreseen.
FC/ASW will be there, but I can see its delivery delay from 2028. New missile never came without delay.
An option which might come in is, SM6 Blk1B. It’s European counterpart is Aster 30 blk2, not blk1 NT. Aster 30 blk2 is still a concept, while SM6 blk1B is very near to come.
SM6 blk1B can used for hyper-sonic anti-surface attack, as used by US Marine (Aster1 NT cannot), while also capable of defense against incoming hyper-sonic anti-ship missile (on which Aster1 NT also can). SM-6 blk1B can be used to shoot down AEW/Patrol-aircraft loitering 400 km afar (Aster1 NT cannot). Not much overlap there.
But, as you said, no info is placed from RN yet.
“If we do decide that we want SM-6 and/or SM-3, then it would seem to make more sense to install CEC on T45 and T26 and then use T45 to take control after T26 has launched the weapons.”
Why? T45 can handle Mk.41 VLS, it is FFBNW. We need the T45’s CMS to be integrated with SM6 blk1B. T26 and T45 are using similar CMS (of BAE). If T26 be integrated with SM6, T45 (with Mk.41 VLS) can be so.
“When T83 arrives we can then decide if we want to qualify Aster 30 variants for Mk41 or commit to whatever other Mk41 options exist at that time.”
“Aster 30 variants” you mean Aster 30 blk2? Will it really be fielded soon?
“Why?” Perhaps I should not have said “T45 to take control” because actually that is unnecessary. CEC should be capable of providing the complete raw or processed radar picture to T26, meaning T45 wouldn’t even need to take control of SM6 blk1B for any updates to the missile in flight.
“… you mean Aster 30 blk2? Will it really be fielded soon?” No, I was simply referring to carrying over Aster 30 Blk 1 and Blk 1NT, assuming we commit to the latter upgrade. If Aster 30 Blk 2 becomes viable then its a case of how it compares to US options as to whether it makes sense for the UK.
Hmmm. Will T26 have the analysis power needed to analyze ballistic missiles/hyper-sonic missiles coming in in short time? T45 does, that’s why I think adding the capability to T45 is reasonable.
“T45 plus T26 with CEC” option is doable, but not sure if it is the right answer.
On Aster 30 Blk 2, it is the Aster family comparable to SM6 Blk1B. SM6 Blk1B is there, Aster 30 Blk 2 is years away. If now, I think SM6 Blk1B will be a good option. If on 2030s, then it may differ.
I agree on the SM-6 vs. Aster Blk 2 analysis, which is one reason why I have argued that T26 and subsequent designs switching to Mk41 is the right decision versus sticking with Sylver.
Having much more capable escorts like T26 and perhaps even T31 and T32 if both are fitted with Mk41, is why I believe it now makes sense to have CEC for the RN. I suspect the reason the French are pursuing CEC is because they don’t have enough high end escorts with high missile loadouts, so they will be dependent on networking numbers of smaller assets to efficiently manage their fleet missile defence.
The RN has come up with its own container system based system but based on the TEU ISO commercial container size rather than the Dane’s proprietary Stanex.
https://www.navylookout.com/thinking-inside-the-box-the-royal-navys-containerised-capability-concept/
I would take Mk41 over stanflex any day of the week.
Am I right in thinking that three Type 45s are out for PIP at the moment, Dauntless and Daring in Birkenhead and Dragon in Portsmouth?
I can’t find a date for Dauntless to start trials other than “later this year”. Anyone have anything more specific?
Dauntless is currently powered up (very good news) with her crew onboard and continuing to be being put through static testing at Cammel Laird. Latest rumours are that she is leaving the dock later this month for initial sea trials (all TBC but fingers crossed) . Remember also that she was put through refit prior to the PEP work but obviously this is the big trial of the PEP so some level of addtional remedial/refinement work is to be expected that will then feed back into the work on Daring, Dragon and the rest of the T45’s so expect these ships to go through the process faster: A glass half full approach to this is the fact that Dragon is going through PEP in Portsmouth suggests that the process is now understood much better, BAE is trusted to do this at the same time as Cammel Laird and the RN now just wants to get on with it.
Dauntless (Crew and Ship) will need to be worked up and put through FOST to regenerate to full capability which will take up a big chunk of this year.
Very good news that she is now doing her full static tests.
Provided the lessons learned from #1 are properly implemented on #2-#6 then things will speed up and go more smoothly.
As you rightly say she was given a full makeover prior to PiP.
BTW there was a lot of political pressure to get the T45 through PiP so the level of availability could go up. Bizarrely that was Treasury driven as Treasury wanted to see better availability before funding more ships.
But at least fixing what you have does make very good sense!
I presume that the test will likely involve a tour to warmer climates? Just to see how the engine degrades in warm water with all the other changes, and then how the new units cope
Hope BOST and COST go well get it right first time , don’t be Duncan Disorderly
The Chuckle bros called they want their joke back ! 😁😁
Could resist Dave, it was either that or Donut far too American
😂😂
Years on since she first put to sea with huge amounts of money spent on her over priced and still under equipped someone or some company should stand accountable for the way this program has turned out
On the plus side we have 6 hulls. Both the French and Italians only procured 2 Horizon Class class ships each.
Sadly the engine issues have impacted on avialability for T45, but the reduced time at sea might mean a longer in service time – provided the hulls were looked after whilst tied up…
We went for an increased number of hulls, since then the budget has been hacked back especially in 2010 SDR… So capability has not been maintained or developed further. HMS Duncan’s long refit and the recent annoucement of Ceptor being fitted represent the turning of the tide – I hope.
The linked too article says the spherical radar (SAMSON) was ‘reburbished’ but gives no details. The IFF system has also been upgraded. I am kind of hoping that some ‘upgrades’ were included in the reburbshipment e.g. new processors and software. Whatever, has happened to Duncan’s radar there have been ‘discussions’ and ‘mentions’ of future upgrades by senior RN people…
All very vague, but whilst we would like to know more about the state of our armed forces kit, we don’t need to give too much away especially in the current situation.
Cheers CR
What is the point of an AAW Destroyer if it is only armed with, arguably, the best AAW missiles and radar in the world.
👍
Yes, that is rather the point.
Adding Ceptor will make it even better.
But it was designed for Mk41 VLS…..z
Was it designed for MK41 to be a GP Destroyer capable of land attack, ship attack, submarine attack or was it designed for MK41 silos in case it needed MK41 silos for a better or bigger generation of AAW missile to fulfil its primary role as AAW Destroyer ?
If the Ukrainians ( and Argentinians ) can rig up anti ship missiles on land based trucks in a short period of time and score hits with older, dumber, anti ship missiles , what makes us think the RN could not rig up some method of quickly adding modern anti-ship missiles to any old ship. Park one of those Anti-ship missile vehicles we are allegedly knocking up for Ukraine on the bow of an Aircraft Carrier.
Or stick a few GMLRS trucks on the deck of a Bay or Albion if you want to provide naval gunfire support to an Amphibious landing. I get that the older MLRS would have needed to allow for the roll of the ships deck, but surely with GMLRS , you program in a coordinate and fire in the general direction.
“ Was it designed for MK41 to be a GP Destroyer capable of land attack, ship attack, submarine attack or was it designed for MK41 silos in case it needed MK41 silos for a better or bigger generation of AAW missile to fulfil its primary role as AAW Destroyer ?”
The Mk41 was never intended for AAW roles as the silo size isn’t that big.
If that was the case the A silos would have been replaced.
“ Park one of those Anti-ship missile vehicles we are allegedly knocking up for Ukraine on the bow of an Aircraft Carrier.”
Yes you could do that in practical terms.
The issue is safety and testing for the duty holder.
There are really good reasons why. Carrier + missiles = nightmare. FOD being just one of them.
“ Or stick a few GMLRS trucks on the deck of a Bay or Albion if you want to provide naval gunfire support to an Amphibious landing. I get that the older MLRS would have needed to allow for the roll of the ships deck,”
It is a relief to read that someone knows that ships pitch and yaw! Part of the issue is that the launch software needs to deal with that. It could get very confused if the ships motion was outside of its operating parameters.
It would be much better to fire to a GPS way point and then settle the missile down from there. Much as Neptune/Harpoon(ski) seems to work.
Don’t forget to put the hand brake on😂😂😂
Maybe being able to protect against ballistic missiles which it can’t do with its “best AAW missiles….in the world”
“Arguably the best”
This side on shot shows there’s even a lot of space aft of the funnel which if the CIWS were a bit more forward maybe could also have been used for cannister launched AShMs unless it’s too sensitive an area with all the comms and radar around? Hope they get on with CAMM/Aster upgrades.
Great news hopefully this is it now and no more breaking down due to engines/power.
Was reading another post on the UK looking after Finland a chap called Ron I believe was putting is view across about what we should have done or not as we all do .And one interesting point was on the T 45 replacement T83.To give it around 14.000 Ton displacement with large Helicopter deck like we had in the late 70s early 80s with Tiger class ,that way we get a Destroyer and a Helicopter carrier in one .I myself think it a great idea get our money’s worth what do you Guys think ?
Weren’t the Invincibles 19k tn? Crumbs… go the whole hog for… just… an extra 5k tn.
Take care of quite a few of our future needs and bring a missile farm, commando carrier and lillypad for F35s. Job jobbed.
Chill out 🍺
I’m chilled! What’s 5k tns between friends 😉
All good mate 😊
I agree that the T45 replacement be a large vessel (12-15K tons) not for the purpose of being a quasi helicopter carrier but because of the need for large n size and quantity of long range missiles to fend off the large hypersonic and ballistic anti-ship missiles the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans and other potential adversaries are developing.
In addition the size will be needed to house large power plants and electricity storage devices to power the coming energy weapons we have been told are in development.
👍
They would be eye watering my my expensive and too many functions.
AAW and air operations get in the way of each other?
Yep there’s always something 👍
Well H&S will never let an unaccompanied 8-9 year old boy stand under Invincible as she was launched, so, sensible ideas only, I agree.
This is something I have proposed before. With an air defence ship along the lines of the Tiger class. The main reason being the required space to operate not only a manned helicopter, but also a number of UAVs. The issue for a predominantly air defence ship, is that you need an organic method of extending the ship’s radar horizon, beyond the ship’s radars. As there is only so much radar mast height vs beam vs the ship’s CoG that is practical. You need another method of raising the height of the radar.
You could use an radar mounted in an aerostat, but that limits the ability to operate other aircraft from the ship, due to trying to maintain observation of the tow/power cable when taking off or landing. Also it won’t get to a significant height, plus by being towed directly behind the ship, the ship’s position will be more easily pin-pointed through electronic surveillance.
To give the ship a much better radar picture, a platform should be operating at or above 10,000ft (3048m). As this would give a radar horizon against a 5m sea skimming target of 227.5 km (141 miles). If a T45’s Sampson radar is about 40m above sea level. Its radar horizon against a 5m sea skimming missile only 26km (16 miles). Thus by using an aircraft as a radar platform, the ship will have plenty of time to combat the threat.
The aircraft does not need to be manned as the radar processing can be carried out remotely via a very high bandwidth data-link. It can even be done covertly by using a similar data-link to the F35’s multi-functional advanced data-link, that uses electronic beam steering. To carry a radar that has a 200 mile range as well as a near simultaneous 360 degree view. Means the unmanned air vehicle (UAV) needs sufficient engine power to generate the required electrical demand. Plus the space to fit preferably 4 flat panel AESA radar panels to the fuselage. The UAV will also need sufficient volume to hold enough fuel, so that it can stay on station for a minimum of 12 hours. If the ship is required to provide 24/7 coverage, then two UAVs will be required. But more realistically 3, as one would be a spare or used to make sure there is no break in coverage when transiting to and from station. With at least 3 UAVs and 1 manned helicopter needing to be parked in the hangar. This hangar will need to be significantly larger than the one the T45 has. Hence a T83 sized similar to a Tiger class cruiser at around 12,000t, with a hangar that could accommodate 4 Sea Kings, or in this case the helicopter and UAVs.
We have been over this one a few times.
For ship mounted radar simply stick the best radar you can on top of the QECs. Loads of power, massive ship so the metacentric argument isn’t that relevant and there is loads of space for another air war ops room.
It was supposed to have Sampson on it in the original versions that was only removed for cost savings.
But if we are being totally serious I do thing that the answer will be UAV based.
Hi SB, I agree to a point. If a ship is part of a task group that includes a carrier, then happy days. As the carrier has the larger hangar and available deck space to scale up or down the number of AEW aircraft it can carry. Thereby making sure it can provide over the horizon coverage 24/7 when required. The question therefore would be, would a T45 only operate exclusively with a carrier?
The carrier plus its aircraft can be networked with the T45 to extend its radar horizon, but also the range at which it can engage targets over the relative horizon. We have discussed before how crucial it is for the ship to be able to engage targets as far away as possible. Thereby allowing it to engage multiple simultaneous targets, especially those going supersonic or faster.
The only fly in that ointment is that our Navy does not have enough ships, to allow T45s to operate exclusively with the carriers. It has to be multi-hatted and be available for other tasks. Therefore, there is a very good chance that at least 50% of its tasking will be operating alone.
As good as the T45 is (it would be no different to for the carriers), it will always be constrained by the ship’s fixed radar horizon. It has two very good radars, with the S1850M and Sampson. Both of which can detect targets beyond 400km. The problem it has, which is the same the for all ships operating on their own, are sea skimming missiles. Even though Sampson is placed on a mast some 40m above sea level, the radar horizon is still in relative terms, very close to the ship. Thereby giving it very little time to detect, identify and counter a very low sea skimming threat.
To enable a ship to have more time to deal with these types of threat, you need to elevate the radar significantly. The only practical way of doing that for the T45 is by using VTOL UAVs. For these aircraft they would need to use a X-band or Ku-band radar, which has the better clutter rejection when looking down at the sea. Meaning they will have a much better chance of detecting sea skimming missiles in choppy seas. It also means that the UAV could carry four AESA panels due to the smaller array size, but still be able to detect targets around 200 miles away. The problem for the T45 is that if they wish to keep the Wildcat, then the ship’s hangar can only take one V247 Vigilant sized UAV in addition.
For the future T83, to provide 24/7 coverage, it needs to have a UAV that can do at least 12 hours on station. Therefore requiring two of these UAVs to provide the full 24 hour coverage. To make sure it can do this day in day out, it will require at least three UAVs.
We have discussed what size the UAV needs to be. But it must also be judged on whether the Navy want a larger number of small aircraft or a smaller number of larger more capable aircraft. A smaller aircraft like the MQ-9B Firescout, which can carry one mechanically rotating AESA panel, has an endurance of 8 hours and can attain an altitude of 20,000ft. Thereby extending the radar horizon to 322km (200 miles). Being a smaller aircraft, two take up the same footprint as a single Wildcat. The single mechanically rotating AESA panel will have a continuously rotating dead zone. Which will make a difference when tracking very high speed supersonic or faster targets.
Conversely, if Bell do produce the V247 Vigilant. It will have a service ceiling of 25,000ft, but be able to stay on station for up to 15 hours. Thereby pushing out the horizon to 360km (223 miles). The caveat being one Vigilant takes up the same footprint as one Wildcat. But it can carry 4 AESA panels such as Leonardo’s X-band Osprey 50, to give a truer multiple track while scanning. Along with a minimum of 4 individual scanning beams looking in four different diections, thereby increasing its chances of detect fleeting targets.
If and it’s admittedly a big if, we bought the gold plated solution using the Vigilant. Then to house three Vigilants and one Wildcat will need a significantly larger hangar than the T45 uses.
@DB
That is a very fair and well reasoned summation of the situation.
I would guess that ditching the wildcat is probably the way forward or just buddying up with a cheapo merchant conversion or RFA with a bigger hangar?
We should probably be assuming we will want T45 and then T83 to escort amphibious groups that do not include a carrier, so that drives an organic AEW capability. That task includes groups based around European vessels like Mistral and Juan Carlos classes, which may not include adequate organic surveillance capabilities.
We’d also potentially need to escort sea lift during a hot war, whether our own or US, since the latter currently don’t think they have enough escorts for the role, last I read.
Leonardo Yeovil are developing their own clean sheet 3 tonne class UAV based on earlier work with SW-4 Solo, so a UK Osprey 50 equipped option is doable. First flight estimated circa 2024-5. 10-12 hour endurance.
Cheers GHF, that’s one of the scenarios I had in mind. Where a T45/83 would be tasked with guarding a small task group that doesn’t have a carrier or support from a land based AEW platform. Giving the T45/83 its own organic AEW will significantly enhance its air defence umbrella.
I hope Leonardo won’t be using a helicopter based UAV, as this is a backwards step, especially for an AEW type of mission.
Leonardo’s project seems to be more targeted at the Proteus rotary wing solution mooted as part of the Future Maritime Aviation Force – 2030 concept. Proteus isn’t shown as an AEW asset, but with Osprey it seems like it could address that requirement for non-carrier ops. Would we really need more for earlier detection of sea skimmers?
For carrier it seems a fixed wing Vixen platform is the goal for AEW from the same 2030 concept. Whether that uses a VTOL “Son of V247” which seems to be a project again with slightly more modest goals, or a STOL platform, is open to discussion. On the latter I see the following popped up today
https://twitter.com/GenAtomics_ASI/status/1524011470152941568
Being able to see further is always better! Especially when the threat is a sea skimming missile, that can have a fluctuating radar return due to their low level approach and the state of the sea.
With a missile such as the Aster 30, it gives you option of engaging the threat at the Aster’s maximum effective range. But also if the AEW platform has a decent data-link. The missile can then be used to counter sea skimming missiles that are beyond the line of sight, using command updates given over the UAV’s data-link .
The other major benefit is dealing with large swarming attacks. Being able to engage a swarm at a significant stand-off distance, means you have more time and therefore a better chance of knocking out the whole swarm.
Radars like the X-band AESA Seaspray and Osprey are at the peak of what you can buy off the shelf for multi-role capability. That are both lightweight and have a very high mean time between failure. Both have a detection range of around 200 miles (though neither company has divulged what the target’s RCS is!). This is far enough to not only give the ship plenty of warning time. But being X-band, they have very could clutter rejection therefore have a greater chance at detecting very small targets hiding in the waves, such as a periscope. It is this combination of light weight and very good target discrimination that would make either of the radars as a good basis for an AEW radar used by a UAV, that could be carried by a destroyer or frigate.
Furthermore, it would not be competing with whatever comes out of the Vixen project. As this is more of a larger fleet asset. Depending on this aircraft’s size, could carry a larger S or C band radars. These radars have traditionally had problems finding and tracking very low flying targets against choppy seas. They are however, very good at detecting aircraft over 300 miles away. So the UAV’s X-band radar would be complimentary, thereby increasing the sensor picture.
Personally, I still believe a Bell V247 type of UAV, would be the optimal choice for use as an organic AEW UAV for a destroyer/frigate. But a large catapult and arrested recovery fixed wing UAV carrying an S-band radar is best as a carrier based AEW platform. Which therefore precludes a MQ-9 type of UAV.
I agree with most of your comments. However, it does seem that the range limits for x-band might be mitigated by pushing platforms further out from the CSG and the ability to support more of those platforms in the air simultaneously for similar cost. Something like MQ-9B does enable very long duration, long range, persistent surveillance to support that.
Perhaps key will be what price tag gets attached to a V247 solution as to whether that is viable, especially for escort use.
So being out for 3 years and still didn’t carry out the PIP? This means she will be out for further 2 years when they do the PIP! What a waste of time and missed opportunity whilst lining the pockets of BAE (still should be held responsible as the original systems integrator) with taxpayers cash. Beggars belief…
So has this ship had the 2x2Mw diesels replaced by 3x3MW Diesel engines? The power improvement program?
I do wonder why the sea ceptor isn’t stuck in at the same time.
No doubt there are some reasons as to do it later that I don’t know about.
There is no reason to link the Ceptor and PiP upgrades with general maintenance.
If you start linking things like that they you bake in massive delays.
Ok. So this 30 month refit was for general upkeep/upgrades and it will come back in for Propulsion upgrade and sea ceptor at later date. I’m not upto date on type 45 and what ship is where/doing what. That’s why I ask. Im a mere land lover. Rowing boat on lake Windermere is about my limits.
Looks like they have got another one
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/05/russian-serna-class-lcu-becomes-the-new-victim-of-tb2-drone/
I wonder how long until we hear additional news about the Type 83.
Hopefully, not too long. There was an announcement late last year that it was expected to formally enter concept phase early this year.The word formally suggests they might even have an idea what they want before it starts.
Is it possible to canister-mount LRASM instead of the Harpoon?
If so, as much as I like the ideas of Mk.41 would it not be more practical, and in line with current plans, to fit the 24 Sea Ceptor, and then add 3 sets of 8 LRASM; one in front of the bridge, one aft of the funnel, and one in aft of the S1850M radar?
Cor blimey! What a ripper! That’s a mouth watering whole lot of LSRAM! If not 24, then 8 of 16. 😆 plus 24 CAMM and no MK41s. Still seems a shame that there’ll build right over the MK41 spaces.
I know but In the case of war there’s no such thing as too many missiles… I’m not quite sure about whether they’ll fit behind the funnel but the other two spots should give us 16 advanced AShMs.
Yes – https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2017/july-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5434-lockheed-martin-demonstrates-lrasm-launch-capability-from-topside-canister.html
Though I’d suggest maybe 2×4 (8 total) – 24 may be a tad overkill. 😆
Yes I was just looking at the hypothetical maximum amount it could handle. I think perhaps 2×8 though; 2×4 means we can only reliably get rid of four ships. Still better than 0 like now 😂
Of topic. But just heard a rumour that Putin will announce that Russia will be joining NATO. As a consequence, Ukrainian attacks on Russia will invoke article 5 and as such we will have to attack Ukraine.
Joining NATO is’nt a unilateral decision like joining Netflix or Amazon Prime. Existing members have a say. Plus you’re not allowed to join if you have an existing border dispute (see Georgia, Ukraine & Kuril Islands).
Not sure if this post was just a Troll but… no. Just no.
Pretty sure he was joking.
I was hoping so. Lack of an emoji or “/s” completely boggled me though. 😅
😀😀
Anytime I hear the terms used hard with a daring class destroyer I want to break out laughing.
That chip on your shoulder and feelings of inadequacy are really effecting you aren’t they? There there it’s ok…..
MOD seems to be having a garage sale on C-130J Hercules parts:
Inventory_For_Sale.odt (live.com)
So this ship has been out of service for 30 months and not had PIP or any major structural work. 30 months! Is it just me or are these refits slow and messed up. MoD should have taken the opportunity to do all the planned upgrades at once – PIP, Sea Ceptor, Sea Viper upgrade etc.
From what I read it seems the majority of the refit was complete by the summer last year. Why it then took almost another year for her to sail is not clear. Availability of crew perhaps?
End testing and certification was actually the reason.
The MoD will almost certainly pay off three of the six T45s as ‘unrepairable’ saving the billlions necessary to cover the absolutely stupendous Ajax fiasco.
The class was designed at the turn of the century and the electronics, radars etc are probably obsolete by now. Anyway, they have no antiship missiles and in a Ukraine type major war, other assets would need to be deployed to defend them.
We should bite the bullet and buy off-the-shelf S Korea Sejong destroyers. Likely owing to the use of only fully-developed technologies and subsystems, the Sejong destroyers only cost $923 million each. This price tag makes these vessels among the most inexpensive AEGIS warships ever constructed.
“In a Ukraine type war other ships would be needed to defend them”
Surely the Russian navy have loads of anti-ship missiles on their Black Sea fleet – haven’t heard reports of them needing to fire any anti ship missiles.
Bet they wish they had an AAW asset with obsolete PAMS/Sampson radars and CAMM, Aster , phalanx , etc instead of a few more anti ship missiles.
What do I know.
Where are you getting this info from? Despite defence not being a top priority vote winner, I highly doubt you’ll hear of significant cuts in capability in the near future given the situation in Ukraine.
Besides, parliamentary questions in the past have discussed the Carriers & their vulnerability if alone. The answer to these questions was “Yeah but 2 x T45 escorts”. You think they’ll reduce to 3 & make 2 x escorts impossible? Doubt it.
“Probably obsolete” – whilst I’m certain the boffins could make a better system today & they have not (previously) done the iterative improvements we often see from the USN, I think perhaps the upgrades to hardware and software she just recieved are precisely to ensure it remains pretty cutting edge. If you listen carefully, you’ll hear whispers of exaclty this. Plus, if it could detect, ID, track and engage airborn threats then, why couldn’t she do all the same things now?
ASM’s can be bolted on pretty quickly (they previously were on T45s). There are many cannister launched options. We should have one.
Regards the Sejong Destroyers – you’re correct they were cheaper but take a look at what a South Korean ship builder is paid compared to a UK. Equally, we don’t know how capable it is – AEGIS is a combat system, not a standard. How cutting edge is all their kit? Or are the radars etc. the same ones fitted by the USN 10 years ago to save money?
I agree, there are times we should buy “off the shelf” & then budget to continually upgrade & add capability as & when tech matures. But you can’t have it both ways – you want cutting edge or you want off the shelf (“obsolete” in your parlance)?
The New US destroyers are only now catching up with the T45 capability. They have only now added the SPY-6 active electronic arrays also active homing SM-3/6, also ESSM Mk2.
The Sea Viper Evolution will upgrade the Sampson radar, the combat system and add Sea Ceptor also ASTER 30 block 1NT.
The upgrade will add an ABM capability and more combat persistence. Not to mention Sea Ceptor’s ability to target small surface targets.
Only the larger Flight 3 Burkes will have the full size SPY-6. The radar is significantly heavier than the previous SPY-1. The Flight 1s in particular will have half size radar panels. The radar horizon for the SPY-6 is no better than the SPY-1’s. Which is quite a bit less that the T45 using Sampson.
The Flight IIA Burkes will begin backfitting a mid-sized SPY-6 array, the SPY-6(V)4, starting in 2027. It’s not as big as the Flight III’s SPY-6(V)1 array, but it will be a very significant upgrade. The Constellation Class frigates and the Ford class carriers (starting with CVN-79) will have the smaller SPY-6(V)3 array.
The Type 45s are absolutely amazing ships with world-class medium range air warfare capability. I think it’s inaccurate to say that US destroyers are only now catching up though.
Even the older SPY-1(D)V is fully capable of the entire spectrum of air warfare and BMD, and AEGIS Baseline 9 ships can do all of it simultaneously. The USN is still commissioning several Flight IIA Burkes, the latest of which will commission on May 14th.
The SM-6 entered service with the USN starting in 2013 and the USN has had an active homing capability since then in a true long range missile that is also capable of terminal range BMD and anti-ship use.
SM-2 BlockIIIC will enter service in 2023 and will give the USN a medium range active homing capability akin to the Aster 30, so it is true to say that the USN is catching up to the Type 45s in the sense of mid-range capability.
Reasonable summary. I’d say there have been two main weaknesses on ABs, now mostly being addressed as you say.
No high mount AESA for sea skimming threats. Even with SPY-6 the USN will still be fitting AN/SPQ-9B until the X-band AESA upgrade arrives, perhaps sometime later this decade?
Both ESSM and SM-2 semi-active missiles require fire control radar, which suggests the ships would be vulnerable to saturation attack. I don’t know if SM-6 with its active homing could tip over in time to hit a sea skimming missile when detected, or whether a ship would have enough SM-6 for this unintended role. Leaving defence to Phalanx or in some cases Sea RAM.
Sea skimmers on the Burkes are addressed by X-band radars higher in the mast. The older SPS-67 and SPS-73 performed well in combination with the SPY-1 during the 3 separate attacks on the USS Mason in 2016, so the system is actually combat tested. As you say the SPQ-9B will perform that function in backfits and newer ships moving forward. New Burkes have SPQ-9B from DDG-119 moving forward and there are already several older Burkes that have it.
The new X-band (FXR) is still developmental, it will likely debut on the DDG(X).We’ll see as time goes by.
SM-6 has an active seeker and the latest versions can actually selectively skip firing the second stage if the target is close, so nearby targets can be engaged if need be. The new SM-2 Block IIIC debuts next year and has the same active seeker as the SM-6 so does not require an illuminator. ESSM Block 2 is just entering service now and has an active mode, so saturation attacks will be accounted for.
Moving forward there will be less and less need for illuminators on US ships, in fact the Constellation class has no illuminators planned as they will only ever receive SM-2 Block IIIC, ESSM Block 2, and RAM block 2 and won’t need illumination.
Interestingly even though Phalanx is a stand alone system the very latest versions of AEGIS actually integrate the sensors from Phalanx to improve the overall picture even more.
SeaRAM is installed on the Burkes assigned to BMD in Rota, Spain, so they are rare on Burkes overall.
It’s not “info”😆
😆
Err no.
Sampson is still best of class.
The cost of PiP is trivial compared to designing/building/commissioning new high end escorts.
Let me rephrase that for you.
“in a Ukraine type major war, other assets would need to be deployed to defend them”
should read
in a Ukraine type major war, T45 will be required to defend other assets
would need to bedeployed.For AAW dominance T45 is more than essential. T45 took far too long to come into service but it is a core part of RN.
The T45 is still a first rate air defence ship and will get better with the Sea Viper Evolution programme. The government have committed to the ongoing upgrade. They are necessary for the defence of the carriers. I doubt they will be paid off until the T83 comes arrives. They are unlikely to be deployed in a war without frigates and they would most likely be deployed as part of a Carrier Strike Group. New anti-ship missiles will be fitted to T26/T31. The T45 is primarily a anti-air ship and is not about surface to surfase.
Hi Rob, with a valuable ship like the T45 any potential adversary would want to try taken it out regardless. IMHO the T45s could well and truly do with a bit of rock throwing capacity in the ASW and ASuW departments plus update their sonars and Wildcats. There’s no such thing as a “designer war”. All opposition assets are targets.
Sampson obsolete?!
😆👍
T45 will only get better and they are some if the primary intelligence platforms in the fleet with a tier 1 AD system.
😆
Unfortunately, they don’t work! They cannot produce enough power to operate all the electronic and radar tracking systems needed.
The T45’s are another MoD cock-up and have spent most of their time tied up alongside – when not wallowing dead in the water somewhere miles from home
It is time this anti ship farce was sorted out. After the current generation of anti ship goes out of service we will have toothless tigers. A ridiculous situation!!
Harpoon is barely fitted to any ships now, maybe a couple of T23s that is it. No replacement is planned until FC/ASW arrives sometime around 2030.
If you are happy with the state of affairs. Then why fit weapons to our ships at all?
Where did I say I was happy with it?
I did say you were I asked a question
Ok. I’m not happy with it but could understand if we had ASM for the RAF on the P8s and F35s, ideally on Typhoon too.
We should have upgraded Harpoon but the powers that be thought it was obsolete. I wonder if they regret that decision after seeing what the Neptune missiles did to the Moskva.
From 1935 -1945 the U.K. USA and Germany went from building radial engined biplanes to jet engines, bouncing bombs, earthquake bombs, rockets ( capable of going to space ) , the atomic bomb and thousands upon thousands of ships, tanks, bombs and aircraft.
You are not telling me if WW3 breaks out we can’t get an anti ship missile onto an RN ship quickly – if we needed it. None of our allies would supply us 3 or 4 of them.
None of our ships carries, or has carried for decades , more than a handful of anti ship missiles. RN doctrine has not been to engage in major surface to surface engagements for years. If it was RN ships would look like scary Russian ships.
I’m not sure WW3 would last that long. With Nukes, it’s over in 40 minutes. Even taking nukes out of the equation for a minute – conventional only – what does WW3 look like?
With precision weapons, cruise missiles, supersonic & stealth aircraft heavy lift transport aicraft, global comms, gps, helicopters etc. etc. etc. a lot has changed. Would that not accelerate the outcome? My worry is always that we’ll fight whatever war there is with the weapons we have – no time for new ones.
I suspect (though I may be wrong) that a ‘conventional weapons only’ WW3 would be over in a year or two. Although I am now thinking that this is what all those people in 1914 that said “home by Christmas” probably thought too….
Love your username BTW! I am one too 😀
To be honest stu, any WW3 that did not go nuclear would probably run on for years and splutter out after the total collapse on productivity of one or both sides.
You would inevitably have waves of destruction, so any First stage would be extremely destructive and you would see destruction on a large scale, but the world is a big place as would be the power blocks involved. World wide conflagrations ebb and flow. So it’s never a sustained single massive Bursts of destruction, rather a flow of differing campaigns as the combatant make gains or losses or become depleted so reflecting an ebb and flow of differing smaller wars durning these big conflagrations such as the napoleonic wars, (which was actually really the First World War if you take the whole set of conflagrations as a single explosion of global violence,), WW1 and WW2). In fact there is a good argument to say that actually WW1 and WW2 were a continuation of a single conflagration of global violence, as the end of the First World War was more a long pause in the fighting in the west from exhaustion of the European powers, the fighting in the east continued in the east through the 1920s and 1930, with a re-ignition of the war in the west after a 15 year rest.
So unfortunately any world war will likely run for a generation across the globe. Counting the the war of the first and second coalition that conflagration lasted 23 years, if you consider the star of WW1 as the first act of the wars of the early 20c and the Korean War as the last that bout of violence lasted 39 years.
Essentially a world war is not a single distinct conflict but is instead a spasm of global violence with many interlinked wars.
There is every possibility that Ukraine is the beginning of a new global conflagration if it is, we may not know exactly when it begins or ends, historians may even go back further and find a beginning we missed.
Depressing and thought provoking. Interesting view.
Napoleonic Wars were the first WW – agreed. Have often thought the same.
“world war is.. ..a spasm of global violence” – Very interesting. If this is the case, would it not be possible, even quite easy, to argue that all human history is one long ongoing conflict?
Hear me out – There’s always a fight going on somewhere. & if not fully global or between two major powers or we can’t link it to major powers, we’ll call it a ‘pause in direct conflict’ for a period, with underlying tensions until something sparks a war again. They’re all interlinked in some way or another if we look hard enough: Russia v Ukraine today, caused by split of USSR, caused by Afghanistan & CIA involvement therein, caused by Cold War, caused by how WW2 ended and/or the Russian revolution during WW1. WW2 caused by WW1, caused by Serbians shooting an Archduke and Germanys jealousy of the British Empire, Empire was caused by UK war/competition with France for 1,000 years spilling out across the globe… so it’s all William the Conquerors fault! But then we go back to that Serbian assasin killing the archduke & branch out there – caused by the tensions in the Balkans, east meets west, Islam v Christianity & so on and so on… go forward in time from this point back through WW2 & the creation of Israel & we can continue to Yom Kippur. Somewhere in there are the Crusades which involves what used to be Persia which had past conflicts in India… Yes I am being deliberately simple/silly, but it’s not difficult to find connections to such dots when you start looking for them.
Why does WW1 end in Korean War? We can say it was a proxy war between Communism & Capitalism (in simple terms). Didn’t that carry on into Vietnam – after a brief pause? New venue, same argument. 7 year pause before Afghanistan?
Maybe it’s a human flaw that we compartmentalise such events to make them easier to comprehend but – to make it easier for my simple mind – lets take each conflict in isolation & we ask “what does WW3 look like if it did not go nuclear?” I would suggest, you are correct – “First stage would be extremely destructive and you would see destruction on a large scale” – but then I also think that the speed and scale are precisely what causes it to end quickly.
In WW2 we’d send 1,000 bombers in multiple waves to take out 1 ball-bearing factory. Today 1 typhoon with a targetting pod & a couple of Paveways. Or we throw a few Tomahawks at it. How many strike aircraft does NATO have? What can one B2 with JDAMS do? Look how quickly we dismantled the C&C in Iraq. Air force, radar & SAM sites gone in days. Key infrastructure, bridges, fuel reserves gone to inhibit their ability to move etc. etc. That was not even total war. In WW3, a similar capability would be coming back at us. Do we think we’d allow (or be allowed) to build any new jets or tanks if we can stop it? Or would the factories/complex supply chains be targeted fairly early on to prevent replacements/spare parts/repairs.
The “conventional only” thing is all hypothetical. For good or bad, nuclear weapons exist. Should the nuclear powers actually start a shooting war, the only actual solution is economic collapse of one or the other, revolution at home (collapse of public will) or resolving differences diplomatically. If one side starts taking serious amounts of land & the others military becomes incapable of stopping them, that’s where someone will see the nukes as ‘necessary’ & we have escalation to MAD.
“historians may even go back further” – if this is WW3, hopefully there are still some historians around when this one is over bud. Thank you for the reply. 😊
It all depends what you call ww3. The first question has to be who will be the main countries involved and what are they fighting for. For a ww3 to happen it would have to have super powers on both sides, which would leave china/usa. Realistically neither would be fighting for their own country like ww1 (france), ww2 (british empire/russia) and so would be a fight over someone elses country, at which point the desire to keep fighting a long war gets removed, when casaulties pile up each side will want to find a peaceful way out. If it doesnt’ go nuclear, any big war would probably fizzle out after a few years.
It would be over before they got their collective fingers out.
How many were fired by RN vessels in the FI?
We need an air launched ASM as the priority, not a ship launched one. A nice to have, not vital.
Zero. But we can’t fall into the trap of ‘fighting the last war’. Air launched is indeed very important but it should not be an either/or situation.
If we resurrect the interim ASM plans, there are options on the market that can be both canister and air launched (although I’m not sure how much work is required to switch from one to the other) so there’s a possibility of ‘two birds’ so to speak.
We’re only speaking a modest stockpile of 40-50 missiles here.
There 2 of that class of destroyer in Cammell Laird Shipyard in Birkenhead both under going refit know one in there replacement engines don’t know the names of the 2 ships also what looks like a supply royal navy vessel also in same ship yard
They are only there for PiP.
Other upgrades elsewhere.
Well it is good to see Duncan back at sea. It is also good to see an acceleration in the PIP program and the decision to add Sea Ceptor to T45. Not before time. I do belong to the school of thought which thinks T45 should focus on being good at AAW so the next and possibly final upgrades should be Aster Block 1 NT.
That said I. can also appreciate that with so few hulls the RN can’t really afford the luxury of single role ships. Each class should have a prime and a secondary capability. So adding something like Teseo Mk2 or Gabriel and with a USV would enable it to operate safely as a deterrent singleton; like a Victorian cruiser gunboat. Ditto T26 which doesn’t have quite the same need since it was conceived as a ‘global combat’ ship and has the Mk45 gun which can fire guided rounds. If T31 had 24 Sea Ceptor and Gabriel (and possibly the Mk45) it would be a force to be reckoned with in the littoral. I used to think a cheap ‘patrol frigate’ was a valid concept but in light of recent events I don’t think we can afford a ship whose purpose in life is just constabulary work and flag waving.
It was confirmed last year that mk41 vls will not be added to the T45s, which means no US ABM missiles and the only option left as Block 1NT. Fingers crossed that happens. Given the Sea Viper Evolution upgrades will happen in the 2026-2032 timeframe we have a few years to wait and see.
It wasn’t confirmed at all.
It was merely stated that Ceptor **would** be added.
Which is being fitted in the space originally designated for the mk41 vls, so confirms that will not be fitted. Unless I’ve missed something?
The Mk41 VLS could go in different places depending on it being strike length or not
If strike length it would go under where the Harpoon go ATM.
Ceptor is going around the SYLVER silo.
Ceptor is allegedly going where the Mk41 would have gone – right between the gun and the current silo. (late reply I know)
Without
Good to see the navy getting seriously good shops and materiel
I might be wrong but the impression is that the T45 is fatally flawed and not full operational without having the cooling system fixed? It might well be deployed in the Med, but can’t do the same in the Gulf, which is a place it is more likely to be needed. I can remember seeing most, if not all the T45s in a row in Portsmouth for a significant time, doing nothing.
(I say nothing, but occaisonally one was deployed to shadow the Admiral Kuznetsov on a rare deployment through the English Channel)