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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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. As I stated, there are still 5 T31. Just only 3 of them is in RN, in this proposal. Note that there are ONLY 3 Iver Huiltfeldt class, 3 SACHSEN class, only 2 plus 2 Horizon DDG each in Frecn/Italy. French and Italy found export sales of their FREMM, why not UK? But I do agree it will not be easy. If it doesn’t work, we need to find more… Read more »
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… Read more »
Again, I am proposing this only to up-arm T45 and T26. Why I think RN lack crew is, RN is forced to place HMS Echo in reserve-sate not to forget HMS Bulwark in extended readiness even RFA needs to put both Waves in extended readiness. 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, RN is even not wanting to pay for £200M small money for I-SSGW even though the first few missile of FC/ASW may come in on 2027 (and 99% possibly a few… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“ 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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: BAES said they do not want to go for cheap vessel primarily aiming at export, because it will cause “going down the bottom” (or alike) Babcock CEO said “£250M apop for everything is easy”. 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. Almost no export build is foreseen. Even Babcock themselves started to state design export as their main aim,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“ 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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’… Read more »
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… Read more »
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)