In a recent report, experts discuss the need for the Royal Navy to enhance its destroyer fleet to keep pace with evolving threats and technological advancements.
The report, ‘A More Lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s Naval Power‘ by William Freer and Dr. Emma Salisbury, highlights significant upgrades needed for the current Type 45 destroyers and the accelerated development of the future Type 83 class.
The Royal Navy’s six Type 45 class destroyers are considered among the most advanced in the world. However, the report criticises past decisions that limited their combat capability. “For the sake of saving costs, their combat capability was crippled by building them ‘for but not with’ additional weapons,” the report notes. Originally planned for twelve vessels, the number was reduced to eight and then six.
In light of growing threats, the UK government has decided to fund improvements. “The headline changes will be the addition of a further 24 cells for Sea Ceptor missiles (taking total cells to 72), the replacement of eight Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles with eight of the more modern Naval Strike Missiles, and improved Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capabilities.” These upgrades are praised for amplifying the destroyers’ offensive and defensive firepower.
The Future Type 83 Destroyers
The Type 45 class will eventually be replaced by the Type 83 class, part of the Future Air Dominance system, which is still in its concept phase. The report stresses the urgency of this transition, particularly with the planned retirement of HMS Daring, the first Type 45 destroyer, before 2040.
“The procurement process for the Type 83 should begin in earnest,” it states, highlighting that the Type 45 class took over ten years to enter service from the signing of the contract.
Two key factors will shape the future destroyers: space and power generation. “Space, primarily for large numbers of VLS [Vertical Launch System] cells; and power generation, as all the systems on board demand a great deal of energy.” The demand for power is expected to grow, especially with the introduction of Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs).
The report also highlights the potential of DEWs. “DEWs do as they say: they direct highly focused energy towards a target, and can come in various forms, including high-energy lasers (HEL), high-powered radiofrequency (HPRF), or microwave (HPM) systems.” These weapons are cost-effective solutions to drone swarms and other threats, though they require substantial power and are limited by line-of-sight engagement and weather conditions.
Recommendations
Type 45 Upgrades
The report recommends a review of the Type 45 class destroyer’s upgrade programme. “Undertake a review into the Type 45 class destroyer’s upgrade programme to ascertain whether it is possible for any of the warships to receive Mk41 VLS in place of the Sea Ceptor cells.” This change could amplify armament and allow for a greater number and variety of missiles.
Accelerate Type 83 Programme
The report urges the acceleration of the Type 83 programme. “The requirements should be drawn up as soon as possible to ensure the warships can enter service before HMS Daring retires. Contract award for Type 83 class destroyer cannot come soon enough to ensure a smooth transition.” Key requirements should include amplified offensive and defensive capabilities with 100+ VLS cells and the ability to host novel systems like DEWs.
Collaborative Development
The report also suggests that the UK collaborate with the US on developing the next generation Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP) system. “The US Navy’s Zumwalt class, like the Type 45 class, also has an IFEP system and the two allies should collaborate on the next generation IFEP system.”
Expansion of Escort Fleet
Finally, the report calls for the procurement of eight Type 83 class destroyers, aiming for an overall goal of returning the escort fleet to a 32 hull force. “This represents a like-for-like replacement of Type 45, plus two.”
The problem with the type 45 is it cost a billion pounds in the 2000s. 4 times more, taking account of inflation, than the previous generation type 42. That’s why we only got 6 of them. There is no point coming up with super expensive designs and then screaming about how few of them you have. If you opt for extravagant designs your not going to get many, it’s a choice.
The reason they were more expensive is cause the research and design phase has to be paid for with in the 6 destroyers price . If it was 12 then the hull price would be less just like the type 26 is now coming down in price . War is not cheap . You either spend big or stay out of it 🙄
Your right, they are choosing a design where the budget will cover design but not build. The answer is go with a different design, if you can’t afford it you can’t afford it. The type 26 frigate is falling into the same trap, after paying for development the navy has nothing left to build the thing. The navy knows its budget, if it can’t afford to design and build a warship then it shouldn’t blindly pursue it anyway. The same with the new 83 destroyer, don’t go for a design you can’t afford to design and build, especially after learning the lesson with the type 26 and 45.
So build shit ships instead that will be incapable of what’s required?
I don’t think hes saying that is he ?
but ultimately any ship has got ot better than no ship surely – same as any hardware quantity has a quality of it’s own.
& the point about economies of scale is relevant as is designing & building a ship that has export potential.
Ultimately of course we also need the manufacturing infrastrcuture to accomodate any accclerated build program.
I think its a diffiicult balancing act but what definately doesn’t help is kicking this increasing dented can down the road crossing our fingers any confrontation stays decades off- thats a highly damgerous ‘strategy’ esp.when it comes to the lead times for ships.
We need to get this sorted – yesterday
That’s my point, the key is to not look for the best design but the most minimus design that meets your key criteria. For example the meko frigate from germany were exported by the frozen. The anzac class was 3600 tonnes vs the 7000 tonne type 26. It had a 6000 nm range, a large helicopter hanger, 32 vls missiles, a towed sonar and anti ship missiles. A type 26 has a range of 7000 nm, a large helicopter hanger for 2 helicopters, 32 vls missiles, and anti ship missiles. As you can guess the meko was a huge export success with 34 sold from 1987 onwards, you want a ship you and your customers can afford on mass.
There will be nearly 30 T26 built, but also the T26 could carry upto 144 vls missiles in just the British version.
If they are built, the Australian and Canadian ship numbers are rapidly shrinking as they rapidly blow thier budget. That being said why not 2 or 3 mekos instead of 1 type 26. Less missile per but again your eggs are spread across more baskets, instead of all in one.
Well for one the T26 is not just an ASW platform, it’s going to fulfill alot of our strike capability as well, which Meko cannot with its capacity.
Also doesn’t have options like the mission bay, or the ability to bring heavily upgraded. Meko is a cheap ship but very limited.
Yeah but we can’t afford the upgrades, comes back to the same issue. All this space for extra systems but we have no money left for them because have already blown the money on the ships. Like the type 45, built only 6, no money left for anti ship missiles, which the meko did have.
The T45 had harpoon and is getting NSM as an interim. We may not have chosen to install mk41 but we are installing addition sea ceptor cells and upgrading the radars and missiles. So no I think that’s immaculate what you said. Said upgrades are done over the life span of the vessel not all immediately upon construction, if you make such a small vessel like meko or a better example, if we’d chosen the small T31 proposals we wouldn’t have had the option of adding Mk41.
The MOD has a yearly budget, a ship purchase 10 years ago doesn’t mean they can’t afford an upgrade now, unlike a ship with no space for it
Look this budgeting over decades kind of works in peace time, kind of, but in war time when you need to rapidly expand and replace losses it falls apart. No one, let alone our selves, have build capacity to rapidly build 7000 and 10000 ton hulls. I could see us serialising radar arrays, missiles, even light helicopter production(especially if drones). But a quietened 7000 ton t26 Hull. The model works, kind of, as long as there is no war that lasts longer than a month, after that it collapses and you are forced to adapt. In ww2 we ultimately pursed much lighter frigate, sloop, and escort destroyers and sidelined heavier destroyers and cruisers that had been the focus of the prewar fleet. I think in a modern war scenario we would mostly drop warship hulls all together and just focus on building systems which we would just put on cargo ships. Radar and missile systems are containerised now and made to fit on the back a truck for the army. If it can fit on a truck it can fit on a ship. Cargo ships are prolific, we could buy them off the open market, if need be we could build kaiser liberty stylish ship yards in any natural harbour in the uk. Cargo ship construction is very simple. I suspect though that most of our present surface ship designs will be sidelined because of complexity of production and production bottle necks.
We couldnt drop building warship hulls, while those suggestions of containerized equipment might help relieve some pressure especially via say Atlantic convoys, with the huge threat of modern submarines and anti ship systems no they cannot afford to have a fighting fleet of civilian tubs.
The extra capacity for future growth is Not required in the near term, but later on in its life, and when new warpon systems, and tech, have been developed. Not everything is required straight away.
The T31 in build and the whole A140 variants offer huge flexibility that we don’t need the Meko as well. A few more T31s for the RN for patrolling international shipping lanes and especially bottlenecks would be useful, reasonablly affordable and relieve other ships.
I agree – the Type 31 is only under-rated because it lacks extra kit yet is big enough for extras. Choose a role either as anti-submarine or ant-air and fit the extra kit.
On the other hand, Type 26 has sold 29 from 2014 onwards, so it’s actually got a pretty good sales record compared to Meko.
The issue is if you don’t keep design skills in house you loose them, and then you end up with an inability to make the next generation of ships, but keep sticking more and more stuff onto an increasingly overburdened hull.
The Anzacs are a late 70s design and have a lot of issues. The new radars add a lot of top weight that is countered by lead ballast being added into the hull, reducing their performance and increasing hull strain.
The containerised modules are not great. There where big issues with certain systems in the modules that normal ships have fitted as standard.
They are small and the scope for upgrades in them just isn’t there. The RAN has upgraded them beyond what anyone could imagine but it’s not cheap and it’s not cost effective for what they have. CEFAR radar panels are not cheap! There is a lot of cash, 10s of millions of AUD at the top of each mast
(Worked on Arunta, Warramunga and Toowoomba. On the first 2 for around 2 months with the NSM maintenance team doing a massive deployment work package)
The RAN is retiring 2 Anzac class frigates, due to a difficulty of upgrading any further a confined cramped small frigate. The same problem applies to our old T23s’
The T26 frigate has been built to its present size, to allow for future growth.
Alternatively jump onto one of the current DDX designs going around – USA, Japan, Italy and S Korea are all in the process of selecting new large DD designs.
Unfortunately once again a case of hugely differing requirements and budgets. US programs too expensive and may potentially be cancelled, Italy is focusing on European system and slyver vls. And seems like in general no ones able to cooperate on shipbuilding with the far East nations. Though who knows, will have to wait a few years for more info.
Sorry, my fault not being clear enough. Buy the design then build and equip as required.
All are large 10k + hulls with ample room for 100+ vls tubes, helo/drone deck and a variety of guns.
Install propulsion system of choice, add sensor/equipment/missiles systems as required and you have your T45 replacement.
Not as simple as that granted, but you get the gist as any of those designs should fit the bill. All we would be doing is adding another design from scratch. Perhaps that would be the MODs preffered way, but it adds years when other options are available.
I’m going to defervto gunbuster here, but if you are going to change the propulsion system, vls system, sensors, and guns you might as well make your own design *cough* constellation class *cough*
My point is that there are options available, especially if we need to have a design that you can start building in the early 30s. It’s all about choices is it not. WRT the Constallation class, the US have screwed up greatly, they are assessed to have altered some 80% of the original design!! Why go with it in that case?
We bought of the shelf with T31, and have changed many items to suit, arguably it’s a success or will be, certainly better than the US attempt. Having a different propulsion/sensor/weapons fit isn’t that big an issue if done correctly (T31).
The USN is hamstrung by shipbuilding being enshrined in law. The Jones Act has royaly rodgered them on the connies.
It also didn’t help buying a design that is metric from the smallest bolt upwards and then converting it to feet and inches, adding 30 ft, deleting a sonar, altering the propulsion system wholesale, adding electrical systems and altering the power supply layout, altering the whole of the upper deck etc…
No real need.
Unlike the USN and NAVSEA the UK design houses and Nav Arcs have been doing OK with designs.
The Zumwalt, LCS, Connie have been disastrous for the USN.
Luckily Pork Barrel politics isn’t an issue for the UK.
Hi fella, I don’t doubt our abilities to design a new hull form/ship from scratch. Suspect that is what we will actually do this with the T83, just pointing out as with the T31, there are options, and as ever it’s horses for courses as far as finances are concerned.
They do seem to be rather in a fix with all their Acts and Congressional interventions as it were. You have to wonder how their military ever gets anything done?
The critical factor is as you say, the size of the run. In any manufacture there is a large fixed cost so numbers reduce the unit price but if you only have X Pounds to spend then the way to increase the run is to find some other buyers or partners. This has been partly achieved with the Type 26. Another possibility is to reduce the number of hull types? If you could accomodate the Type 26/31/32 around one hull, in theory that would also reduce unit costs. Obviously this would require compromises in design and fitment
👍Exactly!
Capability is not cheap – as of today we are not at War !.
the T45’s did not cost a billion pounds each. They were about £650m. The rest of the money was spent developing the electronics and missile system. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20170207052351/https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/0809295.pdf
Better to have fewer but more capable platforms than take a compromised design like the T42.
The T45 didn’t come with everything that we wanted but it came with the very best radar and anti air missiles money can buy and in the early 2000’s no ship needed more than 48 VLS.
They are atleast big enough that we can continue to upgrade and up arm them.
Having something in small quantities is close to pointless. it’s like the old tiger tanks. So few that most of the time they aren’t present, quickly attrited away, too difficult to build to keep up and replace losses. A system isn’t meaningful until its made in meaningful quantities. As it stands with the type 45 either they will be attrited away and be absent, or will be withdrawn to port before they are all lost, and be absent.
We still have more destroyers then every other Euro Navy, if we can get even a few more of the same standard it would be worth it.
Yeah but the idea is that all navies are doing the same thing and they might be wrong. You might have more ships than the others, but that means there surface fleet will last for 2 months while ours will last 4. Ultimately it will be similar to the russian navy in the black sea against the none existent Ukrainian navy, we will loose a few ships we will have to withdraw the rest, and the cargo ships and convoys will need to do their best on their own.
I’d argue the black sea situation does not represent future naval warfare everywhere
I do have something to say about this, but I’m tired. Let’s pick up tomorrow where we left off, good debate.
You say that all navies are doing this. In that case, why prepare for a neverending attritional war that doesn’t
No…the Type 45 programme was 6 Billion. People take the programme cost and divide it by the 6 we ended up with
Batch 3 Type 26 with astra 30 capability.
Obviously as a temporary solution
Why waste all of that money on a T26 that has top-end ASW sensors and quietening for a role that needs the ship to move quickly and stay near its escorted ship?
A far better solution would be to use the T31 hull and armament. 32 mk41 would be enough for an interim (with quad packing of one silo it is exactly the same as T26) and allows quad packing of CAMM-MR when it turns up.
The base Iver Huifeldt design includes a Thales SMART-L AESA radar that has been used to guide SM-3 as an offloaded ABM sensor. It would require very few changes to the design, such as bending the funnels to prevent damage from fumes. Not only that, but Rosyth’s block assembly line will be free from around 2030 leaving them available to start work on this new batch.
I’m imagining building 3 or 4 of these as a T31 B2 replacing T32, which would allow the first 2 T45s to be retired before T83 enters service. They would be perfect for escorting MRSS and lone service East of Suez, providing more defence than a normal frigate but without the hassle of competing with CSGs for first-rate escorts as T83 will be
At this rate T31s will not be done on schedule
‘
“…(with quad packing of one silo it is exactly the same as T26) and allows quad packing of CAMM-MR when it turns up…”
Some misinformation here!
A CAMM requires an ExLS module to be installed for CAMM to be cold launched as a pack of three CAMM for each ExLS module.
No CAMM, or as a pack of 4, has been launched from standard Mk. 41 hot launched cell. ExLS module is a smaller structure and in length then standard Mk.41 8 cell complex.
The issue would be, can the standard Mk. 41 8 cell modules be easy swapped out for ExLS modules, or be mixed with standard Mk.41 cell complexes?
Fastrack the type 83s. Just a case of money i suppose. A hell of a ship though.
So we start designing now, pause well the next government thinks about it, cancel the idea and then reinstate at the nd of the parliament but to a new design at twice the price at which time the then government decides they cannot be afforded. The final solution is to cut the new order from six to three and then to ship only at £3 billion, this to be bought from Japan who have already built twenty ships for thie own navy. Unfortunately, this is cancelled by the State Party because all voters over the age of twelve object to them having power plants and weapons. 🙄
All completely academic. There is almost zero chance that the new Labour governments promised Defence Review will recommend an increase in the size of the RN. Spending more on the NHS far trumps national security. Big pay rises are in store for Trust CEOs, plus the recruitment of thousands of vitally needed NHS administrators to mange the 200,000+ existing NHS administrators – 39,200 being reported as “manager grade” in Feb 2024 . Sadly no money will then be left for any more doctors or nurses so the government will be under pressure to find another few £billion.
All completely academic. There is almost zero chance that the new Labour governments promised Defence Review will recommend an increase in the size of the RN. Spending more on the NHS far trumps national security. Big pay rises are in store for Trust CEOs, plus the recruitment of thousands of vitally needed NHS administrators to mange the 200,000+ existing NHS administrators – 39,200 being reported as “manager grade” in Feb 2024 . Sadly no money will then be left for any more doctors or nurses so the government will be under pressure to find another few £billion.
Hope the UK’s new government is better than all that and not just same old. Give the 🇬🇧 an uplift and not just seek their own comforts.
Have to wait and see what is in Ms Reeve’s budget. My two penneth ….no tax rate rises but large scale closure of tax reliefs and exemptions. The money raised will have to be used to settle Post Office and Blood scandal compensation, settle junior drs strike, raise the minimum wage for carers and rescue bankrupt local authorities. Everything else will have to wait a while.
I’m enjoying what I’m reading here. The possible and sensible look at MK41s/ExLS onto the T45s. Even if just for CAMM. And why not upgrade the sonar suite if it’s not fully functional and fully manned?
I disagree. 8 Type 83s is not sufficient war fighting, even in a medium scale conflict, such as that experienced in the 1982 Falklands War, let alone a larger conflict with a peer state.
In early 1982 the UK had 10 destroyers in commission prior to the conflict. During the conflict, the UK also surveyed the recently decommissioned Counties for bringing back into service (eventually deciding on frigates). In 2024, the UK has no viable reserve or decommissioned fleet of vessels.
Even with a continuous national build cycle (yet to materialise) a fleet of 12 (harking back to 1970s fleet plans) Type 83s should be the minimum the UK should be investing in for its future security requirements.
I further disagree with the idea of a future collaborative propulsion project. Historically, these types of collaborative projects have resulted in increased delays into service, costs (especially support) and importantly eroded national system requirements.
The time from WW2 to the Falklands 40+years…
Falklands to now 40+ years…
Things have moved on a tad.
Hull numbers are not the be all and end all. It’s the systems they carry.
A T42 could engage 2 targets at a time using semi active radar homing Sea Dart. You would salvo 2 dart per target to get the pk up to a decent level (And it still wasn’t that great!) Target illumination from 909s gave you 2 fire channels. On a good day against a major ASM strike we may have got in 4-6 engagements, using 8-12 missiles before getting hit. That dosn’t factor in the at the time soviet high divers like AS4 and AS6 coming down at 80degs to the vertical from 80+ K ft at mach 4.5. Engagement time for those was measured in seconds from detection on 992 and then getting the 909s to lock up.
A T45 can engage more than 10 targets simultaneously over 360 degs.
Who exactly will the bigger and better RN fight?
There is only one maritime nation that is peer opposition and it isnt ivan…its China. Anything in the Pacific is going to be an air war of attrition by ASMs to begin with before the surface fleets get involved.
The argument of a greater capability any a new warship is an old failed argument.
A vessel 2, 3, 4 times more capable than a preceding class of vessel cannot be on 2,3 or 4 different deployments at the same time.
Also, any one deployment requires a minimum 3 units to maintain, so 4 deployments in the maxim example above would be supported by 12 vessels and crews, with units training, deploying or returning from said deployments, providing additional opportunities gunboat diplomacy or other mission objectives.
One old saying which still holds true in military terms is: quantity has a quality of its own. Critical mass is necessary, no below minimum mass.
I wouldn’t discount the Russian threat, China is obviously observing what occurs with Ukraine WrT to Taiwan. That would be stupid.
😀. I will call you ‘Shirley’. ‘Shirley’ you cannot be serious that any conflict in the Pacific will be an ASM air war. That comment shows a distinct lack of understanding of warfare in general. 😀.
The 3 ships needed for a deployment model hasn’t (Couldn’t) be used by the RN for well over a decade.
Ships coming here to the Gulf extended the deployment length to 9 months with a crew break in the middle to help alleviate the issue.
It helped.
Further work was done under Navy Transformation to see what else could be done. The basing of an FF in theatre, mimicking the successful OP Kipion basing for MCMVs was the result.
A lot of discussions and meetings and visits happened first from a lot of Senior RN and UK Staff before that happened. I like to think that me being in some of those meetings and discussions and being a former T23 WO helped.
It was illuminating to my bosses and some of the visiting UK VIPs having the RNs senior 4 ring Engineer Capt get out of a car and say the equivalent of …
” Golly Gosh…what are you doing here ( Insert RN nickname) …I haven’t made you acquaintance for flipping years…You work here…Great! etc etc”
Deployment generation.
Good example…We have 2 Carriers…not 3 …but they can deploy.
Transformation and the way the RN now does Force Generation being a reason.
More FF/DD is always an advantage, but systems count.
Singlton deployments from the UK are a nice to have but a distraction. Task Group force generation for the Carrier Strike group is the be all and end all. That drives Fleet Planning.
Which would the CSG rather have for its primary warfighting task? 4-6 T42 or a 2x T45. A couple of T22s or a couple of T23 (soonish to be T26). The CSG on the Death Star will know the answer and it isnt T42 and T22.
I never said it would be an air war.
I did say it will be “an air war of attrition by ASMs to begin with before the surface fleets get involved.”
Air launched ASMs will be used first. Masses of them. Once surface units (and subs to be fair) are attritted then the Carriers can start to do their bit. It’s easier to reload a bomber missile carrier than a VLS tube.
As for ivan…he will park his Boomers in the Kara/White sea and use what he has to protect the bastion. Up there it’s going to be a sub war. NATO isnt going to send CSGs and Surface action groups in there… (well not immediately).
Anything going into the N Atlantic, Med and even the Pacific (from Vladivostok) is going to have a truly short service life. They don’t have the mass or the systems to go on a Red Storm Rising offensive. Cruise missile armed subs will be an issue but once they start to launch, they will be located and prosecuted very quickly.
The eroding of tried and tested practises (3 vessels for sustaining an ongoing operational requirement) is a result of insufficient units and crews to man them. I know from experience that in these situations a government or admiral can announce mission accomplished, but fail to see the stretched service people voting with their feet out the main gate and as they saying goes, don’t call me sir, I work for a living.
I was never fan of those SRs in the career cell, shore stanchions the lot of em (note not ex_RN) and easily circumvented.
That was my point in the fleet planing being sub-par being extremely diplomatic! in your example the 4..6 T42s should have been replaced with 1-for-1 Type 45s but we all know how that turned out. Any new ship will always be capable that the one before it so what you say there is a complete croc of s…
You forget that Ivan and/or Lee will want to interdict western naval forces and that it isn’t all about a MAD end game; so those frigates, destroyers, MCV, aircraft and submarines you don’t have (but the replacements are twice as good sir) would be mighty useful.. and in your repeated example of missile flying here there and everywhere you forget that the targeting and launch platforms will be priority targets in any conflict, failing to do that means such actions have been visited on your own forces and that the white flag (for what it is worth) will be the order of the day.
I agree with old service. Quantity is also important when you start taking casualties. A torpedo hit is a torpedo hit. You need numbers just to absorb losses. Number are also a product of your build capacity, which impacts your capacity to replace losses and expand. At present we are in a situation where our ships need to be almost invincible. We have so many eggs in so few baskets. We are also in a dynamic where we need every angle covered where the enemy attacker needs only one route through. A brutal penalty shoot out where the enemy can have as many gos as they like and where we need to be lucky every time and the enemy only once. The enemy has every advantage in this kind of contest and us every disadvantage. I know the push for or these defensive systems was to counter the anti ship threat, but in driving up the value of our vessels(and inedvertably there numbers down) I think we have made the situation worse. Many say we have no choice but to succeed but our enemies are effectively forces us to burn through all our resources while they only dedicate a fraction on offensive weaponry, and in the end they still likely win. An alternative needs to be found because this is a doomed approach.
Everyone is missing the point. The report is saying, that in these troubled times, the budget for the Navy needs to increase to afford:- 8 type 83, 10 type 26, 5 type 31 and 9 type 32. If the Government agree to fund, then get the best you can to do the job. If not, then no point in discussing it.
TLDR Experts conclude “Warmongers” were right after all.
More Destroys 🤔 ok then better start sorting recruitment and get more money 💰 in the Defence pot 🇬🇧 🙄
They need to keep updating the 1045 radar as it is world beating.
Yes it is…and Artisan isnt bad either which uses a lot of Sampsons tech.
The USN is only now getting an AAW specific AESA system to sea on Flight 3 ABs and starting to refit other units with rotating AESA versions of it.
We also need to continue with updating S2087 (Captas4) which again is the DeFacto gold standard for ASW. The USN binned their own version of an active towed array that they tried to develop. Raytheon couldn’t get it to perform anything close to S2087s capabilities so they wrote off 500+mil USD and bought CAPTAS 4 for the connies and also deleted the ASW requirement for LCS.
So is the rotating AESA system for Flight 3 ABs an admission that BAE got it right with Sampson?
The rotating AESA is not for the ABs but is a much smaller version, SPY-6 (V)2 to be specific that will be used on LPDs and Ford class carriers. The ABs will be using their traditional 4 fixed face version that is 4 times larger than the rotating version. Also these radars are not AAW specific but will also include anti surface threats.
Flight 3s have fixed panels. Things lik LSD and Carriers are getting a rotating version based on the modules used on the Fixed panels
This is the result of failure to make Type 26 capable of AAW.
Thats like saying the Army Sky Sabre cannot do AAW because it doesn’t have Patriot attached to it.
T26 can do AAW.
It cannot do Fleet Area Defence.
It can take the T45 air picture over link and use it to prosecute targets within its systems capability.
We need to increase EVERYTHING related to defence. The Polish bought 1000 tanks this year! The russians are taking delivery of twice as many warships as the royal navy has – to ADD to what they already have, we dont have enough aircraft in total to equip one aircraft carrier never mind two and they are shared with the RAF… we are a HUGE nation in terms of GDP but seem to want to spend it on foreign crap, diversity managers and other bullshit NOT on what government is actually FOR – our collective defence!