The Ministry of Defence has confirmed continued progress on the Power Improvement Project (PIP) for the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers, with work now being carried out in parallel across multiple vessels at HM Naval Base Portsmouth to increase fleet availability.
The information was provided by Defence Minister Luke Pollard in a written response on 17 October.
Pollard stated that completion of the refit programme remains “dependent on the availability of ships to undertake the upgrade, balanced against the Royal Navy’s current and future operational commitments.”
He added that PIP conversions are “aligned to the routine Class Upkeep cycle, which has been optimised where feasible to accelerate delivery and increase availability.”
The PIP refit is intended to resolve long-standing propulsion issues within the six-ship Daring class by replacing the original intercooler-recuperator power units with more reliable diesel generators, allowing for a hybrid power configuration. Each ship must undergo major internal modifications to install the new equipment, which has extended the overall schedule for the class.
According to Pollard, “this has enabled an increase in the number of ships undergoing PIP Upkeep in parallel at HM Naval Base Portsmouth, where historically there was only a single Type 45 in Upkeep at any one time.” He added that “class availability is now maximised to ensure that the Royal Navy has been able to fulfil all its operational commitments.”
The minister’s remarks mirror a January statement by Defence Minister Lord Coaker in the House of Lords, who explained that accelerating the PIP programme was being carefully balanced with operational needs. Coaker also confirmed that the upgrade cycle had been synchronised with planned maintenance to minimise downtime and that multiple destroyers were now being worked on simultaneously.
The Type 45 destroyers form the backbone of the Royal Navy’s air defence capability and are equipped with the Sea Viper missile system and SAMPSON radar. The first ship to complete the PIP refit, HMS Dauntless, returned to service in 2023.
@Craig this is not correct
“ The PIP refit is intended to resolve long-standing propulsion issues within the six-ship Daring class by replacing the original intercooler-recuperator power units with more reliable diesel generators, allowing for a hybrid power configuration”
It should read
“ The PIP refit is intended to resolve long-standing propulsion issues within the six-ship Daring class. Thr replacing the original intercooler-recuperator power units is being updated with a higher capacity recuperation. The existing two diesel generators are being replaced with three much higher capacity units, allowing for a hybrid power configuration that in extended cruising mode allows for power solely from the DGUs. Given the DGUs are highly economical and fuel capacity remains the same the range will be considerably extended. In addition to the cruise fuel saving there is a further saving as the RR GTs, which only have to be run above 15kts cruise, are contracted on a pay per hour used basis mirroring civilian airliner contracts.”
There FIFY!
I thought the intercoolers had been replaced long ago and PIP was purely about increasing the number and power of diesel engines so the gas turbines would need to be used less. I had no idea they were on a pay per hour basis – how very strange (at least to me).
From memory i think Gunbuster said on here the Intercoolers had been physically modified in some way,and Software upgrades were enabled to incease reliability,so not replaced as such.
Previously the cores were removed to enable some other modifications.
Previously the software had been modified to avoid the operating conditions where thermal runaway occurred by limiting power ramp rate and using the DGs and the second GT to provide bridging power and then to run down as the primary GT ran up etc.
Now the cores have been replaced to allow a wider range of operating variables avoiding thermal runaway.
PIP isn’t “replacing the original intercooler-recuperator power units with more reliable diesel generators”: it’s replacing the original pair of 2700 hp diesel generators with three 4000 hp diesel generators to make them the primary power source rather than the back up.
I just can’t get my head around why they aren’t installing mk41/57 strike length VLS whilst these vessels are alongside for such extended periods, the 1850 radar could also get a software upgrade to the latest version as well.
This is so inefficient, really is and now that Andueil seems to have created an inexpensive cruise missile (200k each supposedly) there is simply no excuse not to add this capability.
Cost ? the MK41 VLS are expensive
We really have to stop saying that everything costs loads as that’s just a fact of life, these will come out virtually new ships but once again missing a key offensive capability.
In terms of overall cost v capability the cost is negligible – probably £20m per ship. It’s also a lot cheaper to do now than taking them out of service again..
we need these fitted out properly now or just give up pretending we are a military power. The FFBNW was intended to insert capabilities if needed. If not now then when?
I sympathize with what you’re saying but I’d be happier if we equipped the T31’s properly, instead of our stupid “fitted for but” policy. Polish and Indonesian 31’s are getting more Camm silos and VLS or NSM. What does the R.N. get? a second rate ship inferior to it’s foreign class mates.
Shouldn’t we fit them as a UOR?
If not now then it’s never. It really is a shambles outside of the Subs we can’t actually sink another ship of any size.
Once they are through their 32/48 missiles they are sitting ducks.
Mk57 VLS could go a long way to fix that as would additional NSM launchers.
Just embarrassing, really is
32 VLS is standard for frigates across the world. If the Type 31 actually carries the VLS it should it wouldn’t be under armed at all
But it’s not is it. It is a European minimum std only
The 2 biggest navies (USN, CHN) + Japan, Korea & Russia all have far more VLS on their ships and in most cases can be quad packed unlike our CAMM VLS.
We have been gaslit into accepting less, with each SDR
The constellation class carries 32, Mogami carries 16, Chungnam and Daegu carry 16, the Type 054 A and B carries 32, whilst the Type 054 and Type 053 carry no VLS.
Only two Russian frigate classes carry any VLS, one only has 8 and the Admiral Gorshkov will carry 64 once they’re upgraded is finished although, 32 carried the large missiles like Kalibur, and the others are fixed carrying the medium ranged air defence.
32 VLS is not underarmed compared to the world’s average in frigates.
If you were to talk about destroyers however then I will completely agree that Europe underarms then, the Type 45 for example is the most underarmed modern destroyer for its tonnage in the world. And I’m very much hope that we go for 124 VLS on the type 83 or at the bare minimum 96.
Type 45 is getting Sea Viper Evolution. This includes adding 24 Sea Ceptor VLS, moving to 48 Aster 30 block 1. The ships will also get NSM ASM and Dragon Fire Directed Energy Weapons. The C2 will be updated with more processing power and integration of Sea Ceptor. I should imagine they will add two data links to guide the new missile. There will also be a SAMPSON update handle ballistic ASM. The 1850 might also get a upgrade.
When all this is done these ships will have 72 SAMs, 8 ASMs, 2xDREW. They will also get new decoy lanchers.
Ah but will they get “Out of Dock” ?
Exactly my thoughts . If we can’t afford NK41 for both let T45 focus on air defence that it was designed for and prioritise NK41 for T31, preferably installed at build on hulls three, four and five. . A single T31 stationed in the Gulf and carrying TLAM with a range of 1,800 km ( 2,400 km extended?) would be able to hit pretty much any target in the Middle East. Now that would be a first day capability worth having indeed. Lots of people saying Tomahawk is a legacy capability which has had its day , 🇺🇦 doesn’t seem to think so , neither does Putin it would seem.
Agreed, but this shouldn’t be an either/or conversation at this point in time. The threat level for our navy has increased dramatically, for the sake of £30-50m per ship (max) we can take a step change. We can also leverage off current orders for T31/26
My preference is mk57 as it is a bigger upgraded version of mk41 which is surely more flexible, but this would need to be in the same cost window.
If the UK can fund some of the crazy stuff it seems able to, then it can spend a £300m on a much needed military upgrade. This is far more useful than F35A for nuclear use for example.
No one is using mk57 and it cannot be added to old ships
Sorry that should of course read MK 41. A big fan of T31 and I think just for once the .RN got it right in selecting Arrowhead over the rival designs, a big hull with loads of potential but when first iof class Venturer enters service as others have said embarrassingly under armed . . As a minimum she should from the start carry 28 CAAM and preferably NSM for which she has the sensors and plenty of room , but fitting MK 41 should be an absolute priority and a no brainer to me.
I agree it’s a great design, where they have applied lessons learned from the previous 2 classes. It could even have the flex deck reinserted for even more space and flexibility should we or another customer want it.
I agree. Ideally we should have both but with NSM the 45’as are a potent vessel any way. I’m very much with you on the T31 carrying something akin to Tomahawk. Some people don’t seem to get the idea that with only a few hulls available to us they must be capable of delivering. The “fitted for but” doctrine is ridiculous. The additinal cost of fitting during consruction is nothing compared to the defence budget, never mind the money we waste faffing about with cuts and delays.
It’s not inferior Geoff. For those mentioned nations, T31 will be there primary warship. They don’t have T45s and T26s and nuclear boats.
It’s still is inferior. We made a full-sized frigate and then gave it only 12 CAMM for all of its missile needs including offense.
If all we wanted was an opv which is the only combat that the current type 31 could ever do then we would have been better off just building an opv and not buying the incredibly expensive radars or paying for it to be 5,000 tonnes, so we clearly wanted a frigate but there’s no point making a frigate that can’t actually go into combat against any remotely threatening opponent. It doesn’t matter how well trained you are or how good your missiles and radars are, if you only have 12 missiles and they can throw 13 at you you’ve lost.
It has an inferior armament compared to it’s “class mates” No getting away from that Robert. That was my comment. For a relatively small outlay our T31’s could have similar.
The point was that there were £xBn in the kitty.
RN needed five frigates therefore budget was £xBn/5 – it really was that simple.
Be thankful we have five large hulls on order that have a place for Mk41 and NSM fits.
That is the can-do mindset.
Or a we can’t do better mindset.
The defence budget only goes so far though Geoff. And we have lots of projects that need funds. How many comments do we see on any given capability. ” if we only added this this and this, it won’t cost much “. It all adds up. T31 are getting Mk41, and will be upgraded significantly during their life. They will complement T26 and T45 very nicely.
Even at the time of the Cold War, when defence was around 5% of GNP, the UK was still limited to what kit could be deployed etc!
Understood, budgets are always finite, but we have really shot ourselves in the foot pretending to be something we are not anymore & now should be the time to start putting that right. In this particular case it’s a relatively small cost for a big tactical improvement.
The other side to this argument is that we often go to war with kit that don’t make the cut and it’s only our ability to rapidly evolve that has saved us previously, problem with that is our industrial capacity is nowhere near what it needs to be & we are unlikely to be able to make up for the initial losses. Which will cost lives.
Nothing will be done sensibly. I hope in future ships have a greater degree of capacity for modernisation. A problem seems to be we power our ships to marginal sufficiency. I hope the T83 Destroyers are powered up to Japanese standards. That means 2 GTs if they are in the 10k ton class or larger.
We really need to be placing orders for these now and I am of the opinion it should be an extended T26, as these are now coming in under £700m a unit which is incredible for what they are. We should also benefit from having a hull tuned for ASW as this will be critical going forward. Any money saved build more subs.
If you are happy to sacrifice another expensive project. And are happy for these vessels to be unavailable for even longer. Then by all means fit Mk41. They are getting 24 Sea Ceptors and NSM and Aster 30 for the 48 silos. And upgrades to the Sea Viper command control system. Mk41 is going in T26, and I believe T31.
Are they getting CAMM as part of this or is it another period alongside
T26/31 are not going to be available for 3 years min, so yes I am ok to add them during this period whilst they are already out of action.. surely it’s just common sense
Its not about common sense. Its about what can be done with the available budget and the requirements of the RN, and also about managing fleet availability. Deployments are planned 2/3 years in advance. And their primary role is fleet defence. Plus NSM has a land attack capability. T26 and possibly T31 with be equipped with mk41 and the new FC/ASW.
To be honest because we only have 6 of these, essentially in a hot war they are going to be stapled to a carrier battle group.. if we still had 12 AAW destroyers and they would be covering surface actions groups etc I would agree.. but due to need and numbers these ships sole function is to make sure a small number of strategic assets don’t get overwhelmed by air attack.
There for everything about these ships should be focused on that core function.
Possibly, but given the state of T23 fleet I suspect these will be worked a lot more than that, they are now essentially the only escorts we have.
They are good ships with plenty of life in them, this should be their final major refit and then we should move onto T83, which for me is a T26 variant or a much bigger amphib with the correct radar set and a load of VLS (similar to San Antonio class – but far cheaper).
Depends on what RN actually want as to which direction we go in
At present rate the T45s will finish their refits at about the time all the T31s and most of the t26s are commissioned.. to be honest the T45s were build to a far far better standard than the t23..with as I understand it far thicker hull plating and were designed for a good 25 years hard use.. if you look at HMS Daring as the ultimate harbour queen, she only went on her first proper deployment in 2012 and then by 2017 was popped up against the wall.. only has really 5 years worth of hard use so even if she is used and abused, there is no reason why she should not last well into the late 2040.. so at the point the RN starts getting the T83 they could use these for for more general deployments that need an AAW ship such as with the amphibious groups..potentially I can see the navy running on the T45s with the type 83 and trying to increase its numbers of AAW ships..it really needs 9 to provide 3 deployments…1 to the carrier and 1 to each amphibious group.
@ Jonathan
Not using a ship is very, very bad for it.
You get bacteria that like munching steel in the inlets etc and the sea water pipework becomes a disaster.
She will have been a real mess after that long on the wall.
Given she was used as a harbour training vessel the condition of the stone destroyer is a bit suspect.
The issue is less the plating thickness but the treatments and the upkeep regime. T23 was designed to be scrapped in Yr 19 of its life. So it didn’t have either access to some areas or a very thorough mid life internal recoat.
So the tin worm was very advanced by the time of LIFEX as it had been left unchecked for so long.
The 18 yr design & *maintenance schedule* was spot on as is proved.
We can only hope that they were not so stupid as to not maintain Daring when she was on the wall.. but knowing financial drivers for in year balance and bugger the future.. your probably correct.. but if they do a good job on the refit her structure and keel would be good for years.. the T23s are just evidence that when a ship is structurally buggered and beyond its designed life then throwing money at its is like chasing water down a plug hole.. well that’s the case for small crafter anyway.. and I believe it’s the same with ships.
Can ASTER be put into the MK VLS tubes? I’d support it, if the work doesnt add years of trials to the ships, which it very likely would. It would open up the ability to use other missiles such as PAC-3 but again probably years of tests before fully operational. We need these ships in the water ASAP.
there is no need to put aster into mk41 on T45 as that is covered. they do however accept CAMM and loads of other missiles
We currently have 1 SSN available that can launch tomahawks (TLAM) nothing else in the whole UK arsenal.
These 6 ships were built to house Mk41/57 Strike length VLS (FFBNW) with several of them alongside for pip or other reasons for 1yr +
Given the current geopolitical situation – we should just get on with it and give them this capability
everyones comments are all valid from a wide range of lenses but I believe the situation merits this uprade now whilst the ships are still alongside to save costs further down the line
We can spaff money at the rate of billions on crazy shit – £300m to update our only assets capable of ballistic defence and land attack seems like a bargain at this point in time.
there is no need to put aster into mk41 on T45 as that is covered. they do however accept CAMM and loads of other missiles
We currently have 1 SSN available that can launch tomahawks (TLAM) nothing else in the whole UK arsenal.
These 6 ships were built to house Mk41/57 Strike length VLS (FFBNW) with several of them alongside for pip or other reasons for 1yr +
Given the current geopolitical situation – we should just get on with it and give them this capability
everyones comments are all valid from a wide range of lenses but I believe the situation merits this uprade now whilst the ships are still alongside to save costs further down the line
We can spaff money at the rate of billions on crazy shit – £300m to update our only assets capable of ballistic defence and land attack seems like a bargain at this point in time.
Yes and no. Aster has been modelled with Mk41, but as far as I’m aware has had no physical dry fits or other trials. Fitting Aster to Mk41 can be done if there is money made available. But the RN doesn’t want to be the first to stump up the cost for the integration work. To be honest MBDA were incredibly short sighted in this department. Aster is a French/Italian led program. The French DGA (like DE&S but with more engineering authority) designed the Sylver vertical launch system (VLS). Where they insisted Sylver would be fitted to all their warships starting with the Horizons. We were paying for the principle anti-air missile system (PAAMS) which was the joint European ship based air defence system. But France made sure that it would use the Sylver VLS. Thinking it would make a great export potential with Aster. However, most naves went with the US made Mk41. As that was cheaper and had had a bigger range of weapons (and cheaper) it could launch.
Aster could easily be launched from the Mk41, as it’s a similar hot launch VLS. The problem is who pays for the integration cost, which won’t be cheap? It would be awesome if the T45s 32 Sylver A50 VLS was replaced by the Mk41 strike length VLS, but it won’t happen. To be honest it would be good enough to have the A50 replaced with the longer A70. As that would mean Aster could gain an extra 2m length of 1st stage booster. Which should allow it (Block 1NT) to reach altitudes of at least 100,000ft.
Mk41 just isn’t worth the cost imo, we should be joining in on the ASTER upgrades that Italy and France are doing.
To a point I agree. The issue is that to get a longer ranger/higher reaching anti-air missile, you need either the strike length versions of the Mk41 or the A70 Sylver. The T45 is currently equipped with the Sylver A50 VLS. This means that the depth/length of the VLS can only hold missiles up to 5m long. Which is fine for the current Aster 30 being it is 4.9m long. However for something like SM6 or SM3, they are 6.6m and 6.55m long respectively. Therefore these longer ranged weapons require the longer strike length VLS, which for the Sylver A70 is 7m long and the Mk41 is 7.7m long.
Engagement height is critically important, as it means that it gives you time to launch a second shot if needed. But this also translates into effective crossing range interception. Which is where the target is crossing your path tangentially or obliquely, rather than heading straight for you. These types of interceptions require more fuel to reach the calculated interception point, as the “effector” has to either lead the target or have the speed advantage to overtake the target.
Having the longer/deeper strike length VLS would give the T45 a much greater capability at dealing with a greater range of airborne threats. The T83 to provide the full area denial capability will require the longer strike length VLS.
Greenland will be covered in Grass before these are all fixed, maybe we can send the crews there to help mow the grass.
Nah! Halfwit, the Grenerder Guards said they can plant rapid seed like the blokes on new motorways only over 300,000 hectares in two weeks…..very impressive. Look! All T45 completed in just two weeks!!
“ensure that the Royal Navy has been able to fulfil all its operational commitments.”
And a key detail left out, naturally, amid in the flowery talk. How many of those commitments have been scaled back or omitted totally as the RN has so few escorts left?
Other than that, good progress it seems. The last 2, cuts from the vowed 8 to 6, have cost the RN badly. Labour will keep quiet on that of course….as they will about the Defence Secretary who apparently ignored all professional advice.
Indeed if you reduced commitments to zero then not having them at sea at all would meet all those commitments comfortably.
Yes indeed, we have OPVs doing the job of major surface combanants……I l love looking at the asset registers for the armed forces force levels in 2000 the RN had 11 AAW destroyers, 22 frigates, 19 ocean going mine warfare vessels, 31 patrol craft six survey ships and 1 ice partrol ship as well as 18 auxiliary ships..now it has 6 AAW destroyers, 7-8 frigates, 8 mine warfare vessels and 26 patrol vessels.
Hmme
T42’s Sea Dart *system* wasn’t even vaguely at the level of Sea Ceptor never mind Sea Viper.
Whilst Sea Dart was very large and very fast the electronics were of a different era and the less said about its manageability and the on board computer systems the better.
I’m genuinely unconvinced that RN would have been better off with more T45’s they weren’t being used. If there were more they would probably have been sold.
Yes but and this is the very simple truth no matter how much better the systems, sensors and effectors 1 ship cannot
1) be in the same number of places as 2 ships
2) cover the same search area ( because of radar horizons)
3) have a back up ship if it suffers failure
4) have a back up ship if it’s mission killed
Essentially yes it’s lovely that T45 is more effective than 2 T42s but it cannot overcome physics… in the end numbers always matter.. it’s why the RN in WW2 ran such ships as the flowers class corvettes.. when they had far more effective ASW frigates and destroyers.
And the 6 T45s run into that issue hard.. your only ever really going to reliably have 2 available for deployment.. that means you have your CBG covered and that is it.. when in reality the RN needs 4 AAW destroy deployments.. 2 for the carrier, 1 for littoral response group north and 1 for littoral response group south.. if the RN had given T26 or T31 long range volume search radar and long range AAW missiles you could get away with 6 ( Italy gets away with 4 because its sticks long range volume search radar and aster 30s on every major combatant it has) but it has not and that means holes in capabilities for some task groups.
My point was wider.
T45’s have not been prioritised for serviceability as they were ‘expensive’ to run.
So they spend most of their time not at sea.
If you’d had 12 T45’s the T45 budget would have been the same and you would have had more Darings that were stripped/sold etc.
Up to recently [BW] there was no emphasis on getting what we had working.
Just 6 ships and still not sorted ? Truly pathetic.
They will only be put right when UK MOD wants to sell them.
So when can we expect Daring to actually complete PIP and re-enter service?
I think she is already doing tests alongside.
There was an article suggesting she would be under her own power in the New Year
Daring completed PIP ages ago ( late 2022 ) being the 2nd and last T45 to be done at CL’s,the issues since are for other reasons.
Was part of the team that completed PIP on Dauntless, the only one successfully commissioned and performing, which was done in Cammell Laird’s
I was always curious as to why the work was move away from CL TBH.
There is a real balance to be had here and I don’t think we have it correct. The risk assessments are all out of kilter.. because for all the talk I don’t believe for a second that it’s truly sank in we are heading for a world war some to after 2027 and likely before 2035. Although people are willing to say it in their hearts they don’t believe.. because if you truly believed..you would go Fu%k present peacetime deployment needs all that matters is being war ready and the RN, the MOD, government and wider NATO is not in a place to do that.. personally as some as the carrier came back I would inform NATO the T45s Are all being lined up in a row and having their power and firepower upgrades and sorry but that’s what is happening.
I saw this mentality during Covid.. I was the person responsible for making sure my part of the world had safe effective primary and urgent care.. when china got covid I looked at the assessments looked at what we knew and in a board meeting at the end of January 2020 when going a briefing on the state of these services I specifically asked the question so how how would you like me to start developing an emergency plan for management of a mass pandemic and potential catastrophe outcome.. I literally got blank looks and was told “ the department of health has told us it’s fine and to keep going as we are..just focus on doing your job please.. the day before that the first two UK covid cases had been diagnosed and that morning the WHO has declared a global emergency.. all my knowledge as a clinician and risk manage knew we were heading for a shitstorm the like of which we had never seen before in our lives and yet the DOH and my bosses were telling everyone to carry on as normal…
“ I would inform NATO the T45s Are all being lined up in a row and having their power and firepower upgrades and sorry but that’s what is happening.”
There isn’t the dry dock or engineering capacity to do that.
But they could speed it up as quickly as they possibly can and say the upgrade is the priority NOT present peacetime operational needs.
The insanity of the present messaging is bizarre.. the latest civil contingency advise from the government advisor is that the government needs to be telling the population to within 3 years be ready for a major war in Europe and gray zone attacks on the UK with all households having emergency stocks including 3 days of potable water… and yet they are plodding this key work needed for wartime.
They are plodding along with the resource / finance constraints that they have.
Short of a major cash injection this can’t be speeded up.
The big cost, that nobody wants to address, is actually filling up all the spares bins with frequently needed medium lead time items.
Indeed, simply put someone needs to do something about the treasury… so many sins go back to one place.
Treasury only has so much money.
Millibrain has hoovered huge amounts of cash as well as decimating one stream of receipts. Driving energy bills up which are killing industry and another stream of receipts.
Labour are unable to deal with the huge and growing benefits bill. Mind you the conservatives created most of this mess.
So what do you cut to move money to defence?
Bearing in mind that the amount of money needed in Yr0 isn’t that much as ordering T32 won’t have to be paid for till the next government is in power.
I would do one very quick and easy thing.. I would remove the triple lock from pensions and index link it price increases. That immediately gives 10 billion a year freed up cash now and 40 billion a year by 2050.. I would then only give child benefits to households with a low income that’s another 5 billion a year….
I agree the triple lock is insanity for an unfunded pension pot.
I have no idea why Labour think the electoral calculus matters in this. They are electrically toast.
Actually Labour’s best chance is to start to turn the economy round which they can only do by starting to play the part of grown ups and stop blaming the conservatives for everything and stop being so terrified of their own back benchers and the voters and actually do the basics.
The problem is things like the two child cap then come up in Labour lore.
Treasury will tell you that it is expensive and difficult to means test benefits. It is part of the civil service religion to say that along with copious amounts of hand wringing.
They should have more offensive power. End of. No excuse.
With the lack of mk41s in the upgrade they’ll hopefully be getting their 2x 4 NSMs asap. Might even be room enough for additional 2x 4 even if FFBNW. And why not get the AAW capability of the 4.5″ restored if they’re there keeping the gun and the ammunition can be dual use?
Yeah considering the type 23 got the NSM in their upgrade. The type 45 were meant to get the mk41s but put a gym where they were meant to go. So there is still room for them.
Careful I was shouted down on NL for stating you can double stack NSM!
BTW you actually can – just depends on what whether the frame underneath is engineered for that.
Now that is an interesting thought. 16 NSMs would make for a more significant strike package.. it’s these relatively low cost things that could be done now that will show will and maybe just maybe help the deterrent enough to stave off what is coming..
It is down to localised deck strengthening; fire suppression etc.
All 16 don’t actually need a simultaneous controller cabinet. It is possible just to connect 8 to the controller cabinet and when those are expended to manually change over to the next pair of 4x launchers.
Effectively carrying 8 reloads that are only a few plug unplug operations away from being serviceable.
Sounds like a no brainer really then.. so it will never happen.
I am not sure that making the 4.5″ gun AAW capable is really that good a use of money.
For a lot less £££ you could change the 30mm’s to 40mm or even 57mm with a 40mm to cover the stern arcs. I’d be tempted to leave the 4.5″ well enough alone as T45 urgently does not need another complicated project.
Looking at the image of the T45s, it looks like there’d beenough room for another 24 CAMM farm on the hangar roof? Bit of a “dead zone” in defended coverage as DB called it. Will be extra weight and a bit close to the radar safe, but double? Aren’t these ships getting Ancilia and Dragonfire in their upgrades too? Will 40mm replace the Phalanx’s?
*doable
And how are crew getting to the hangar roof to remove the weather caps?
Have some compressed air actuated lids.
The idea is a non starter as we both know the hangar would be filled with the length of the missiles! So no cab!
Or a good place for a deck mounted 57mm to give AAW gun coverage out to 8km instead of the present 2 km with the 30mm cannons.
My suspicion is that the hangar roof would require strengthening for a 57mm
Pretty certain, I’ve said nothing about fitting CAMM to the hangar as CAMM’s container is 3.2m long. I doubt they will be mounted on top of the hangar as that adds a bit more top weight. Plus like you say they would likely penetrate the deck to lower the mass. A more likely position could be either side of the middle antenna/sensor mast.
The non-deck penetrating version of the Bofors Mk3 57mm weighs 7000kgs and with 120 rounds weighing 732kg equals 7732kg. Whilst the Bofors Mk4 40mm (non-deck penetrating turret weighs) with 100 rounds, weighs 2500kg.
The Mk3 57mm is a more capable weapons system, as it has a longer effective range and a wider spread of ammunition types, compared to the Mk4 40mm. However, it does weigh significantly more, could the T45’s hangar in its current stare handle the additional weight. I doubt it very much, as I’ve seen no drawings or renderings, where the hangar had something weighty fitted on top of it. Pretty sure it could be reinforced to take the weight of the Mk3 57mm. But mounting the Mk4 40 would be a quicker and cheaper option.
Plus it would close the dead zone abaft of the ship!
The spot you describe would be perfect for more NSM.
It is very doubtful that the Hangar roof is in any way engineered for significant loadings – never mind dynamic ones.