It is planned that all six ships will have completed their power plant upgrades by the mid-2020s.
In 2016, the Ministry of Defence acknowledged that the Northrop Grumman intercooler in the propulsion system was unreliable. On occasion there have been near-complete power generation failures, temporarily disabling propulsion, power generation for weapons, navigational systems and other purposes, leaving the ships vulnerable to “total electric failure”.
A staggered refit was also announced, which will involve cutting into the ship’s hulls and fitting additional diesel generation capacity.
The then First Sea Lord, Admiral Philip Jones, clarified that the “WR-21 gas turbines were designed in extreme hot weather conditions to what we call “gracefully degrade” in their performance, until you get to the point where it goes beyond the temperature at which they would operate… we found that the resilience of the diesel generators and the WR-21 in the ship at the moment was not degrading gracefully; it was degrading catastrophically, so that is what we have had to address”.
In March 2018, it was announced that each ship would have their two diesel engines replaced by three new ones at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead.
Recently, Kevan Jones, Member of Parliament for North Durham asked via a written question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the Power Improvement Project for the Type 45 will be concluded.”
James Heappey, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, responded:
“HMS DAUNTLESS will be the first of the Type 45 Destroyers to receive the Power Improvement Project upgrades. Work will commence this spring and the ship will return to sea for trials in 2021. The timetable for the Power Improvement Project is dependent on the availability of ships to undertake the conversion, balanced against the Royal Navy’s standing and future operational commitments. It is planned that all six ships will have completed their upgrades by the mid-2020s.”
So, would it not make sense given the current climate, to ask partner nations to supply ships to fill in and speed up the T45’s refit.
Unsure if we have the capacity in order to do this? 2/3 at a time would make more sense.
Additionally, adding extra silos to the T45’s at the same time would be useful, if the budget allows of course!
Not really. Remember we’re currently operating on with 4 destroyers, not 6, so having Dauntless and then Daring in refit isn’t going to change anything. Then when the younger, less problematic ships go in we’ll still have the same number of destroyers. With such high profile events as the first QE CSG deployment in 2021 coming soon, we need as many white ensigns at sea as possible. It would certainly be nice to get the strike cells. The T45s were noticeably left out from the interim anti ship missile programme, so when Harpoon goes they lose all anti ship capability.… Read more »
I had read an article before – and to be fair I’m not sure of its validity but it did make sense at the time – that stated the money that was originally earmarked for the MK41 VLS was reallocated to fix the propulsion issues. Has anyone else heard this? Even if it is not true, I just don’t see the 45s ever getting the MK41s. I would love to be wrong but I don’t think I am unfortunately…. Fantastic ships but woefully underarmed – as is usually the case; you only have to look at the pitiful self-defence suite… Read more »
MK41 VLS would be great for the Type 45s. If it never comes about we should at least arm them with NSM fitted into quad canister launchers bolted onto the decks; relatively cheap way of giving the T45s plus our frigates some actual offensive punch. Okay, it would mean only 8 missiles per ship but 8 is a hell of a lot better than none. If all our frigates and destroyers were thus armed and we had, say 2 Type 45s and 3-4 Type 23/26/31s escorting our carrier that’s 40-48 NSM missiles plus any mounted onto our F35s. Compared to… Read more »
Hi Steve am I missing something here. In my view having just 6 crippled (if only slightly) and potentially under-armed destroyers would justify working night and day to resolve in months not years. The suppliers should be helpful as it is partial their problem as well. The UK should not order anything more until we can get what we have working!
Well, the missiles would help with the “under-armed” part by giving them some offensive punch. Yes, they should be worked on to fix the problem asap. They could be done in months rather than years if we brought them all in to be worked on at once but 1) would leave us with no destroyers at all and 2) I dont know if we have the capacity to do all at once. The interim missile is due to enter service by 2023 (out of service date for Harpoon). If some of our destroyers are waiting to be fixed in that… Read more »
Seems dreadfully slow work. A year per ship? Could fit the Mk 41s in that time as well. If there are 6 T45 and 2 are laid up surely you could double the rate and get it done in half the time.
We used to work under the slow regimen until we suddenly went all out and business boomed! excuse the pun.
Sorry, disagree. I think the present programme is designed to spread the cost across several Defence budgets.
Well they carry 48 Aster missiles, not a small number, and we haven’t required to fire a single one at anybody. We all want the best toys, in great numbers, but let’s be realistic.
The issue with Aster, whether 15 or 30, is that they are anti aircraft so are defensive in nature. The Type 45s lack the capability to attack an enemy ship. It’s only offensive capability is a single Merlin armed with Sting Ray torpedoes that have a range of up to 11k. Chances are the Merlin will be shot down far before it gets in range. In a ship vs ship fight the Type 45 will very likely come last. Something like the NSM which has a range of 100-300 miles would mean that the Type 45 could do more than… Read more »
Why are they underarmed? Compare them to what they replaced. They carry more AA missiles than a T42 did. Some have ASuW Harpoon that is more than a T42 did. Phalanx is fitted 2x 30mms which is more than the 2 or occasionally 4 x 20mm a T42 had. T42 had Stws fitted for torpedoes but it was not supported for many years and was a joke to load and use. Both have good Helos although in this case a T42 lynx did have Skua. A T45 deck can take a far bigger helo and can operate drones if required.… Read more »
They’re not under armed compared to their predecessors, but they are compared to their contemporaries. Each Type 45 has 48 VLS cells, each capable of taking either: 1x short range Aster 15 – 30km 1x medium range Aster 30 – 120km (The standard mix is 32 Aster 30 and 16 Aster 15) Now compare that to an Arleigh Burke class with 96 VLS cells, each capable of taking: 4x short range RIM-162 – 50km 1x medium range RIM-66 – 160km 1x long range/anti-ballistic missile RIM-174 – 240km 1x anti-ballistic missile RIM-161 – 2500km 1x RGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile – 1700km… Read more »
Arleigh Burkes are not a good comparison. The AA missile system is very dated and requires additional tracking radars to engage targets. T45 does not. The USN fire 2 missiles at a target as ASTER only requires one to achieve the same hit percentage. Only now is the USN catching up with SPY 6 radars that do a similar job to Sampson. Unless you have evolved sea sparrow which is only now coming in to service, the existing sea sparrow is again a semi active homer and requires tracking radars. T45 is light on ASuW missiles but it has never… Read more »
Once again, the voice of reason and experience on these threads Gunbuster. Top man ???
The RIM-162 ESSMs have been in service since the early 2000s, replacing the older Sea Sparrows, and it is true that both they and the RIM-66s primarily rely on illumination by one of three SPG-62 FCRs on the Arleigh Burkes, each of which can simultaneously guide 8 missiles. However, the missiles require terminal illumination only, allowing you to have more than that in the air behind the first wave ready to receive direction from the radar as soon as a FC channel becomes free. That being said, the latest block 2 ESSMs being tested now have their own radar seeker,… Read more »
I would love a T45 with additional weapons but it’s not going to happen. The time required to buy, qualify and set up the shore and ship support is not there and from experience would take at least 5 years to get it in place. For example so that you can appreciate how things take time on a warship. In 2009 I proposed an increase in the size to the vehicle Mezz deck on Bulwark. It would help in moving ammunition to the Landing Craft and it would make ammo ship much easier. It would also allow the removal of… Read more »
Gunbuster surely you measure them against the enemy you have to face not its predecessor! Given the scenarios a T45 currently has to face (sometimes alone) can the defences be overwhelmed and if so can something be done about it?
And who exactly has the tech to overwhelm a T45 in the real world? Jesus guys, this isn’t a Tom Clancy novel. Countries don’t just start lobbing missiles at each other for no reason. A monumental political fall out would have to happen with a foreign country before anyone starts putting other nations warships in their crosshairs. And if it did, lot’s of new toys would appear on our fleet very quickly indeed.
Robert – do you feel these ships have protection from saturation low tech & low cost attacks?
The crews will train for these events, the RN is well aware of the threats faced. The ships are fitted with numerous minigun and gpmg points around the ship in addition to the phalanx systems.
Best defence a type 45 or 23 has against these is the ds30 mount. Very effective against fast attack craft or swarming small boats armed with bombs, rpgs etc.
The problem Robert is not its defensive armament. The Type 45 will likely swat away attacking missiles or aircraft all day long. The problem is that it can only defend itself, it can’t hit back.
The best defence is attack. This seems to have been forgotten.
Don’t worry there will be tons of time, rest assured.
For a potential Adversary take the PLAN Type 052D Destroyer, which has 1 x 100mm Main Gun,2 x 32 Tube VLS Arrays for HHQ-9 SAM’s,YJ18 ASM’s and CY-5 Anti – Submarine Missiles (ASROC Equivalent) 1 x CIWS plus 1 x FL-3000N Short Range SAM System,all in all not a bad Weapons Fit for a Ship of about the same Tonnage as a Type 45.
Am I right to think T45 normally carry Wildcat as their helo?
We must be approaching the in service date for the Martlet and Sea Venom missiles. This would give T45 a pretty good defensive portfolio.
I know that Lynx/Wildcat was supposed be used for anti-surface and piracy duties etc and the Merlin is a dedicated sub-hunter. But if your only helicopter asset is Merlin, why can it not be armed for the surface mission with either Martlets or Sea Venom? With today’s threats of swarming attacks by go-fast boats and the lack of helicopters in general within the FAA. Fitting out a Merlin to use these weapons makes logical sense, does it not? Also for a quick offensive upgrade, the T45’s DS30M Mark 2s must get the Martlet launcher modification, its a no brainer. However,… Read more »
@DaveyB If we assume that Type 31 and the River 2s take care of constabulary, humanitarian, presence and anti piracy duties the question would be what do we want Type 45 to do or be; given also that we are not going to re-enact the battle of Jutland against the Russian or Chinese fleet? This sort of discussion is really above my pay grade but here goes… Type 45 is already best in class AAW for the carrier strike group. When the propulsion reliability issues are fixed ( and coincidentally more electrical power is available) the priority should be ABM… Read more »
Unfortunately, due to the small number of ships, we do not have the luxury of keeping the T45s as purely guard-ships for the two carriers. They must also do general purpose duties, be that patrolling the Straights of Hormuz, shepherding ships past Yemen, looking for pirates off the coast of Somalia or the Malacca Straights. The combination of Sampson and Aster puts it in a different league compared to the T26’s Artisan/SeaCeptor or T31’s NS200/SeaCeptor combinations. The high fidelity and clutter rejection that Sampson has in detecting moving targets masked against landmasses, means it will detect threats much earlier, thus… Read more »
I understand what you say. I am questioning the assumption that Type 45 will continue to be deployed as a singleton or close to the shoreline in an offensive role. I see the development strategy for Type 45 as remaining focussed on AAW carrier group escort; enhancing capabilities to BMD through Aster NT block 1 and eventually Block 2 and laser weapons. I do agree your point on fleet numbers of RN vessels. There are not enough. But I see Type 31 as performing the close in shore and singleton roles you describe and would like these to be heavily… Read more »
Agree Mark. HMG should ask for 7 of their Aegis cruisers for a 1 year loan and bung all the type 45s into a crash programme, get the bloody things fixed and whilst your at it, fit the strike length Mk41s these ships (and our navy) desperately need.
Presumably we will be taking money from the suppliers of this kit that hasn’t worked out. Wont be buying any more from them. So they cant help with the schedule at all
I am sure the kit is paid for and I’m not sure where any blame resides. Government might have the risk so just get on with fixing it!
This is just used for show. If it was a real war situation, the salvo would come from subs, since they can get much closer and launch much more safely without being tracked.
The anti-ship salvo may come from subs but we only have 7.
1 is escorting the Vanguard class SSBN. So 6 effectively. Likely any fleet we send will have max 2 submarines with it. They can only be in 2 places at once and subs move relatively slow.
I would much rather we be able to attack from underwater, from surface ships and from aircraft to give us more options.
Balance that with the tiny number of missiles we brought and 2 is more than enough.
It would be good to have options, but fitting tubes to the destroyers comes at a cost and then there is additional cost in buying more missiles (no longer made) and then additional cost in maintenance etc, this money is just better spent else where currently.
The focus needs to be on ensure they can take out ballistic missiles, since anti-ship missiles are heading that way and on ensuring the t31 are battle ready and not just bigger opv’s.
I would rather not lay all my offensive eggs into the Astute basket. What if one or both are sank, god forbid, or lured away, or simply cannot get into torpedo range before a ship fires on our fleet? The cost can be minimised; NSM doesnt need expensive MK41 VLS tubes; it can be fitted into quad canister launchers that can be simply bolted onto the ship, much like the Harpoons our Type 23s currently have. The NSM is one of the candidates for our interim missile. I agree re: Type 31s; these need to be combat capable and not… Read more »
Thanks for reminding readers about the “pitiful self-defense suits” issues. It’s just not the new carriers but across the entire fleet. Im constantly being criticised about my comments on RN vessels being under armed. The USN position is if it’s a navy ship it fights. We should adopt that position as well. The new OPV batch 2, is a classic example, but readers say in response, its an OPV and doesn’t need to be more up gunned. A look at several other naval OPV type vessels shows them all well armed. With our numbers and current world order there might/will… Read more »
You’re not alone james, I and some others have felt the same way about the OPV batch 2s.
And yes, “With our numbers and current world order there might/will be a situation where an OPV will have to fight in a scenario where it’s under gunned. I hope not.” Me too!
I am regularly on USN PCs and MCMVs (2MCMVs and a PC today along with 2 UK MCMVS, an LSA and a T23) . The PC has a couple of 25mm cannons and a small short range missile good for killing speed boats. The MCMVs don’t even rate a cannon, unlike the equivalent RN vessels
So your comment on all USN vessels being armed to fight is not accurate.
Even if you haven’t read it there is sadly some logic to the treasury making such a decision.
What we need are sub-committees, this applies to all and not just the Defence sub-committee, with real teeth who can hold the government to account.
The last thing you need is sub-committees if you want anything done anytime soon. The Government’s problem is that it has allocated money to Schools and Hospitals because those are the peoples priorities. That said if a conflict broke out the people would not be happy if there is insufficient capacity in an emergency. Need to quietly bring the Frigates and Destroyers up to spec. by borrowing a little money maybe to spread the cost.
Sorry Mark, perhaps I failed to explain it properly. The US Senate sub-committees have teeth, whereas in the UK parliamentary sub-committees seem to have little influence.
Ah I see what you mean. In theory in the UK the current Government control parliament and are pro defence. It needs a push from the RN to demand a maximum of say 2 or 3 ships out of commission at any one point in time and a push to get every ship fighting fit ASAP. Its a small amount of cash – support will be needed from our allies but they may need support from our carriers at some point so is in their interests as well.
Hi Mark: Sorry, I’m not that convinced by the present government’s commitment to Defence. I have always believed that the Falklands war was a result of John Nott’s attitude to the RN, encouraged by MT. And let’s look at David Cameron’s treatment of the armed forces (and other public services) post his election.
My view of the Thatcher Government pre 1982 was that it’s actions sent a message to the world that we were withdrawing as a military power and would probably not intervene in a Falklands like conflict. Any Government deters conflict if at all times it can demonstrate the capability and will to stand up to aggression. The current Government is as yet an unknown quantity especially on defence. A well armed and well maintained military ready to do battle does deter. There seems to be a lot of muddled thinking nowadays. Boris is a person who looks at the big… Read more »
From memory the reason for John Notts proposed cull of the Royal Navy wasn’t anything to do with policy as such,the main point of concern at the time was the European Theatre,he was made aware that in a full conflict the Ammunition Stocks for the BAOR would only last an estimated 6 days,the only solution he came up with was trimming the RN Fleet to divert funding to build more Ammunition Reserves.
John Nott’s not unreasonable theory was that the Soviets were the likely adversary. That is probably due to de-colonisation and a much more aggressive US President. Nott was attempting to focus the RN principally on anti-submarine activity in the Atlantic which was I believe their NATO role. It is perhaps ironic that the UK narrowly escaped conflict with the USSR but got caught up in a complication of de-colonisation.
How is this government pro-defence? Since 2010 they have slashed defence to the bone, removing all our carriers, all Harriers, selling off or early retiring a number of ships plus cutting Tornado squadrons and making redundant around 20,000 troops. Since 2016 they have been focused solely on a single objective: Brexit, all but ignoring pretty much everything else. The last few years have seen a slight rise in defence spending but this has been to stave off further cuts rather than actual investment. What is needed, but Boris’s government won’t likely commit to, is an increase significant enough to plug… Read more »
You are right money is not the problem it is political will to allocate it that is the problem. Defence is not seen as a vote winner by politicians so they feel they can can skimp on it… typically short sighted…
Rob, in the past both parties have taken a similar position on defence until just recently. There has also been a considerable amount of distraction. The Tories will undermine their position if they mess up the economy or are caught on the hop Militarily. We will see and can judge their actions in the coming months. I hope we are pleasantly surprised.
Andy hit the nail on the head. This country is still rich. It is just HMG dont invest in defence adequately or tax correctly.
More important than a few Mk41s is the ABM software upgrade with the new Aster 30 block1 NT (1,500 km range against ballistic missiles). UK showed an interest in the programme in 2016. The Block 2 with 3,000km range is also on the development pipeline.
That should say defence against 1,500km range and 3,000km range ballistic missiles, obviously 😉
Someone help me here, it is very often quoted that the Harpoon missile is going out of service yet the US Navy are buying the Block II+ and converting the Block IC to II+ standard. This started in 2017 so why is the RN going to be without the Harpoon missile. I must be missing something but I don’t know what. As for installing the 16 Mk41 launchers, yes please, just think of all the Sea Ceptors that could be fitted, 48 Aster 30s, 32 Sea Ceptors and possibly 8 of anything the RN can think of or 64 Sea… Read more »
Very true!! It makes obvious sense – which is why it won’t happen…..
Ron – I think the Harpoon II+ is one of the contenders for the Missile requirement.
Correction – the Harpoon isn’t in the running because it has no Secondary Land Attack Capability.
True, but in the intrim would it not be better to upgrade the Block 1C to II+ until Perseus or Scalp-N comes online. It would give the RN at least 10-15 years future service in the anti ship role and time to re-equip. We have the Harpoon and launchers for every frigate in the fleet and four out of the six destroyers. As no more than half of the ships will be at sea at any one time why not just upgrade some off them in the anti ship role. I for one would like to see Perseus put into… Read more »
Still prefer the Kongsberg NSM/JSM. It may have a sightly smaller warhead than the Harpoon or RBS15, but it is more stealthy, so has a better chance of reaching the target. Both the Harpoon and RBS15 have an active radar that lights up and says here I am, as soon as it passes over the horizon to search for its target. If a ship has gone quiet i.e. not using its primary radar, its electronic surveillance gear will detect the incoming radar, allowing it to switch on its tracking radar and launch an anti-missile missile, jam the radar or launch… Read more »
Not to mention that it can be used on F35s so gives us another Avenue of attack.
Woops… all that would cost money… you cannot spend money, thats a no no…! It does not matter if it makes sense… it means spending. There is no political will to equip the RN properly.
I agree. We should just adopt NSM and then we can load it relatively cheaply onto quad canister launchers onto the Type 45s. Seems silly we are only getting 5 kits; should arm every frigate & destroyer with them, from Type 45s down to Type 31s when they come in.
I’d also rather the T45 didn’t get Mk41, but for another reason in addition to yours: They’re already a half to two-thirds through their planned operational life, and a lot of people are talking about their replacement being a development of the current T26 hull rather than the T45. Either way, we’d be talking about a replacement being required more or less at the end of the T26 manufacturing run- making the timely replacement more likely. I’d rather the money for Mk41 silos be spent on the T45 replacement than the T45. We only have a very limited amount of… Read more »
“Half to two thirds through their lives” is a bit off. Daring was only commissioned in 2009, and she’ll probably be in service until at least the late 2030s. I’d be shocked if the class didn’t serve an average life of at least 20-25 years.
All that service life means that in the future, when Mk41-capable weapons have been decided on, funded, and procured for the T26, it might be prudent to equip some or all of the T45s with strike tubes. Today in 2020, it’s not viable.
Fair point, it was a bit hyperbolic, wasn’t it? all vessels were in service by 2013, so by your 25-year estimate, we need the first of class replacement to be commissioned around about 2034 and the last around 2038. That’s only 13 years away for first in class launch, which isn’t all that much if we want to do this properly, with a decent ship building strategy and get a better option than the T45 turned out to be. I know that we’ve been able to extend the service life of the T23 and T42 before, but I think we… Read more »
You mean the concept 4x, ship as opposed to beer!
“A Type 45 Destroyer replacement based on the Type 26 would provide a tangible means to meet the aspiration of continuously producing two standard classes of ships for the Royal Navy, allowing for a more sustainable UK shipbuilding industry.”
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-type-4x-destroyer-an-early-look-at-an-early-concept/
I think that is indeed what I was referring to, thank you!
I still have some severe misgivings about using the T26 hull for T4X. The production benefits would be nice, but looking at the numbers I can’t see it working too well. The hull itself is just not big enough. The narrower beam in particular limits the ability to place a SAMPSON style radar high up, even with newer composite materials being lighter (and that high up radar is one of the T45s great benefits, it can spot sea skimmers several kilometres further away than other vessels). There’s also the issue of armament: 32 Mk41 and the 24-cell Sea Ceptor farm… Read more »
Callum – for comparisons sake the T45 Hulls Beam is 21.2m vs 20.8m for the T26,in my unqualified opinion that is not a lot of difference.
Probably one for a naval engineer. The profile of the hull would make a big difference. Centre of buoyancy relative to centre of gravity. Americas cup versus cruising yacht kind of thing.
I know your hesitation, but I’ve just had a bit of a look at the stats and the T26 actually has the same beam as an Arleigh Burke, and is only 0.5 m narrower than a T45. Length is 150 m for the T26, 153 m for the T45 and 155 for the newer Burkes. I reckon we could get the “Sampson MK2” radar system and 96 VLS on a T26-derived T4X based upon the idea of adding a hull section or two in (like they did with the Burkes from Flight I-III). It’s almost impossible to increase the beam… Read more »
Fair argument. It’s worth noting to things about the Burke Vs both of the RN types: first, it’s radars and a lot of other heavy equipment like the VLS itself are much lower on the ship, and it also has an extra nearly 2m of draft compared to a T45 (9.3m Vs 7.4m), which is great for stability. Can’t find a draught figure for the T26, but visually it looks less than a T45. I do, however, think the T26 is probably large enough to host the SAMPSON. What I’m certain it isn’t big enough is to also host the… Read more »
Nonsense get them fitted to type 45 then transfer across to type 45s replacement. Easy and simple, they are just launch tubes, the real cost is the missiles that go into them.
Not nonsense at all, have you seen our defence budget? Whether the cost is in the missiles or the tubes, there’s no point in fitting tubes for missiles we don’t have money for- you disproved your own point. We don’t have any missiles in inverntory that launch from a Mk41, amd won’t until the 2030s when we’ll have T26 for surface warfare and the T45 replacement coming along. What are you planning on putting in them for the next 10-15 years? Considering the T45’s availability to even go through its vital energy production upgrades as well as provide escort for… Read more »
Just been checking out the cost of the Mk41, for the US destroyers the 12 modules (a ships set) cost approx $51-54 million, as the 6 T45s need only 12 modules and aux equipiment then say $100 million. If we ordered 48 Mk41 modules instead of the 36 for the T26s we might get a buy 2 get 1 free deal. BAE supplies the quad pack to fit the Mk41 so thats no issue. Surely thats doable, we waste that much on IT systems that dont work. I thought that the cost might be £100 million per ship. Even if… Read more »
Better to fit Sea Ceptor cells. They are less expensive and after all this is an air defence destroyer.
But are the same square-footage of deck space (ish) yet only pack a quarter of the missiles in to that area.
So if there is nothing in them why pish away 100 mil putting them in when you can leave it as is.??
Gunbuster, I said that I thought the cost was going to be £100 million per ship and with that I would agree to leave them as they are. When I found out that for 12 Mk41 modules the cost is $51-54 million double it for the Auxillaries, but the price does seem to include control panels sensors etc it seems that it is a resonable cost. The reason that I gave the comment of ‘nothing in them’ they are VLS systems in times of peace no one needs to know how the ship is equipped, does anyone know how a… Read more »
Its all the other costs that need to be added that are never included in the brochure price. Shore maintenance support, spares, new training for maintainers. Then you need something to go into them which is an additional expense as the RN has no missiles that are cleared for MK 41 use. Personally putting something in that gives you Sea Ceptor would be easier but then you need to factor in Where will the Data Link domes go. Mutual Interference issues Can the T45 Combat System be modded to accept Sea Ceptor engagements. With even more missiles and explosives embarked… Read more »
Ron see my comments above, the RN spaced out years ago the mk41 cells, warships ifr ran an article on it. Great read by the way.
20 million per ship including fitting out, wiring and control interface hardware. Pretty cheap. 120 million or cost of 1 F35B would resolve the fitted for but not with fiasco and once purchased why couldn’t the launch tubes be transferred across to type 45s replacement?
No doubt if we could deliver projects on time and on budget it would be more than affordable, including the missiles no doubt.
“As previously reported by in-Cumbria, Whitehall spending watchdog The National Audit Office (NAO) issued a warning that the Ministry of Defence programme was, so far, £1.3 billion over its initial budget.”
https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/18165047.work-deliver-trident-bae-systems-barrow-least-over-budget-delayed-according-nao/
Aren’t you geniuses forgetting the carriers these Type 45’s will be escorting and their load of 5th gen F-35’s??
No, they will not be able to carry any anti-ship capability until the Block 4 software has been installed and only externally for the B, the A can carry two internally. 2025 at the earliest seems to be the timeframe. Could you enlighten us as to what missiles will be available for it by 2021 that fits inside the B? Japan inks deal with Kongsberg for F-35 standoff missile. “According to Kongsberg, the JSM is the only long-range missile that can be used against ship and land targets and also be carried internally in the F-35, the latter feature enabling… Read more »
And as you so rudely pointed out to me in another thread today Ron 5, you appear to have gone off the topic as well?
“This has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Just a childish rant.”
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35-alis-logistic-system-to-be-replaced/#comment-488789
If we are more than aware on here Andy…!
I am sure the USA would loan us a few of their Vincennes class Aegis cruisers, they have 13 in reserve but they are still very very powerful warships.
Exactly Mr Bell,
And I’m sure other NATO allies would be able to fill in the gaps too.
Get as many in for refit as possible, in the shortest possible timeframe.
Nigel, what you advocate makes total sense, spend 20 or 30 million more per ship and give them 18-24 mk41 vl silos. Quad packed ER sea captor or NSMs, Tomahawk or LRASM and these ships will emerge as true multi role combatants.
We have to make the most of the few precious warships we have, therefore arm them to the teeth.
Also this story shows that the “fitted for but not with” BS is just rubbish. Never going to be fitted, haven’t got enough money to properly equip and arm our armed forces.
Embarrassing state of affairs
Agreed.
hello
helloio
On a more relevant note I wonder if there would be any savings or advantages in swapping the WR21 GT’s for MT30’s ?.
Apart from the cost the MT 30 is a better turbine, used in the fleet now and the T26, lighter generates more power. I don’t know about the gearing system if there is one. It would to me make sense to rebuild the complete engine room of the T45 to the new T26 standard. The ships dimentions are almost the same. In the short term it will be more expensive but in the long term it should be possible to reclaim the investment. There are only six ships in the world with the WR21 and RR no longer sells the… Read more »
Nothing in a warship despite everyone wishing it was , is plug and play.
A new GT would néed new pipework. A new module. New wiring. Possibly new down takes and up takes. A new control system and electronics and software for the Machinery Control System.
On a 45 gearing isn’t an issue as the drive is electric. Weight changes affecting stability, fuel capacity and range would all be affected.
The MOD for the new diesels is big enough… Changing out the GT would take as long and by the time it was done the vessels would be paying off.
Thanks Gunbuster, if there was one person on the site that could clear things up I thought it might be you. Anyway although I agree that there would need to be some changes to plumbing I have also noticed that some aircraft have changed from the Trent 700-RB 211 Turbine to the Trent 800 This would be the same as the WR21 RB211/Trent to MT30 converstion. I have also taken not that the issue is not with the turbine but the intercooler. The addition of an extra diesel generator is a work around and not a true fix and in… Read more »
The ships have trialled a new intercooler that is far more reliable and to a large extent has ended the intercooler issues. i have worked on a couple of T45s where the intercooler needed changing and it was a huge job. Especially so because the intercooler was supposed to last the life of the ship and never be removed. As you can guess access to it was not easy! New control software was trialled a while back in the Gulf and the vessel using it had ZERO electrical issues in the height of summer. They where on both engines with… Read more »
So if the drive is electric is there a possibility to install the new diesels on more noise suppressing mountings, make the ship quieter from an ASW perspective?
Fix the propulsion issues and give them quad launchers for the NSM. That’s “all” that needs doing really. Adding additional VLS is not necessary. The T45 is for carrier escort duty, along with T23/T26 with their Sea Ceptor, and of course the F35, there is layered air defence coverage.
If we are going to spend more money on the T45 it should be for BMD capability.
The F-35’s role isn’t as clear cut as that; its air-to-air abilities are there so it can fight its way in to and out from a strike target. Setting it up in a CAP as part of an AD set up, or QRA-like scrambling is a massive waste of its talents. And would turn the CSG concept in to a self-licking lolly.
The F35B is the primary offensive weapon of the CBG. It will certainly be used in a CAP role and against any opposing warships if needed, using Spear 3.
They certainly will CAP, and will strike ships if they are the target of the strike mission. But the key is ‘offensive’ weapon – they aren’t going to be routinely buzzing about the carrier in a defensive posture. Unless your including what they kill to, from and during strike missions as the outer layer of the air defence bubble?
Couldn’t agree more!
Low-cost solution that gives the ship an offensive capability. 2 quad launchers per ship – 8 missiles. Also NSM/JSM can be launched from F35 so gives a lot more flexibility.
Better late than never. haha
lease a few Arleigh Burkes off the USN? Destroyers for bases 2.0.. perhaps even negotiate to buy some? Call them Town 2 class. I propose another HMS Broadwater etc, honour the names we lost. Give them Western Approaches camouflage as well because that would look rather lovely on an Arleigh Burke.
Arleigh Burkes are an old design and the ones we would get from the USN would bring nothing. They are old 80/90s tech and from doing repairs on them , they have a number of issues with mechanical systems that are not going to get any better.
Could get worse with older flights of the ABs being life extended. The Nimitzs as well. I stand by my opinion that we will be buying far fewer ABIIIs and GRFs and will instead concentrate on smaller and newer designs to fill out the fleet.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20419/navy-could-extend-the-life-of-uss-nimitz-past-50-years-to-maintain-12-carrier-fleet
Cheers!
This is good news. Type 45 will soon also benefit from Wildcat with Martlet and Sea Venom missiles. The former will provide better defence against fast attack craft, the latter an over the horizon precision strike capability. If there is any extra money available to spend on T45 I would like to see it spent on more A50 cells filled with Aster 30 NT Block II.
Aster 30 NT Block 2 will require Sylver A70 cells to launch.
No they won’t…
I believe NT Block 1 will fit in A50 silos. Block 2 is still on the drawing board so you might be right about it needing A70 tubes. In any case what I am arguing is that the funding priority for T45 should remain AAW and ABM. That said T45 is a high value target and looks vulnerable to attack by submarine if operating as a singleton.
Hopefully CSG (or amphib group) will mean T45s are never deployed as singletons again; they now have their raison d’etre.
As for Aster, I believe NT is simply a software upgrade but 2 will be motor re-design. Not sure if it’s to the first or second stage, or both. Also not sure if for increased speed, range or both. Or if any of that is even decided. And as stated above, that means launch tube length won’t be known…are the French or Italians using anything other than 50?
WeeWill – only the French use A70 on their Fremm Frigates.,no other customer as of yet.
Maybe silly questions, why does the UK still insist on keeping to the Anti air destroyer and anti sub frigate model instead of going to the multi role ship? If you are building a 8000 ton/1 billion pound ship and you have limited numbers, does it not make more sense to make them multi role to increase flexibility? Obviously there is not much that can be done with the T45 now without major refit your government will not pay for, but with the T26 in early stage for build and the T45 replacement being talked about now would be the… Read more »
Simple answer is “Jack of all trades is master of none”
Understand, but when ship numbers are limited, is it not luxury to have/want dedicated ships instead of “jack of all trades”? Having a ship that has some compromises but more flexibility for more everyday use?
Example I have in my mind it when you send T45 to Black sea, fine for when we send planes flying over to annoy your ship, but completely defenceless against Kilo tracking it
Aside from it’s Wildcat helicopter of course.
I agree that we should have got a more flexible ship, but the thought process at the time was we would get 12 t45 plus and that we would have a large number of frigates at the same time, so maxing air defence was all they considered.
If they had known that the number would get cut to 6 and the frigates would keep getting cut, i am sure they would have invested more in getting the ships more flexible.
Maybe you mean the Type 31 frigates could be the “jack of all trades”?
They will be big enough!
God, I hope we don’t replace Type 45 with 6 ships! Should have been 12 of them; let’s hope MoD have learned their lesson.
If we’ve only gone for 8 ASW, I fear that will be the case. As escorts, you’d only need an equal number of AD and ASW…owing to an extra ASW demand of towed array supporting the bombers…
Ulya – History and Doctrine also play a big part in the need for specialist Ships,the Royal Navy has always operated in this way,we have a saying here ‘Horses For Courses’ which pretty much covers it.But going forward the Type 26 is an interesting case,the fact that it will be in service with three Navies creates an obvious comparison,when completed the respective RN,RAN and RCN Frigates will all be different.ASW will be the primary mission of all of them but from what we know the RAN and RCN versions will offer more in the way of ‘Multi-Role’ than the RN… Read more »
Thank you Paul. I was looking at Australian and Canadian plans and they interesting
its not the MOD, its the stupid Navy top brass fault. They keep saying that they can do what is needed with the ships they have and keep talking up the lighter ships like they are a direct replacement for the escorts, rather than telling the truth that the navy would struggle badly to form a realistic task force if it needed to do without external help and that the OPV would need to be docked in a war as they would be useless.
Yes, what you say would be cheaper. I suspect that is why the Arrowhead 140 was chosen for Type31. It is a contender for being a replacement hull for T45, so you could see a common beamy hull for AAW and GP frigate with an al la carte menu of radar, VLS and MCG. By contrast Type 26 ASW quiet hull and propulsion is an expensive circus act….different beast: but with Sea Ceptor for self defence, Mk41 and say, LRASM and 5in gun it will be a formidable singleton.
All of the reasons have probably being covered off separately across various threads but boil down to a single hull with both the exquisite AD capabilities of the 45 and exquisite ASW capabilities of the 26 may well double the cost of that hull…so you then have a £2 billion ship that, if sunk, takes AD AND ASW with it.
Not to mention that if they were £2billion per ship then the already undersized fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers would rapidly shrink to 10 or 12. I’d prefer to keep AAW and ASW in separate hulls. Keeps the ships simpler and allows for more of them. The biggest 2 issues with the surface fleet in my opinion are simple: too few ships and too few anti-ship armaments on those we do have. Type 31 may help with the number of hulls if ultimately more than 5 get ordered. Personally I think 8-10 would be ideal. They need to be… Read more »
Again, it’s been mentioned before but it boils down to doctrine. While I’ve not read in to the detail, the focus on billion pound plus ASW assets and only ‘token’ self-defence ASuW ability indicates where the RN sees the threat to their ships mainly coming from. And this defensive posture is consistent with air defence too – create a secure bubble and launch a strike from there.
I’ll play Devil’s advocate. At the risk of being accused of emasculating Type26, if money is tight does a Type 26 ASW escort really need a 5in gun and Mk41 to perform its primary role? Isn’t Sea Ceptor, a cheaper 76mm and some deck launched AShm like NSM or RBS -15 more appropriate?
Would it also not make more appropriate to spend the money saved by fitting Type 31 with the expensive 5in gun or indeed the 76mm and the Mk41s. Type 31 is the ship most likely to be used to deliver NGS or deep land strike.
No devils advocate about that! In terms of how focussed it is, the VLS are going to be used for what? Primarily ASROC? It’s tertiary role must be envisaged as ASuW and NGFS from within the CSG / amphib group. I’m torn between this making sense, and having that ability sit with the T31 and it only included in the CSG / amphib group if deemed necessary. Even though I’d like to see all our surface combatants built around the mk41 because of how many options it would give us, the fact remains we don’t currently have anything that uses… Read more »
I take the Asroc point. Like T45 Type 26 is an expensive specialised asset. I would only employ these ships as carrier group escorts, never as singletons or close to the shoreline in an amphibious assault. The singleton exception for Type 26 would be North Atlantic ASW if the balloon went up in Europe. I see singleton and NGS roles being assigned to Type 31, a couple of which would be in the task group. I would equip them with Mk45 gun, extended range ammo and Mk41 for deep strike. To make sure there were enough to join the task… Read more »
p.s. For 57mm read 76mm if preferred, which could also go on the T45s. Choosing between these is above my pay grade.
Why don’t we look at something simple like the Americans are doing with their hypersonic main gun rounds? Relatively quick way of obtaining a decent force multiplier, granted at shorter ranges than missiles.
I think simple is underselling it, the US railgun tech is stupid expensive and no where near ready.
It’s not railgun tech. It’s high velocity projectiles for existing weapons systems, namely naval guns and artillery.
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/18/pentagon-new-rounds-old-guns-change-paradigm-missile-defense-navy-army
Stop gap to rail guns if they deliver on the promise though?
Certain schools of thought on missiles being obsolete owing to DEW for line of sight targets and rail guns dealing with BLoS targets. While I’m pretty confident the former will happen eventually, I’m not as convinced for BLoS.
You compare the fire power of a t45 to an Aegis arleigh burke and you have a case for borderline criminal negligence. The t45 has the ability to project real power and has been reduce to being nothing more than a passive fleet defence ship for a fleet that cannot currently sink another ship in the same time domain as our rivals . By the time astute / merlin have even started to attack the ruskies would have unleashed tens if antiship weapons.
I am suspicious that details of the technical soltion are obfuscated
Bright side the timing isn’t too bad, i assume by mid 2020 they mean 2027 or so, but still better than i expected considering all the dithering with defense decisions recently.
What a disaster these ‘world leading’ T45’s have proved to be. Undergunned since day one and now a useless power plant that will take years to replace. Ultimate bet cost per ship? Nearly £2bn. The billions of pounds squandered by the MOD over the years beggars belief and are seemingly never ending. These costs will have to be absorbed in the defence budget which means we can kiss goodbye to seeing 22 or even 24 escorts in the future which the RN so desperately needs NOW. Yet another self inflicted blow. As for the Astute program……
There is no chance that we will get 22 or 24 escorts again. Each generation of military gear/equipment costs more, which in turn means numbers have to be reduced. I can’t see us getting any more than 5 x t31, if we even manage that. When the t45s come around to be replaced, my guess is they will build a hybrid and state that as it can now do the roles of the t26 and t45 and that less hulls are needed to do the same job, and my guess we will end up with 6 general purpose destroyers (anti-air/subsurface)… Read more »
I think we might see modest increase in frigate numbers. I would not be surprised to see Type 26 numbers fall from 8 to 6 while Type 31 numbers rise from 5 to 8 or 9. A small net increase, and with opv numbers going from 4 to 5 probably a better balanced fleet. I would envisage a T31 being forward based in the Gulf and Singapore, one T31 as fleet ready escort. The carrier task force might have T45 a T26 and a T31 plus say a Dutch , French or US escort if an allied initiative. All doable… Read more »
On the bright side, we are reliant on the US to provide the jets to make the carriers viable and there is no chance they will trust us to defend them, so they will require their own escorts are part of it, so solving that issue.
I can see the merit of t26 going from 8 to 6 while type 31 goes from 5 to 9…provided t31 and 45 have a fuller weopons fit.
Fwd deployed batch 2 OPV should simply be given 76mm OM plus secondary 30mm and a small hanger for rotary UAV.
The Type 26 has to stay at 8 as its speciality is ASW,there are too many commitments to fulfil which cant be taken up with T31 or T45.
Ok, but then I think the ships need to be cheaper to make it easier to fund more Type 31. Does ASW T26 really need an expensive 5in gun and Mk41? Would it not be more sensible to put these on some or all of the T31 and have enough of these to fulfil their singleton roles and also be part of a carrier task force?
Paul P agreed. I too think T26 will fall to 6 and the fleet will be increased by T31.
We have seen it before.
Daniele, I confess I’m in two minds about this. Budget pressure rather than post Brexit foreign policy seems to driving strategy. How many T26 do we need to do carrier escort duties and hunt Soviet subs in the North Atlantic? I would feel more comfortable with 8 rather than 6. And much would cutting numbers to 6 actually save? Would the Clyde be compensated by T31 orders? My thoughts; in terms of what could save money without decreasing relevant capability I would suggest fitting the 5 very expensive Mk45 guns we I think have ordered onto the T31s and put… Read more »
I’m in agreement Paul. I don’t want the T26 order to be reduced, far from it.
But I think it will happen, like Astute and T45 numbers.
Steve – I’m more confident that the Fleet can be increased,you just have to find ways of building modern Warships cheaper,our problem has always been we design bespoke Ships and order them in too small a numbers,hopefully the T26 will correct this.With the range of Escort Ships available on the market today you can get a capable Frigate for £500 million,its just that the powers that be here seem too happy to pay much more.
Bill – Id agree that the Type 45 wasn’t one of the MOD’s finest excercises in procurement but you miss the very painful journey to actually get to the T45,read NFR-90,CNGF,Project Horizon,its a miracle they actually ended up with a viable Destroyer.
Agreed completely. Don’t expect any sea change in future procurement outcomes!
will Northrop Grumman pay compensation or pay for the modifications?
?