HMS Daring

Originally posted by Laurauk
Actually the Argetinian Cruiser Bellgrano, was sunk by a RN Submarine, this was the only cruiser to be sunk during the Falklands War.

Yes, I know. In an earlier post Retseh said that several RN destroyers and cruisers had been sunk by anti-ship missiles. In fact only a single RN destroyer was sunk by ASM.

Regards

reply to post by Fang


The Steel structures of the Carriers are being reduced to 20%, to reduce the overall budget of the carriers..

Basically they will be the exact specification of Commercial Oil Tankers,

:quote: The modular, design lets the royal navy ships flex in rough seas., But now this is a big but, it lso means the carriers are less ableto withstand attack from such damage as heavy bomb atacks or rocket/missile attacks.:endqote:

It is why the need those destroyers, the type 45's to act as screen, defensive wise that is, without the protection, they are siting ducks...




[edit on 26-7-2009 by Laurauk]

Originally posted by paraphi
Please be factual. The RN lost one destroyer hit by an exocet - HMS Sheffield. She six days after being hit. Another destroyer HMS Glamorgan was hit but survived. NO cruisers were hit during the Falklands War - not sure there were any.

I'll concede that, I always thought the County class were cruisers, but apparently I was mistaken. Regardless, it was a major RN surface combatant that was unable to adequately defend against a missile attack - 27 years ago.....

Also, another point. Although Sea Skua is getting old it has a successful history against small targets - i.e. what it was designed for. Falklands and GW1.

Sea Skua is a neat little missile, but so is Starstreak, but you wouldn't want that as your primary air defence weapon either.

My whole point here is that the Type 45 is under-armed and in a world of smaller, better armed, and more flexible platforms - I think it's ill-conceived.

From the De Zeven Provincien, to the Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan class - other designs do it better, and smaller.

A good baseline for the Type 45 would be the German Sachsen class - let's do a comparison.

The Sachsen carries 56 intermediate and long range SAMs (the Type 45 carries 48), the Sachsen has 8 Harpoon SSMs (Type 45 - zero), Sachsen - 76mm gun (Type 45 - 4.5 inch), Sachsen - 6 torpedo launchers (Type 45 - zero), Sachsen - 2 attack helos (Type 45 - one), the Sachsen also carries another 42 short range CIWS missiles (Type 45 - zero).

The Sachsen is badged as an air defence frigate and weighs just 5,690 tonnes, the Type 45 is badged as an air defence destroyer and weighs 8,000 tonnes.

The Type 45 is bigger, heavier, and significantly under-armed by comparison to the much smaller and more capable German vessel - and the Sachsen is only a frigate and not even regarded as being the best design out there (the Spanish F100 is).

See my point?

Ultimately the Type 45 may receive additional weapon systems as it matures, but as launched while it will be well equipped to shoot down aircraft, it will be only marginally equipped to deal with submarines, and completely ill-equipped to provide close range protection from missile attack, attack major surface combatants, or provide anything more than coastal gunfire support for land based operations.

It lacks the capability of smaller european frigates, if I was to compare it to a similar sized destroyer class vessel such as the Arleigh Burke, the capability gap would be even more obvious.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Retseh]

reply to post by Retseh

Sea Skua is a neat little missile, but so is Starstreak, but you wouldn't want that as your primary air defence weapon either.

But Sea Skua isn’t the RN’s primary anti surface weapon; for that the RN relies on SSNs, Harpoon armed T22 and T23s and torpedo armed helicopters (which the T45 has).

See my point?

I see where you’re coming form but I disagree with the need for that degree of flexibility in a ship such as this; it's just going to be surpluss to requirements.

There is no point in looking at each ship in isolation since they’re almost never going to operate that way.

In a real war time situation they will be part of a task force and in that task force you’re not going to want your AAW capability in the same place as your ASW capability and you’re not going to want your ASW capability in the same place as your land support capability. So to concentrate them all on one platform is a waste of resources. What’s the point in having a massive ASuW armament for example if you’re almost never going to be able to bring it to bear?

The Type 45s have a very specific purpose and for that purpose they are more than adequately equipped.

It’s nice to have but given budget constraints it is not necessary.

Originally posted by Mike_A

But Sea Skua isn’t the RN’s primary anti surface weapon; for that the RN relies on SSNs, Harpoon armed T22 and T23s and torpedo armed helicopters (which the T45 has).

You have exactly 9 subs, 8 destroyers, and 17 frigates, a pitifully small force and a significantly smaller navy even than France - you just don't have the number of platforms to start claiming specialism or "fleet operations", I also don't know how the CIWS of a Batch 3 Type 22 is going to protect a Type 45 but that's another story. By the way - that's a well armed frigate.

Other small force operators understand that you need mutli-role platforms - to be honest I see the whole "it's a specialist destroyer" as an excuse to reduce the weapons fit (and therefore the production cost).

It's a big ship with very few weapons - quite how it only has one attack helo when even frigate sized vessels like the Sachsen are now carrying 2 is beyond me.

I see where you’re coming form but I disagree with the need for that degree of flexibility in a ship such as this; it's just going to be surpluss to requirements.

There is no point in looking at each ship in isolation since they’re almost never going to operate that way.

Ultimately I guess we'll disagree on that one, flexibility of operation is never, ever surplus to requirements in my opinion - you find that out as soon as the shooting starts.

In a real war time situation they will be part of a task force and in that task force you’re not going to want your AAW capability in the same place as your ASW capability

So your carriers if they ever get built will never need protection from submarines and aircraft at the same time - the enemy is rarely so considerate that they will wait for the correct defensive asset to be in place before they attack you.

The Type 45s have a very specific purpose and for that purpose they are more than adequately equipped.

It’s nice to have but given budget constraints it is not necessary.

More kit is never just "nice to have" when you're the sailor watching the trail of a SSM as it bores in on your non CIWS equipped ship, especially when you know that your own ship also has no effective means of attacking the destroyer that just launched it.

It's a big platform - it deserves a better weapons fit. I hope I'm never proved right.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Retseh]

You have exactly 9 subs, 8 destroyers, and 17 frigates, a pitifully small force and a significantly smaller navy even than France

That’s not true; in terms of escorts both navies have 24, the RN has a third more SSNs than the MN. But at the end of the day it is irrelevant to the requirements of the RN.

The MN also thinks it can get away with only two air defence frigates, should Britain emulate that?

Don’t get me wrong I think we need more escorts, at least in terms of Type 45s but we need them to fill that specific role not for anything else.

you just don't have the number of platforms to start claiming specialism or "fleet operations",

Why not? How are you calculating the threshold at which you can start specialising ship roles?

You’re arbitrarily saying more is better without defining any sort of requirement. The logical conclusion is to buy an oil tanker, fit it with a few hundred missiles and torpedoes and claim the world’s greatest ship.

So your carriers if they ever get built will never need protection from submarines and aircraft at the same time

Of course they will but an escort fleet isn’t kept bunched up within a few hundred metres of each other. The ASW ships, which also serve as local area air defence ships, will need to be dispersed more widely than your AAW ships.

the enemy is rarely so considerate that they will wait for the correct defensive asset to be in place before they attack you.

Which is why the RN maintains basic self defence capabilities on all of its ships. The Type 45 has these basic capabilities against all threats, air, surface and subsurface but they’re just not specialised enough to rely on them alone; they don’t need to be. You’re talking about having every ship up to the same standard.

The RN cannot afford to do this and THAT is the bottom line. If we did what you are suggesting then we would only be able to afford a significantly smaller fleet. You don’t seem to accept that increasing capability in one area necessities compromising it in another.

Originally posted by Mike_A
That’s not true; in terms of escorts both navies have 24, the RN has a third more SSNs than the MN. But at the end of the day it is irrelevant to the requirements of the RN.

I'd tend to disagree:

French major comabatants exclduing support vessels:

1 Aircraft Carrier
13 Destroyers
11 Frigates
9 Corvettes
4 SSBN
6 SSN

Total 44

Royal Navy

2 Aircraft Carriers (if you can call them that)
7 destroyers
17 frigates
4 SSBN
9 SSN

Total 39

The MN also thinks it can get away with only two air defence frigates, should Britain emulate that?

Once again I think you're in error, not that it matters (2 Horizons and 2 Suffrens launched, with 3 in service and the fourth due for commissioning right about now, with more Horizons on order - all classed as air defence ships).

Don’t get me wrong I think we need more escorts, at least in terms of Type 45s but we need them to fill that specific role not for anything else.

You should perhaps know that the reason the RN backed out of the Horizon frigate program was because they wanted their ships to have the American Mk 41 VLS so they could launch land attack missiles, the Sylver can only launch SAMs. After breaking away and going with the Type 45 they installed the..........Sylver launcher, but now they are "happy" with it. I think not.

Why not? How are you calculating the threshold at which you can start specialising ship roles?

With frigates and destroyers I don't think there is a threshold. Ironically the only other "Specialist Warship" disaster I can think of was the Blackwood class which, and I quote the RN:

"After experience with these frigates, the admiralty decided to ensure that quality was the top priority of all ships, even though it meant having a smaller fleet."

How soon they forgot the lessons, the irony of course being compounded when one of these specialist anti-submarine frigates was sunk by a submarine.

Personally, I'd rather spend time trying to find any other 8000 tonne destroyer in the world that doesn't have CIWS, doesn't have long range SSMs, doesn't have a deep land attack capability, doesn't have any ASW torpedoes beyond what the chopper can carry, and on top of all that only has 48 SAMs.

I can't find one, perhaps you can.

You’re arbitrarily saying more is better without defining any sort of requirement. The logical conclusion is to buy an oil tanker, fit it with a few hundred missiles and torpedoes and claim the world’s greatest ship.

The requirements were clearly demonstrated by the Falklands and the Gulf War.

Modern surface combatants need to be able to protect themselves against missile attack, identify track and destroy submarines, be capable of shore bombardment in support of troop landings, and be able to attack high value assets deep inland with heavy guided weapons.

Every modern combatant I can gring to mind satisfies all those criteria with the exception of the last one - and deep attack is a capability the RN badly wanted for its new frigate/destroyer - or at least they did, if only because the British SSNs lack VLS, and can't carry many Tomahawks for tube launch.

I think they were right.

Of course they will but an escort fleet isn’t kept bunched up within a few hundred metres of each other. The ASW ships, which also serve as local area air defence ships, will need to be dispersed more widely than your AAW ships.

Quick switch to tactics here - so you would place your ASW ships out on their own outside of the umberella of air cover from the AAW ships.

I think you're cart before horse here. You want your SSNs farthest out, your Type 45s would be the outermost picket vessels, with the ASW ships forming the inner ring and last ditch AAW defence.

Of course we all know how well it works when you put an AAW destroyer that lacks CIWS out on picket duty - you get HMS Sheffield.

Which is why the RN maintains basic self defence capabilities on all of its ships.

Two 20mm manual cannon would definitely fit my definition of basic, we agree there at least, my bedroom is better protected.

The Type 45 has these basic capabilities against all threats, air, surface and subsurface but they’re just not specialised enough to rely on them alone; they don’t need to be. You’re talking about having every ship up to the same standard.

One simple question for you then, how does the Type 45 defend itself against a missile attack?

The RN cannot afford to do this and THAT is the bottom line. If we did what you are suggesting then we would only be able to afford a significantly smaller fleet. You don’t seem to accept that increasing capability in one area necessities compromising it in another.

I would contend that you already have a shadow fleet, a shadow of its former self that is.

The historical reason for this smaller fleet, as witnessed by my quote above, was that if the navy had to have fewer ships, it should only have quote "quality" ships that were fully equipped.

I think you were jibbed, I think you have a smaller fleet, and ships that are now being under-equipped on cost grounds yet again.

Post -Falklands, you got a break, painful lessons opened up the government's coffers. The Type 22 was significantly up-gunned with Harpoons and Goalkeeper, the Type 42s all got a pair of Phalanx and the "carriers" all got some type of CIWS (I recall it being a mixture of Phalanx and Goalkeeper).

But with the Type 45 the backsliding has started in earnest, the days of the Blackwood are returning, you're fielding underarmed ships again.

Even if one was to accept the Daring class as dedicated AAW ships, do you honestly think that 48 missiles hacks it? Even the smaller Duke class frigates, which have a primary ASW role carry 32 SAMs, the similar sized Arleigh Burkes can carry 90 missiles plus all the other weaponry outside of the Mk.41.

Could the case for a better armed ship be any clearer?

Originally posted by Retseh
Once again I think you're in error, not that it matters (2 Horizons and 2 Suffrens launched, with 3 in service and the fourth due for commissioning right about now, with more Horizons on order - all classed as air defence ships).

Not wishing to "break your flow" and question the accuracy of what you are saying Mr Retseh, but the French Suffren class ships have long since been in reserve or decommissioned. With such a basic mistake, one would question the rest of what you say with regards to numbers.

Originally posted by Retseh
You should perhaps know that the reason the RN backed out of the Horizon frigate program was because they wanted their ships to have the American Mk 41 VLS so they could launch land attack missiles, the Sylver can only launch SAMs. After breaking away and going with the Type 45 they installed the..........Sylver launcher, but now they are "happy" with it. I think not.

I think that the UK withdrawral from the Horizon project was to do more with politics and irreconcilable relations with French demands and changing numbers, differences over radar (UK insisting on the more capable Sampson) etc... If the RN backed out because of Sylver then they would not have eventually selected that solution.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
Not wishing to "break your flow" and question the accuracy of what you are saying Mr Retseh, but the French Suffren class ships have long since been in reserve or decommissioned. With such a basic mistake, one would question the rest of what you say with regards to numbers.

Good catch, I should have said "Cassard" and not "Suffren" class - the number of dedicated AAW ships is still 4 however as stated, and the overall French surface fleet counts remain unchanged.

Originally posted by Retseh
I think that the UK withdrawral from the Horizon project was to do more with politics and irreconcilable relations with French demands and changing numbers, differences over radar (UK insisting on the more capable Sampson) etc... If the RN backed out because of Sylver then they would not have eventually selected that solution.

Regards

While I'm sure politics played a part, as did the selection of SAMSON by the British in preference to EMPAR, but the Mk 41 reference is entirely valid.

en.wikipedia.org...

In early 1997 a disagreement emerged as to the choice of Vertical Launch System (VLS) for the PAAMS' MBDA Aster missiles. France and Italy favoured their own SYLVER launcher, while the UK was leaning toward the American Mk 41 - capable of firing the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile. This issue was eventually resolved when the SYLVER launcher was selected by the PAAMS development team.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Retseh]

reply to post by Retseh


The MN corvettes aren’t escorts; they lack the basic armament for that role with no AAW capability and no ASW capability. As I said in terms of escort, which is what we’re talking about, both the RN and MN are equal.

Also the Suffren class has left service (2001 and 2007) and there will only be two Horizons with an additional two FREMM with a severely compromised AAW fit.

The two Cassard are due to be decommissioned next year without direct replacement so counting them is a little dishonest.

You should perhaps know that the reason the RN backed out of the Horizon frigate program was because they wanted their ships to have the American Mk 41 VLS

No it wasn’t. The withdrawal was mainly down to size issues, radar fit issues, range issues, problems with the work share and the bureaucratic process. The issue of the launch cell was settled before the withdrawal.

The claim that this was the cause of the withdrawal is categorically not true.

"After experience with these frigates, the admiralty decided to ensure that quality was the top priority of all ships, even though it meant having a smaller fleet."

How soon they forgot the lessons, the irony of course being compounded when one of these specialist anti-submarine frigates was sunk by a submarine.

How does increased quality translate into “fill them up with as many different weapons we can find”?

The requirements were clearly demonstrated by the Falklands and the Gulf War.

Again I ask at what point any losses were suffered for the lack of a larger main gun or ASuW missiles?

If anything the Falklands showed the need for better radar systems, better missiles with a lower floor, CIWS and AEW. All of these things the Type 45 has or will be getting on the retirement of other ships.

Modern surface combatants need to be able to protect themselves against missile attack, identify track and destroy submarines, be capable of shore bombardment in support of troop landings, and be able to attack high value assets deep inland with heavy guided weapons.

Why?

That’s the thing you’re not explaining, flexibility for flexibility sake isn’t an argument.

I can equally say the US Army are fools for not fitting anti air missiles onto every single ground platform. Or asking why the B-52s aren’t armed to the hilt with AMRAAMs arguing that this would make them more flexible. There is just no requirement for it.

I agree with some of the things on that last but the Type 45 will be able to do them just not the degree of other more specialised ships.

Quick switch to tactics here - so you would place your ASW ships out on their own outside of the umberella of air cover from the AAW ships.

Of course not but the range at which air threats can be detected and engaged is far, far greater than the range sub surface threats can be engaged. Thus your ASW ships need to further out though still being protected; it’s no good having them up close to your primary assets because by the time anything gets in that close it is too late.

Two 20mm manual cannon would definitely fit my definition of basic, we agree there at least, my bedroom is better protected.

What are you talking about? The Type 45 will carry area and point air defence missiles, 2 Phalanx, an MFS 7000 sonar along with heli-borne Sting Ray torpedoes and depth charges for defence again subsurface threats, Sea Skua and it’s main gun for surface threats and a range of passive defence systems such as Sea Gnat.

One simple question for you then, how does the Type 45 defend itself against a missile attack?

Harsh language. What is that meant to mean? I think it’s fairly obvious how the Darings will defend against a missile attack.

The Type 22 was significantly up-gunned with Harpoons and Goalkeeper

Again you’re getting your basic facts wrong; the Type 22s already carried an SSM in the form of Exocet. These were only replaced with Harpoon; there wasn’t a call for all ships to receive an ASuW fit.

Even if one was to accept the Daring class as dedicated AAW ships, do you honestly think that 48 missiles hacks it? Even the smaller Duke class frigates, which have a primary ASW role carry 32 SAMs

I would like them to have an increased missile fit which may be possible with an additional 16 cells and/or the use of quad packed CAMM. However will 48 missiles cut it? Against most conceivable threats yes probably.

But I think you’re getting too caught up in raw numbers just as you’re getting too caught up in the desire for a wide weapon fit. The Type 23 may have 32 cells but it carries far less capable missiles with a far less capable sensor suit to back them up; it needs a lot of them to do the job, the Type 45 needs fewer.

Could the case for a better armed ship be any clearer?

Yes. You haven’t given a single reason for why it is needed nor have you said how it would be paid for. You can’t just point at other ships and make a glib argument that because they’ve got Harpoons so should the Darings.

The French Navy does not use the term "destroyer"; thus, some large ships of the first rank are designated "frigates", though they are registered and operate as destroyers (with hull numbers "Dxxx").

Horizon class - 2 ships
D620 Forbin
D621 Chevalier Paul
Cassard class (type F70 AA) - 2 ships
D614 Cassard
D615 Jean Bart
Georges Leygues class (type F70 ASM) - 7 ships
D640 Georges Leygues
D641 Dupleix
D642 Montcalm
D643 Jean de Vienne
D644 Primauguet
D645 La Motte Picquet
D646 Latouche-Tréville
Tourville class (type F 67) - 2 ships
D610 Tourville
D612 De Grasse

and

La Fayette class - 5 ships
F710 La Fayette
F711 Surcouf
F712 Courbet
F713 Aconit
F714 Guépratte
Floréal class - 6 ships
F730 Floréal
F731 Prairial
F732 Nivôse
F733 Ventôse
F734 Vendémiaire
F735 Germinal

and

Lighter combat ships are called Avisos, roughly equivalent to Corvettes in other navies, however hull numbers follow frigate denomination (Fxxx).

D'Estienne d'Orves class (type A 69) - 9 ships
F789 Lieutenant de vaisseau Le Hénaff
F790 Lieutenant de vaisseau Lavallée
F791 Commandant L'Herminier
F792 Premier-Maître L'Her
F793 Commandant Blaison
F794 Enseigne de vaisseau Jacoubet
F795 Commandant Ducuing
F796 Commandant Birot
F797 Commandant Bouan

this gives a total of 13 destroyers , 11 frigates and 9 corvettes, 1 carrier and 1 helicopter ship in the MN.


for the Royal Navy , you failed to mention HMS ocean (helo ship) and that invincble is actually availbe for war duty is is now active reserve, so technigally its 3 carriers.

and i know you scoff at them - but spain, tailand and italy carriers are all smaller. than the UK ones.
and i know that the Charles de Gaulle is a mess - spending more time in dock than at sea , she is hard work to maintain , andd the new ship will be gas turbine powered.

as for teh falklands war:

the UK lost 4 warships ; 2 frigates type 21`s Antelope to 2 x 1100 lb bomb hits when 1 detonated whilst being defused

and ardent to at least 3x 1100lb bombs and 6 x500 lb bombs rained down on her


type 21 was designed in the 1960`s and had the totally useless SeaCat missile sysem - nearly 100 rounds fired fo 1 hit. its replacement the Type 22 was allready coming into service.

Type 42`s - sheffield and coventry were the other 2 warships sunk - coventry to 2 x 1100lb bombs , 1 next to the battle bridge (which killed the senior officers) and the other on the main rear bulkhead to engineering meaning the rear of the ship was open to flooding;

that leaves sheffield - which arguably did its job as carrier guard by taking the hit meant for the carrier.

reply to post by Harlequin


I agree with most of what you said, but just to be picky it has been stated that Invincible would require 18 months to reactivate, and could only do so if parts were taken from other ships (potentially rendering them unserviceable in the process - i.e. you really do only have 2 carriers).

As for my disdain of the RN's carriers, you'll forgive me if I'm a little hard on the fact that your most useful naval asset was stripped of the UK's (and one of the world's) best air defence aircraft, rendering it little more than a defenceless bomb truck for the RAF's Harriers. Yet another example of how your government places more emphasis on "hulls in the water", as opposed to adequately equipping front line units.

As for HMS Sheffield, I would also contend that the purpose of a destroyer picket is not to get sunk by the first incoming missile salvo, its job is to stop it without getting sunk, especially by a missile that most believe didn't even explode. Having seen the pictures of the burnt out Sheffield with one neat little hole in her side and no superstructure damage or plate bulging, compared to the catastrophic damage suffered by USS Stark, I'm left in no doubt that the missile failed to detonate.

Out of interest, and getting back to my original question - do you believe the Type 45 to be adequately armed?

Originally posted by Retseh
Yet another example of how your government places more emphasis on "hulls in the water", as opposed to adequately equipping front line units.

I object to that remark, the UK government does not place any emphasis on "hulls in the water" the only emphasis the UK government has is spending less money than is needed by the UK forces do the jobs the government wants them to.

For the role the Type 45 will do they are adequately armed, since there proposed number has been cut to 6 this is only enough of them to perform AAW escort for the carriers and amphibious assault force.

The engagement range against an sea skimming missile might only be something like 20km so they have to stay close to the carriers. A sub launched torpedo can have a range of 50km so you need to go further out to keep them at bay, so type 23 needed.

You could argue are the UK carriers adequately armed for self defence (current or future ones).

If they was still going to be 12 45s as was original the case then they could perform other roles which is probably how we ended up with a ship of that size which can take all the weapons you would like it to have.

There is truth in what Retseh says.

The Type 45 has the potential to be a great destroyer. But with a stiff breeze and an Atlantic swell against it ... rendering its helicopter unusable ... the only anti ship weapon it possesses is a gun. It doesn't have any anti-submarine weapons. But hey. It might be able to shoot down a seagull 3,000 miles away.

That does not a good ship make. And only 6 of the class being constructed ? That's dire.

And where does that leave the carriers ? Unprotected from surface combatants, that's where, in bad weather at least when flight ops are impossible. In that sense they'll share the fate of HMS Glorious.

Retseh's criticisms are valid, gents. It might grate they come from the other side of the pond. But he's right.

And where does that leave the carriers ? Unprotected from surface combatants, that's where, in bad weather at least when flight ops are impossible.

Except for the fact that they won't be operating without T22/23s or SSNs to provide that capability. You might as well say the Type 23s are inadequate because they can't protect a task group against a serious air threat.

i do believe the Type 45`s are well armed - for the role they will play; the fig`s are teh ASW hunter killers , and land attack ships , the destroyers in the royal navy , for the last 40 odd years have the role of air defence , a role for which it will excel , 2 as escort per carrier will be more than enough.

reply to post by Harlequin


Then ultimately I guess we'll just differ on our assessment.

I could ask you to find me another 8000 tonne destroyer that is so lightly armed, I could once again point out the RN's original desire for a land attack capability, or bring up the specialized ship disaster that was the Blackwood class frigate which was supposed to guarantee the RN would never try that approach again.

I'll leave the final assessment of the Type 45's capabilities to the export market, as I doubt very much that anyone else will want to use the design, personally I'm a fan of the Sachsen and Type 212A submarine - the Germans make good stuff.

But - if you doubled the Aster capacity to 96 missiles, added a pair of RAM launchers, an extra attack helo, the deck launchers for ASW torpedoes, added Tomahawk/Storm Shadow land attack launchers and either Sea Eagle/Harpoon or Exocet SSMs you would really have something. Add in a low earth orbit kinetic interceptor such as the RIM-161 and you would REALLY have something.

If all that sounds unrealistic, then all I can say is that with the exception of the RIM-161 - other, smaller ships are being equipped with those exact same loadouts.

I think the single best thing going for the Type 45 is its size and the quality of its combat systems, especialy SAMPSON, which has the processing power to coordinate the fire control requirements of the additional weapons. In essence, you can stuff an awful lot more into that hull than that single Sylver launcher and a gun.

Perhaps my mistake here was not to point out what the Type 45 is, but rather to point out what it could be.

through in all that extra equipment and you have a cruiser not an air defence destoyer

the role of the ship is set - anti air work , so has no use for land attack missiles , or torpedo` s , or another helicopter.

pahalanx is just a bolt on extra - i have no faith in the system , in every case where a missile hit a ship equipped with it , the excuses came rolling out.


and SeaRAM - another failure in a box - bolt a stinger seeker ontop of a sidewinder , with all the issues that come with stinger and its known fail points -then repackage and sell it as the next best thing.


no thanks.

reply to post by Harlequin


I didn't indicate that Phalanx should be installed, but since you mention it, and while I have questions over that system too - the runaway success of the land based version is hard to deny, with at least 105 successful interceptions of incoming shells and mortars under actual combat conditions in Iraq.

As for RAM, it's hardly fair to dismiss it as a re-boxed Sidewinder. I can think of very few weapon systems that have achieved a 95% hit rate even under perfect testing conditions, the Block 1 upgrades will take that capability even further. Until the ship board lasers are perfected, which isn't far away, it's the best anyone has right now.

On the other hand you could do away with short range missiles and radar directed auto-cannon completely, and rely on a French missile that has never been used in combat and can only engage targets that are more than a mile away from the launch ship.

Personally I like options.