HMS Daring

shells and mortar do not travel at 700 mph , several posters , including myself have shown the limitations of gun based CIWS - the laws of physics and time come into play ; @ 700 mph the ciws has at max 5 seconds firing time , and at best 3 seconds - which equates to a usual firing of 200 rounds


turn that up to mach 3 and the firing time is reduced to under a second with less than 30 rounds fired at a a `jinking` target 1 mile away.

in fact , there has been no recorded operational kills of a ciws against a sea skimmer , only excuses as to why it failed to work as advertised.


SeaRAM IS a reboxed sidewinder - with a stinger seeker, i`ll find the link, but someone in the industry has allready given a breakdown as to the problems with the stinger seeker , its narrow range of operations , and whilst it looks good on papaer and in tests (same as ciws actually - that achieved an 80%+ kill rate) in the real world i dont have the same level of confidence in it as you.

[edit on 31/7/09 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by Harlequin
shells and mortar do not travel at 700 mph , several posters , including myself have shown the limitations of gun based CIWS - the laws of physics and time come into play ; @ 700 mph the ciws has at max 5 seconds firing time , and at best 3 seconds - which equates to a usual firing of 200 rounds

While I'm not here to defend outdated technology such as Phalanx, I can't let such inaccuracies slip by unnoticed.

Phalanx is currently knocking shells out of the air under combat conditions, shells in the 105mm range that have a muzzle velocity up to 1600m/s or Mach 5, even the slowest arrive at supersonic speed (mortars less so). The rounds are also following a ballistic as opposed to a linear trajectory making the job that little bit more difficult for the fire control system.

Pretty good performance by any standard.

turn that up to mach 3 and the firing time is reduced to under a second with less than 30 rounds fired at a a `jinking` target 1 mile away.

Nothing "jinks" at Mach 3, especially when it's only one mile from the target, it's only 0.6 seconds from impact, check your math.

in fact , there has been no recorded operational kills of a ciws against a sea skimmer , only excuses as to why it failed to work as advertised.

The primary reason for the failures attributed somewhat unfairly to Phalanx were that it wasn't turned on when the host ship was attacked. I don't know of any weapon system that works well when it's turned off.

SeaRAM IS a reboxed sidewinder - with a stinger seeker, i`ll find the link, but someone in the industry has allready given a breakdown as to the problems with the stinger seeker , its narrow range of operations , and whilst it looks good on papaer and in tests (same as ciws actually - that achieved an 80%+ kill rate) in the real world i dont have the same level of confidence in it as you.

I note that you have turned the discussion into an analysis of available US CIWSs as opposed to an analysis of the Type 45, so let me drag us back to the original topic.

The Type 45 relies on PAAMS for defence, Aster 15 cannot engage within 1700m and Aster 30 is limited to 3000m minimum distance, so approximately 1 mile and 2 miles respectively. If SAMPSON fails to pick up and engage missile threats at distance, it's game over.

With smaller, faster, and more importantly stealthier anti-ship missiles now appearing, navies have recognized the need for point defence systems to give an infra-red terminal homing option, relying on radar guidance is unreliable at best, but the point is that the Type 45 has nothing under a mile, zero, zip, zilch.

Maybe PAAMS will work as advertized, maybe the Asters will knock down every threat at distance - but why would the "World's most advanced destroyer" lack ANY type of point defence system (forgetting of course the lack of anti-ship missiles, ship launched torpedoes, land attack munitions etc etc etc)

Am I whistling in the wind here or is anyone picking up what I'm laying down?

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Retseh]

I may be flogging a dead horse here but the Type 45 will have a CIWS in the form of Phalanx with the possibility that this will be upgraded in the future.

Originally posted by Mike_A
I may be flogging a dead horse here but the Type 45 will have a CIWS in the form of Phalanx with the possibility that this will be upgraded in the future.

Can you post a link showing HMS Daring's Phalanx installation, or is this just another one of those "promised systems".

(PS - that's the whole point of what I'm saying here).

As I said earlier the Phalanx will come off existing Type 42s so they’re not currently fitted. As no Type45 is currently in service, that isn’t a problem.

Originally posted by Mike_A
As I said earlier the Phalanx will come off existing Type 42s so they’re not currently fitted. As no Type 45 is currently in service, that isn’t a problem.

So when they dust off those old Phalanx units and bolt them on to the world's most advanced destroyer I'll change my assessment from under-protected to marginally protected.

At least the Royal Navy has contracted with Raytheon for 16 Mod 1B upgrade kits, a huge improvement to the standard Phalanx system - but quite why it has spread the acquisition over 6 years (ending in 2013) is beyond me. More penny pinching I suppose.

So would you look at a half finished ship and say it’s crap because it wouldn’t float without half of its hull?

Originally posted by Retseh
The primary reason for the failures attributed somewhat unfairly to Phalanx were that it wasn't turned on when the host ship was attacked. I don't know of any weapon system that works well when it's turned off.

Isn't that a bit of a lame excuse? It was ineffectual because it was "turned off"! Why would you turn it off in a hostile environment?

I believe the Phallanx on a US warship tried to shoot down USS Missouri while a British warship, (HMS Gloucester) shot down the offending missile in GW1. Clearly that time it was "turned on", but perhaps pointing in the wrong direction, or perhaps annoyed that a missile got there first!

I wonder what is the distance Sampson can "see"? i.e. at what point does an incoming missile get "seen". That will dictate how long a Type 45 has to react.

Regards

During trials, between 1993 and 1994, all flight sequences, altitudes and ranges, were validated. This was also the period during which the launch sequence of Aster 30 was validated.

In May 1996, trials of the Aster 15 active electromagnetical final guidance system against live targets began. All six attempts were successful:

8 April 1997: interception of a C22 target simulating a subsonic antiship missile, flying at 10 metres, at a distance of 7 kilometres.
23 May 1997: Direct impact on an Exocet anti-ship missile of the first generation, at 9 kilometres, to protect a distant ship (7 kilometres).
13 November 1997: interception of a C22 target in very low flight in a strong countermeasures environment. In this test, the Aster was not armed with its military warhead so that the distance between the Aster and the target could be recorded. The C22 was recovered bearing two strong cuts due to the fins of the Aster missile.
30 December 1997: Interception of a live C22 target by an Aster 30 at a distance of 30 kilometres, an altitude of 11,000 metres, and a speed of 900 km/h. The Aster climbed up to 15,000 metres before falling on the target at a speed of 2880 km/h. The closest distance between the Aster and the C22 was four metres.
29 June 2001 : Interception of a Arabel missile in low altitude, in less than five seconds.
In 2001 : Interception by the Aster 15 of a target simulating an aircraft flying at Mach-1 at an altitude of 100 metres.
In 2002-2003 : Trial of Aster 15 from Sylver A43 launcher with EMPAR and SAAM-it system onboard Italian experimental ship Carabiniere F 581
In 2004-2005 : Trial of Aster 30 from Sylver A50 launcher with EMPAR and PAAMS(E) system onboard Italian experimental ship Carabiniere F 581
On 3 April 2008, the Republic of Singapore Navy frigate RSS Intrepid shot down an aerial drone off the French port of Toulon during an exercise.

one test sequence for the `untested` PAAMS

Originally posted by paraphi
Isn't that a bit of a lame excuse? It was ineffectual because it was "turned off"! Why would you turn it off in a hostile environment?

Yes, the system on the USS Stark and the INS Hanit were both deactivated when the ships were hit.

I believe the Phallanx on a US warship tried to shoot down USS Missouri while a British warship, (HMS Gloucester) shot down the offending missile in GW1. Clearly that time it was "turned on", but perhaps pointing in the wrong direction, or perhaps annoyed that a missile got there first!

The original story was that the Phalanx locked on to a chaff cloud over 2 miles away and fired. When investigated, it was found that the Phalanx operating parameters would not have allowed it to fire on such a target. Unofficially the navy now accepts that an operator inadvertently fired the system manually.

Don't forget that Phalanx has now successfully intercepted 105 incoming projectiles in its land based version, something no one wants to talk about.

I wonder what is the distance Sampson can "see"? i.e. at what point does an incoming missile get "seen". That will dictate how long a Type 45 has to react.

That's the whole point, the first time you get to "see" a small stealthy anti-ship missile may well be on infrared - Sampson doesn't have infrared, and at a range of less than a mile - PAAMS can't engage at less than a mile.

Simple really.

Originally posted by Harlequin


one test sequence for the `untested` PAAMS

Geez, you honestly thought that by "untested" I meant the French never tested Aster before deploying it?

Untested under combat conditions.

I'm assuming the British tested the living daylights out of Seacat before fitting it to almost everything beginning with HMS, and look how that turned out in the Falklands.

You're putting all your eggs in one untested basket, with no point defence.

Yet again I reiterate - a gun, 48 SAMs, and a chopper - it's way underarmed.

Originally posted by Retseh
Yet again I reiterate - a gun, 48 SAMs, and a chopper - it's way underarmed.

Dear me, we are going around in circles. There seems to be a concensus view that the Daring class is not underarmed for the role of AAW and would excel in that role.

I am wondering at the horizon detection range of Sampson versus (say) the SPY-1D on a Arleigh Burke. I suspect Daring can "see" further and therefore have more time to react. Just a thought.

Another thought... I just wonder how many nations could swamp a Type 45 so that it is forced to expend all of it's 48 missiles before moving out of range... Even in the Falklands I doubt that would have happened. As I don't see the UK having a fight against Russia, the change that 48 missiles being required extremely remote. Oh, and don't say China because the chances of the UK getting into a fight with China are even more remote - fantasy remote.

Regards

[edit on 4/8/2009 by paraphi]

You're putting all your eggs in one untested basket, with no point defence.

Are you just not interested in listening?!

The Type 45s in service will have a point defence system.

Paraphi,

The range of Sampson is given as 400km with the visible horizon being about 25km away

The SPY-1/D range is about 200km with a visible horizon at about 20km.

Originally posted by paraphi
Dear me, we are going around in circles. There seems to be a concensus view that the Daring class is not underarmed for the role of AAW and would excel in that role.

For the role of AAW at medium and long ranges it's adequately armed - the question at hand is whether it is adequately armed, or needs to be armed for other scenarios.

I think all modern warships should be able to tackle a swing role, every navy in the world is building warships to that standard, only the UK is still pursuing "dedicated" role vessels, and big ones at that.

So you may have a concensus of British contributors in one ATS thread, but I would contend that the RN is in a minority among its international warship building peers.

Another thought... I just wonder how many nations could swamp a Type 45 so that it is forced to expend all of it's 48 missiles before moving out of range... Even in the Falklands I doubt that would have happened.

Bringing up the Falkands is interesting, since a lot of the air defence combat took place in narrow inlets surrounded by high land features, eg San Carlos Water where point defence systems came into their own, Sea Wolf for example doing quite well in actual combat. I would think that Aster would not do so well in those conditions, something of a restriction for an air defence destroyer. Goalkeeper, Phalanx, Sea Wolf VLS, ESSM, Umkhonto, Kashtan etc etc are all designed more with that scenario in mind, and I think the Type 45 would benefit greatly from the installation of one or more of those systems.

Maybe the Type 45 will get Phalanx Mod 1B at some point, but that's not the best option, it's old technology and there's better to be had. Phalanx even when installed has a marginal caliber, is limited in range, and can't handle multiple targets - there are my valid criticisms of that system, it has its uses, but its limited.

Even if you think the Type 45 should be strictly limited to shooting down aircraft/missiles, something I think is a big mistake especially for such a large vessel, Aster 30 and Aster 15 are really in need of an "Aster 5" if you get my drift, and lord alone knows there's enough spare room on the Type 45 to accommodate an aft VLS launch cell.

The Australians recognized that same weakness in their Oliver Hazard Perry frigates (Adelaide class) and found room for a new forward VLS installation in addition to upgrading the Phalanx installation - those small (and old) frigates now have layered air defence with SM2-MR, ESSM, and Phalanx.

Once again, my point simply is that the Type 45 does not. Even if you limit the discussion to air defence, I don't regard it as well equipped. If you broaden the discussion into other capabilities, well, I think your standard response has now been established as "other ships can do it".

Originally posted by Mike_A
Paraphi,

The range of Sampson is given as 400km with the visible horizon being about 25km away

The SPY-1/D range is about 200km with a visible horizon at about 20km.

Once again, it's being done better, by smaller, and yes, better than the American system too.

The Dutch De Zeven Provincien class has demonstrated an air search track capability with its SMART-L radar of at least 480km officially and an amazing 2000 km unofficially - so much so that the Dutch are now installing a battery of SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles on their "frigates" to take advantage of this capability.

There's the world standard for an air defence vessel, take a look at the capabilities of that ship, that's where the Type 45 needs to be.

These comparisons are very simplistic; just because something has more of something or has a longer range doesn’t mean its better overall, you must consider every aspect. That said, the Type 45 does use the SMART-L derivative S1850M, the SMART-L can’t provide the same resolution as a proper fire control radar and only rotates at 12rpm which is totally insufficient for most air defence roles. So no, for area air defence it isn’t being done better, or smaller; at least not by SMART-L.

Originally posted by Retseh
Bringing up the Falkands is interesting, since a lot of the air defence combat took place in narrow inlets surrounded by high land features, eg San Carlos Water where point defence systems came into their own, Sea Wolf for example doing quite well in actual combat. I would think that Aster would not do so well in those conditions, something of a restriction for an air defence destroyer.

Well, according to what I have read the PAAMS and Aster is designed to operate inshore in defence of amphibious forces, for example. This would of course be a direct lesson from the Falklands which the RN and other navies have taken on board.

This is a good source on PAAMS

This is the manufacturer MBDA

However, in circles we are going...

Regards




[edit on 5/8/2009 by paraphi]