Type 45 Destroyer capabilities

Since the type 45 seems to be all the rage, I figure we may as well take a closer look at the specific aspects that make it a warship.

Radar:
S1850M

I've found information that it's a multi-function active phased array, but haven't found much more on it yet. I'm not getting the impression that it's a fair match for the U.S. AN/SPY-1 radar, but it does have the advantage of being on more platforms, including the proposed aircraft carriers. (One disadvantage of SPY is that people always know just what kind of platform you are)

...Darn, gotta go, it's time for breakfast.

BAE have a website devoted to it

www.type45.com...

The S1850M radar is a volume search radar and not an active phased array (that is the Sampson Radar)

Sampson is every bit as good as the current US radar systems (they are working on upgrades that should surpass it tho)

[edit on 15-2-2006 by paperplane_uk]

Here are the basics:

Length: 152.4m
Max Beam: 21.2m
Displacement: Approximately 7,350 tonnes
Speed: 27 knots +
Range: 7000 nautical miles at 18 knots
Complement: approx. 190 (with space for 235)
Stores endurance: 45 days
Structure in accordance with Lloyds Naval Ship Rules

SYSTEMS
PAAMS
PAAMS has been designed to match and defeat the evolving threat of attacks from sophisticated anti-ship missiles and to deal with attacks by aircraft. It can control a substantial number of missiles in the air at once, thus making it difficult for attackers to swamp the Royal Navy's air defences. PAAMS equipment carried by each ship will include a 48-cell Sylver Vertical Launching System (VLS) for Aster missiles. Also central to the PAAMS system are the highly capable SAMPSON Multi-Function Radar (MFR) for surveillance and fire control, the S1850 Long-Range Radar (LRR) for air/surface search, and the Command and Control system.

SAMPSON
Multi-Function, Active Array Radar




The SAMPSON family of radars combines surveillance and dedicated tracking roles into a single system. Sited high on the ship, it can detect and track attacking aircraft and missiles while providing guidance for the ship’s own missiles. It supports point and area defence against current and future forecast air threats in an environment of heavy jamming and land and sea clutter. Functionality includes long- and medium-range search, surface picture and high-speed horizon search. It also performs high-angle search and track, multiple target tracking and multiple channel fire control.

S1850M Long-Range Radar
This provides three-dimensional long-range air surveillance and surface surveillance for PAAMS and other ship systems.

ASTER Missiles
The mixture of shorter-range Aster 15 and longer-range Aster 30 missiles selected for the Type 45 are faster and more agile than the previous generation. Exceptional agility is achieved in the ‘end-game’ using a lateral thrust system – commonly known as PIF, PAF.

Projected Combat System

PAAMS (Long Range Radar, Multi-Function Radar)
Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles
Identification, Friend or Foe
Combat Management System
Navigation Suite
Communications Suite
Electronic Warfare Suite
Meteorological Suite
Optical and Electro-optical Detection
Medium Calibre Gun
Close Range Guns
Sonar
Anti-torpedo Defence
Data Links
Helicopter - Lynx or Merlin
Provision for Surface to Surface guided weapon
Provision for Anti Air Warfare Inner Layer Defence
Provision for Torpedo Launch Systems

and dont forget the IPOD sockets in each berth!!!!

sounds good however as a english person i have to say that when it comes to the millitary its never as good as it looks because the government think that they can spend less and less on the miltiary and still have a fully functional, world beating millitary. However im hopeful that finally we have built a good ship, maybe we can get the f-35/harrier/new aircraft carriers sorted out now.

Justin

Heres a very good question...is the Type 45 up there with our destroyers the Burke class? The improved ones I mean.

I did finally manage to find some more info on the radar, and it looks like it's a rotating phased array. Which means that while it can perfom the neccisary search tasks, it is not on par with the SPY radar on US, Spanish, Norwegian, and Japaneese ships.

The duel missiles types however might provide soem advantage over the "one size fits all" design of the Standard missile.

Originally posted by Travellar
I did finally manage to find some more info on the radar, and it looks like it's a rotating phased array. Which means that while it can perfom the neccisary search tasks, it is not on par with the SPY radar on US, Spanish, Norwegian, and Japaneese ships.

The duel missiles types however might provide soem advantage over the "one size fits all" design of the Standard missile.

Why does it mean it is not on a par????

not equal to. The AN/SPY-1 radar is fully phased array, menaing it can visit RF energy at any bearing at any time, as frequently or infrequently as neccisary. The S1850M may be a fine radar, (and probrably is), but since it relies on mechanical means to rotate it's array, it can only visit each point in it's search volume once per rotation.

The type 45 has 2 radars. The first is the S1850M volume search radar (rear mast on the vessel) this is a traditional type radar system used for long range high volume search. It was developed as part of the PAAMS when we were part of the horizon frigate progamme. When we switch to the type 45 development it was retained as a legacy part of the design. it is actually not needed (according to BAE systems) as the type 45s have the addition of the Sampson radar system.

It was originally developed by Siemens-Plessey, the radar is a result of UK government's (DERA) investment in the MESAR demonstrator programme (Multi-function Electronically Scanned ARray.) Siemens-Plessey was acquired by British Aerospace in 1997, now BAE Systems.

As an active array, SAMPSON uses software to shape and direct its beam allowing several functions to be carried out at once and, through adaptive waveform control, is virtually immune to enemy jamming. Active arrays have both longer range and higher accuracy than conventional radars.

People all too often fall into the trap of thinking that because the samson radar rototes it must be a mechanically scanned array. This is simply not true. The system consists of two arrays placed back to back. These two arrays are both electronically scanning active phased arrays. The design choices for using the two rotating arrays are that it will save weight and thereby allow the radar to be sighted higher up giving a larger range with little or no loss in functionality.

The combination of the rotating back to back arrays (rotating at over 30rpm, actual value is classified) and the electronic scanning mean that it can put a a beam anywhere at anytime (they are coordinated by special software). Bae investigated a number of different designs including 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (a vertical one) arrays and found the 2 rotating array design to be the best choice in performance vs weight.

As an aside in a recent test the sampson radar being tested near Portsmouth tracked all aircraft flying into and out of heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Paris CDG, Berlin and Schiphol (amsterdam) at the same time.

Lockheed were so impressed with the designs a few years ago they even talked about joining forces with Bae on future devlopment of radars.

www.defense-aerospace.com...

Sorry guys it may sound stupid but can anyone tell me which country is deploying it ?

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Sorry guys it may sound stupid but can anyone tell me which country is deploying it

?

The Brits. They are desperate to retake and rule the seas as they have done so for centuries. Its a conspiracy!!!

Hi all, I was wondering what your opinions are regarding possible integration of Tomahawk missiles on to perhaps some of the later build Type 45s.

The RN'S land attack missile capability all rests with the SSNS at the moment, and im sure that the extra ammunition capacity that a type 45 could provide would be welcomed.

I have had a bit of a trawl through some sites but I cant find much in the way of opinion on the subject.

I know that the RN is eager to get the 45s in to service as quick as they possibly can what with the type 42s being in the state they are, might they seek this option ? I would imagine it would come down to the factor of cost

But surely the RN wont have a more suitable platform than the 45 if they were to pursue this option ,cause of its size and adptabilitiy?

ANY thoughts?

*Russian boy the British Royal Navy

One of the favourtie saying in naval design circles at the moment is "fitted for but not with". This is used when they have identified capabilities that would be useful but that they know the government will not fund at the moment. The control systems are designed to be expandable to cope with additional weapons fit during the course of their life. It also means space and weight allowance has to be available which is included in the inital design (they are called growth margins) As such the type 45 is fitted for but not with:

Space is available for stingray torpedo tubes to be plumbed in near the hanger in a similar position to the type 23's, The systems will most likely come of retiring vessels.

space is available for a CIWS system to be mounted, either goal keeper, phalanx or another system (naval metal storm anyone????)

there is space to put in an s2s missile system, most likely the Harpoon launchers off the retiring type 42's

There is also space beside and below the vertical launch system for additional units, it is speculated that these may be sylver 70 launchers (in which case the mythical aster 45 , or scalp missiles would be procured. There is however still a chance that they might install US launch systems capable of firing tommahawk, or Standard 3's (or whatever replaces them). This last capability is being discussed to be installed as part of any UK ABM system.

It is unlikely the Navy will get the money for all of these systems but if they did..............one can dream!!!!

the type 45 would then have a proper weapons fit!!!

[edit on 16-2-2006 by paperplane_uk]

i don't really follow the navy side of things, but heard us brits are getting numerious new vessels!!

but what does this mean, do the brits once again rule the seas??

all serious though, ive heard people talk about how the british navy is small, but ive just been on the royal navy website and it looks MASSIVE to me, to be honest i never knew we had that many ships!!

what people are complaining about at the moment is that the government keep cutting the number of surface combatants we have in order (so they say) to pay for the carriers. Despite the first sea lord saying we need 5 more to do the job the goverment want they have slashed the numer from 38 when they cam to power to 25 in 10 years. Even the much quoted 1998 defence review said we needed at least 32.. Along with the fact that the number of submarine they say we need keeps mystreiously falling for no apparent reason (its now down to 9+4). The royal navy is the smallest it has been since before the napolionic wars and people are starting to get worried, because if another falkland type event occurs we will not have the capability to win.

Ps. dont believe what they say about cutting the fleet to afford the carriers. They just spent £4Billion on 12 (yes just 12!!!!) maritime patrol aircraft. This is exactly the same amount that they carriers are costing (minus airwing, just the vessels)

paperplane,

"fitted for but not with" I like that "aspirations vs reality" could also be applied in the context of the 45


Interesting to note some of the systems not funded at the moment, I heard a while ago that the first ships wont recieve the mfs 7000 sonar straight up but will have them retrofitted at a later date is this still accurate to your knowledge?

Also you mentioned the potential to develop the 45 in to a ABM platform, I had heard of this too, it would make sense to me , but it would surely require a larger fleet to make it viable say vs Arrow II? or would it be an integrated system? again cost

I would have thought that CIWS should have been of high priority though probably goalkeeper will be fitted , navalised metal storm would be pretty cool

* are you talking Nimrod I thought it was 16 down from a original requirement for 18?

[edit on 16-2-2006 by buckaroo]

Yes Nimrods, they scaled back again to 12.

With regards the sonar, i do not know for sure but knowing the Uk it will most likely be a retro fit. The inital type 23's went to see with no fire control system and a lump of concrete in the bow sonar bulb as the systems were not ready yet. They were effectively kept out of hams way (away from the gulf) till they could get the systems sorted.

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
space is available for a CIWS system to be mounted, either goal keeper, phalanx or another system (naval metal storm anyone????)

?????
wHAT!!
So you mean to tell me that our "greatest warship" is currently at sea with 0 missile protection?

The carriers are also slowly being phased out , what with the GR-9 now not going to have an A2A package apart from stingers.

Great so let me ask, what are we going to go to war with?
200+ challangers sitting on the beach trying to take out the next enemy navy?

Mabye get the RAF to do the RN's work instead!

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
The royal navy is the smallest it has been since before the napolionic wars and people are starting to get worried, because if another falkland type event occurs we will not have the capability to win.

wow really?? so you saying if argentina ever decided to invaded the falklands and declare war on britain (like the 80's), britain would be powerless to prevent the invasion of the falklands island and we would lose in a war??

here's me thinking britain are actually 'PROGRESSING'!! - if you search around the net its all over about britain are the 2nd most powerful country behind the US and that we have the 2nd highest defence budget and the 2nd highest contributors in military research and development.

so what have we been doing then? just investing in everything else and just basicly letting the royal navy ships to rust??

[edit on 16-2-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
wow really?? so you saying if argentina ever decided to invaded the falklands and declare war on britain (like the 80's), britain would be powerless to prevent the invasion of the falklands island and we would lose in a war??

I dont think so, we have quite a force down there as it is and the fact that we have a decent , ok small yeah, but much better fleet than in the 1980's.

so what have we been doing then? just investing in everything else and just basicly letting the royal navy ships to rust??
[edit on 16-2-2006 by st3ve_o]

Well think about it this way, we spent 2 540 million on Aircraft and Spacecraft yet spent 1 230 million on Shipbuilding and Repairing and just 170 million on Motor Vehicles and Part.

Tell me why a fighter aircraft is better than a warship ?

BTW, we spent more money on aircraft than we did ammo; Weapons & Ammunition=690 million pounds.

www.dasa.mod.uk...
Thanks tony !