Type 45 Destroyer capabilities

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The Kidd class was in fact far more potent a warship than appearances would give it credit for. We took the design of our previous destroyer class, sold it to Iran... wait, they just torched our embassy... uh, we billed Iran for it, then brought it up to speed and made it as good a warship as possible, even comparable to Ticonderoga class Cruisers.

To make a comparison there, I'd say the 45 is definately ahead of the Kidds. Unfortunately, given all this talk of "fitted for but not with", I get the idea that either the admiralty or the MoD have completely forgotten the most important lessons they learned at a high price in the south Atlantic in 1982. Namely, It doesn't matter how good your high altitude/long range weapons systems are, if you skimp on the close in lowlevel defences, you WILL loose ships and lives.




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Kidd class capabilities versus Type 45 would be an interesting thread, some objective research is called for. As I stated originally, the Kidd is inferior, but by how much and in which areas - it could just be the salvo rate of the VLS system and the higher performance ASTER 15/30.

The problem would be comparing sensor capabilities, many of which are still classified.

Size/weight/range/weaponry should be feasible.

Of course the main problem is that most of the weaponry on the Type 45 is "has provisions for" which is lame and difficult to base the ships true capabilities on.

The Type 45 looks to have good air defence capabilities and the obligatory ASW helicopter but not really much else.

A reasonable analysis (i.e. one that doesn't bang on about "World's Greatest Warship") can be found here:

www.global-defence.com...

[edit on 24-2-2006 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger TOf course the main problem is that most of the weaponry on the Type 45 is "has provisions for" which is lame and difficult to base the ships true capabilities on.[edit on 24-2-2006 by Winchester Ranger T]

well, if you bring that up, the Kidd class has it beat hands down. A fully equipped Type 45 is another matter entirely.

I'm putting some assumption behind the belief the Asters might outperform the Standards, and taking a bit less liberty in assuming the Type 45's radar will outperform either of the air search radars on the Kidd. (pretty easily too) So for outer air defence, the Type 45 should be a bit better, and even inner air defence. Once you get to point defence, (and it's ridiculous to beleive it will never come to that), the Type 45 simply cannot compete as it doesn't have any weapons to do so with. Which raises the issue of damage control.

The Kidd class has an aluminum superstructure with steel hull. (aluminum bad, aluminum BAD!) I'll have to check on what the Type 45 is made of, but if it's all steel, it'll be better off here. If It's aluminum though, it goes the other way.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
no weapons??

well as said, i'm not sure about warships (its not my category)

but its just smart thinking


just because they haven't released anything yet about WEAPONS it doesn't mean that 'IT WON'T HAVE NONE'!! - afterall the type45's arn't even built yet (its still only a shell), so theres plently of time.

but i can't imagen the MOD will pay £billions$ on some new warships and not equip them with the best weapons 'POSSIBLE'.

doesn't make sence.

(EDIT):- ive just typed in "type 45 destroyer weapons" on google-news (so its recent news) and again headlines 'world greatest warship'

news.google.co.uk...

(about weapons) www.tmcnet.com...

(also this website talks about how 'each' D-class destroyer will have more firepower than the a COMBINED FLEET of 'Type 42s')


business.scotsman.com...


[edit on 24-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Don't forget that the US has done it's share of up-arming it's ships over time.

Witness the Spruances, which started life as lightly armed but very quiet ASW destroyers, and with the addition of a Mk41 VLS became very powerful strike ships, loaded to the gills with Tomahawks.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o(also this website talks about how 'each' D-class destroyer will have more firepower than the a COMBINED FLEET of 'Type 42s')


Talk about being the world's tallest pygmy


As for Aster, I agree that this weapon system appears to be some way ahead of Standard in terms of ability especially in the terminal phase with PIF/PAF.

But that VLS really needs to hold more than just SAMs, modern warships that claim to be world class need to be able to project power in a variety of different ways as opposed to the prior approach of building "specialized" (read - "compromised") ships.

If the the Type 45 eventually enter service with the following, I would deem it truly impressive:

1. A modern CIWS (better than Phalanx 1B) with 360 degree coverage
2. Extended range rocket assisted main gun (like the Navy wanted)
3. Tomahawk land attack and long range anti ship missiles (or equivalent)

Now if they could just retrofit the ASTER 15 into a VLS system in place of the six cell Seawolf launchers on the Type 22 Batch 3s, you would have a world class frigate too.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
sounds good, as said

i can't imagen the mod will buy new ships and just basicly let them roam the seas like 'titanic' - ^due to sink at any time^.

if they don't arm them with the best equipment/technogicly possible they want their heads looking at


whats the cost of all the equipment you listed above? - either way it would cost MORE to replace a ship if it was ever lost in battle, so you would think they'd arm them upto scratch.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Well they only fitted Phalanx to the Type 42s after the Sheffield and Coventry were hit, they also love to remove guns from things (like the Typhoon).

The MoD is not in any way interested in providing top class equipment for the military, they are interested in ensuring continued employment in the defence industry.

Prime example - SA80 rifle.

I'll bet you a pound that the Type 45 is commissioned without its full weapons fit.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Prime example - SA80 rifle.

Last marine I spoke to said the A2 was a fine weapon.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Winchester, whilst I agree with you that the MoD has a track record of cutting corners, this is due to the Treaury rather than anything they themselves are doing. Given free reign without the Treasury breathing down their necks, they would be much better at procurement.



But that VLS really needs to hold more than just SAMs, modern warships that claim to be world class need to be able to project power in a variety of different ways as opposed to the prior approach of building "specialized" (read - "compromised") ships.


Specialised doesn't mean compromised.

The Type-45 is a destroyer. The primary mission for a Destroyer is fleet air defence. It isnt supposed to do land attack or ASW operations, that falls to the Frigates, Fleet Submarines (with the new Astute class subs coming online which have been designed to carry a large payload of cruise missiles) and eventually, the two new Aircraft Carriers.

If you tried to design a warship that could do everything, you would be looking at a seriously high bill from BAe!

Further more, this comes back to the Treasury problem. They would never allow the MoD to order a batch of all round super-ships, the price is too high. They would also probably cut the Aircraft Carrier programme, which the Navy is pinning it's hopes on.

The fleet is undergoing a major change at the moment, so in 2012-15, it will be a modern, cohesive fighting force with some very advanced and capable weapons platforms. Up to that point, whilst it is still a very effective force now, it will look disjointed until all the new platforms come through.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
ps:- can someone tell me about another british project 'sea wraith' ive been reading about when ive typed in 'type45 destroyer'

foxxaero.homestead.com...

it says its a stealth ship that will be capable of artificially generating a mist to disquise itself as a bank of fog - sounds amazing



[edit on 24-2-2006 by st3ve_o]


Sea wraith was an unsolicted design option for a future surface combatant developed by Vosper Thornycroft in the late 90's. It was never taken past the concept stage. The mist stealth system however was developed (originally it began life as the spraydown system in the NBC suite, but has been hevily modified). This is a working system and HAS been fitted to the type 45's (part of the reason vospers still got some buildwork on the 45's, despite them being wholely designed by BaE).

The guys comparing the Kidds and the 45's be careful to compare like with like. Mission profiles for frigates and destroyrs in the US and UK navies are veryy different. In the US a destroyer is an all purpose killing machine able to take on air/land/sea/sub threats. In the RN however a destoyers role is purely AAW for the fleet. It only has a very basic fit in the other roles (e.g minor air defence, basic sonar outfit ). Sub hunting and strike roles are left to the subs and frigates.

Saying that, the long term plans for the 45's include CIWS as a priority (most likely the systems off the 42's as the decommision), they are designed to have a land attack capability fitted at a later servicing (if the government/mod ever decide which system they want). They could also have torpedo's fitted if required.

This whole argument about which is the most powerful ship afloat (US Nimitz Class or SSBN btw) stems for a statement dreamed up by some marketing jock at BaE and siesed upon by the UK press. The navy has certainly never said anything more than it will be most powerful destoyer they have ever fielded.

In the long term she may well become the powerful all purpose warship we longfore but she isnt there yet.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Prime example - SA80 rifle.

Last marine I spoke to said the A2 was a fine weapon.


Which is why I specified the original SA80, a terrible weapon designed and produced in the UK purely because of jobs.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Specialised doesn't mean compromised.


Based on the experiences of the Falklands I believe it means exactly that. We had a specialised ASW force that was totally unprepared to fight an air war and shore bombardment mission - some frigates didn't even have guns.


The Type-45 is a destroyer. The primary mission for a Destroyer is fleet air defence. It isnt supposed to do land attack or ASW operations


Well it has a bow sonar, ASW torpedoes and I believe 2 ASW helicopters so I question your assertion that it isn't supposed to do ASW operations. However, I very much doubt that the attack subs will carry "large payloads" of cruise missiles, they are somewhat too large to be carried in any number in the torpedo racks, and then you also sacrifice your torpedo load out (compromise, compromise). You need a VLS system - which is what the Americans realised, which is why their subs no longer carry Tomahawks internally, they don't compromise.


If you tried to design a warship that could do everything, you would be looking at a seriously high bill from BAe!


Or you could just order an Arleigh Burke (but preferably with ASTER not Standard).


Further more, this comes back to the Treasury problem. They would never allow the MoD to order a batch of all round super-ships, the price is too high. They would also probably cut the Aircraft Carrier programme, which the Navy is pinning it's hopes on.


Which is what I'm saying - they cut corners, expect it with the Type 45.


The fleet is undergoing a major change at the moment, so in 2012-15, it will be a modern, cohesive fighting force with some very advanced and capable weapons platforms. Up to that point, whilst it is still a very effective force now, it will look disjointed until all the new platforms come through.


We'll see.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

The guys comparing the Kidds and the 45's be careful to compare like with like. Mission profiles for frigates and destroyrs in the US and UK navies are veryy different. In the US a destroyer is an all purpose killing machine able to take on air/land/sea/sub threats. In the RN however a destoyers role is purely AAW for the fleet. It only has a very basic fit in the other roles (e.g minor air defence, basic sonar outfit ). Sub hunting and strike roles are left to the subs and frigates.


You bring up a very good point, I would be the first to criticize the USN if it commissioned a destroyer with excellent AAW capability but with limited capability in all other areas.
I just don't like the notion that each ship is interdependent on each other to provide defenses in specialized areas, IMO it makes you more vulnerable and it limits your operations outside a group.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
i am curious of the ranges of the Aster 15 and Aster 30



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Well the Aster 15 has a range somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 miles and the Aster 30 in the 75 mile range.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T

Well it has a bow sonar, ASW torpedoes and I believe 2 ASW helicopters so I question your assertion that it isn't supposed to do ASW operations.

Is it designed to do this task like the type 23 or 22?






Or you could just order an Arleigh Burke (but preferably with ASTER not Standard).

Right and your saying this ship can magically do everything...right?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Actually, it can. (provided you're not including launch and recovery of fixed wing aircraft)

But that falls under the previously mentioned US design policy of Destroyers that do everything. The difference with the Arliegh Burke class is they do 2 of the 5 primary surface combatant missions Exceptionally well. Air Warfare and Strike warfare they do exceptionally well. Surface, Subsurface Warfare, and VBSS (boarding actions) they do as well as any other ship we've got.

None of these missions should be beyond the capabilities of the Type 45, provided the neccisary equipment is installed. I doubt very much anyone went and designed a VLS system for a NATO country without including the capability to hold the most prolific strike missile in our inventory. (Tomahawk) Given the cost of a naval warship, and the roughly 1 Billion US Dollar cost listed somewhere around page two of this thread, Failure to include strike capability on this hull would be a most inexcusable demonstration of bargin basement shopping. Of course, I hold similar opinions to failing to include point defences, and building a WARship out of aluminum. (say, what is the type 45 made out of anyways?)



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   


Based on the experiences of the Falklands I believe it means exactly that. We had a specialised ASW force that was totally unprepared to fight an air war and shore bombardment mission - some frigates didn't even have guns.


It was short sighted, but that was the primary role of the fleet, ASW. That was were the main threat was perceived from the USSR. We just dont have the money to maintain a huge fleet capable of all and sundry. Also, we expected to fight any war alongside the US, which would fulfil the main fighting role whilst we would take care of the submarine threat and protection of the GIUK gap.



Well it has a bow sonar, ASW torpedoes and I believe 2 ASW helicopters so I question your assertion that it isn't supposed to do ASW operations.


Question away Winchester, but here are some sources to back up my "claims":




The main mission of the Type 45 anti-air warfare destroyer is to provide local area fleet defence, with long range radar and wide area defence capability. The ship's combat systems also have the capability to control aircraft and co-ordinate the anti-air warfare operations of the task force. The Type 45 is equipped with long range weapon systems to intercept air threats including super-agile manoeuvring missiles with re-attack modes. The UK PAAMS will defend the ships from missiles approaching individually or in salvos and is capable of controlling a large number of airborne missiles simultaneously. The Type 45 could also accommodate cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk and anti-ballistic missiles if a requirement was identified in future. The Type 45 will be able to operate a helicopter up to the size of a Royal Navy's Merlin helicopter, but will initally operate with Lynx HMA.8 helicopters armed with Stingray torpedoes.

Source





Air Defence Destroyer (Type 45)

The Type 45 class will be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever operated by the Royal Navy and the largest general purpose surface warships (excluding aircraft carriers and amphibious ships) to join the fleet since World War Two cruisers. The projected deep load displacement of the Type 45, at around 7,200 tonnes, will also exceed that of any other general purpose surface combatant, again excluding aircraft carriers and amphibious ships, built for the Royal Navy since the Tiger class cruisers of the 1941 programme.

When the Type 45 enters service later this decade it will provide the fleet with an air defence capability that is several orders of magnitude greater than that provided by the existing force of Type 42 destroyers.

The main armament of the class will be the sophisticated and lethal Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS), which is being developed and procured jointly with France and Italy. PAAMS will equip the Type 45 to defend itself and other ships in company from attack by existing and future anti-ship missiles of all types. The Type 45 will also be able to operate close inshore and use PAAMS to give air cover to British Forces engaged in the land battle. The system is designed to defend against supersonic, stealthy, highly manoeuvrable missiles that could use sea-skimming or steep-diving flight profiles approaching in salvoes, simultaneously from several directions.

Source




However, I very much doubt that the attack subs will carry "large payloads" of cruise missiles, they are somewhat too large to be carried in any number in the torpedo racks,


Try reading up on the Astute then. They carry a weapons loadout over twice that of the Trafalgar Class currently in service. Up to 32 missiles and Torpedoes in fact. Not bad for a submarine.

Seeing as the new Virginia class carries 16 Tomahwaks and 26 Torpedoes, its not that shabby seeing as the Virginia has the VLS. Also, the Virgina only has 4 tubes were as the Astute has 6.



Or you could just order an Arleigh Burke (but preferably with ASTER not Standard).


Why? We know you love all things American, Winchester and the Arleigh Burkes are great ships, but the Type 45 does the job we want it to do and is made in the UK.




I just don't like the notion that each ship is interdependent on each other to provide defenses in specialized areas, IMO it makes you more vulnerable and it limits your operations outside a group.


Westy, the Type 45 is capable of multi-role and can operate independantly, but it's primary function is Fleet Air defence. But, stick it on it's own and it can perform ASW operations if needed. It is however, not likely to be on it's own in a combat arena, as said it's primary function is to defend the Fleet (read Carriers) from incoming Air threats



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Right and your saying this ship can magically do everything...right?


Everything except spell, but then it's not alone in that.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Winchester Ranger T]





top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join