It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Type 45 Destroyer capabilities

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

It was short sighted


I do believe we agree



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


Your link does not evidence your claim that the Type 45 is not intended to have an ASW role. Air defence may be its primary mission, but not its sole mission. See also the "quote" at the bottom of this response, you seem to change your thoughts on this completely.


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.


Actually with the VLS system the Virginia has 20 launch tubes (16 + 4) and by your own figures 10 more weapons, all of which it can launch much, much faster.


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.


Well, typical sneering British attitude aside, I actually recommend the ASTER over the Standard, which isn't exactly supporting the USA now is it. The whole point of this discussion is whether or not the Type 45 deserves the accolade of being "World Leader" in destroyer/surface combatant design, and since the recognized benchmark is the American Arleigh Burke class, the comparisons are inevitable, but alas, difficult to swallow it would seem.



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.


You appear to change your mind from post to post about the Type 45 and its ASW capabilities, you must work for the Ministry.




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Everything except spell, but then it's not alone in that.
[edit on 28-2-2006 by Winchester Ranger T]

Your going to moan at me up for spelling?

The type 45 does everything , same with almost everyship. Its how well they do those jobs that define thier class.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   


You appear to change your mind from post to post about the Type 45 and its ASW capabilities, you must work for the Ministry.


Lol, I see how it could be construde as flip-flopping. What I was trying to say is the Type-45 is quite capable of identifying and engaging a submarine threat, same as a carrier but that is not it's Primary function, what it is designed to do. Only today, the last Sea Harrier planes were taken out of service due to the fact that the A2A role they provided is no longer required due to, in part, the introduction of the Type 45.

The Invincible Class carriers that we currently have (rusting
) have passive and active sonar arrays, as well as attack sonar arrays. It's still a carrier though.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
ugh, A good AAW ship never eliminates the need for air units. Ships are remarkably limited in identifying such things as type, nationality, and current weapons loadout of foriegn air units. (Read: unable to fly over there and look) It's also always better to have defence in depth, where if someone actually does get by the outer air defences, they're flying into the inner air defences to do so.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
ugh, A good AAW ship never eliminates the need for air units. Ships are remarkably limited in identifying such things as type, nationality, and current weapons loadout of foriegn air units. (Read: unable to fly over there and look) It's also always better to have defence in depth, where if someone actually does get by the outer air defences, they're flying into the inner air defences to do so.


That will be taken care of when the 2 carriers, Queen Liz and Prince of Wales, come online with their airgroups.

But as the Captain of the Illustrious (i think) said earlier today, there is a limited need for the Navy to maintain it's own A2A aircraft, as their most commone mission will be supporting troops on the ground.

Very few nations in the world would pose a significant enough threat to the Navy in the air to warrant dedicated interceptor aircraft when the Type 45 can do the job just as well.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Mabye get the RAF to do the RN's work instead!



They already said they could do that and the result was the cancellation of every project except Buccaneer and Harrier. Harrier only survived 'cause RN called the Invincible class boats "Through-deck Cruisers" to hide the fact that they were carriers.

RAF supposedly produced maps moving Australia a couple of hundred nautical miles WEST to show how using home and freindly bases and mid-air refuelling the RAF could put jets over every ocean on earth.

They then managed to completely screw up the Black Buck missions aimed at the Port Stanley strip.

How happy do you think the RN would be if their entire CAP consisted of 4 RAF Tornadoes that had flown 9 hours to get there and could only hang around for 1 hour on station?

Why is it that the oldest service, with the longest tradition and the most battle honours, and which built the empire, is the one being screwed the most by 20th/21st century governments?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Travellar
ugh, A good AAW ship never eliminates the need for air units. Ships are remarkably limited in identifying such things as type, nationality, and current weapons loadout of foriegn air units. (Read: unable to fly over there and look) It's also always better to have defence in depth, where if someone actually does get by the outer air defences, they're flying into the inner air defences to do so.


That will be taken care of when the 2 carriers, Queen Liz and Prince of Wales, come online with their airgroups.

But as the Captain of the Illustrious (i think) said earlier today, there is a limited need for the Navy to maintain it's own A2A aircraft, as their most commone mission will be supporting troops on the ground.

Very few nations in the world would pose a significant enough threat to the Navy in the air to warrant dedicated interceptor aircraft when the Type 45 can do the job just as well.


Clearly that four-ringer is not a friend of Sharky Ward's. That was what the Sea Lords thought in '82 and Sandy Woodward firmly believed. Look at the damage that was done WITH SHARs on CAP, what would it have been like if the RN had been relying solely on ship-launched missiles for protection?

The RAAF ain't that big, but are you going to gamble your Aster missiles against our 17 F111Cs carrying maritime strike missiles? How about our 70-odd F/A 18s?

How many jets in the Indonesian Air Force?

Look down/Shoot down is a very nice ability when compared with look up/shoot up.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Everything except spell, but then it's not alone in that.
[edit on 28-2-2006 by Winchester Ranger T]

Your going to moan at me up for spelling?


Oh god he still doesn't get it does he - you're the word is you're. What are you, Scottish or something.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

What are you, Scottish or something.


Whoo boy, bad move, should not have gone there.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
okay, a dedicated a2a platform is quite a bit different than an a2a capableplatform. Dedicated means it does just that, and takes away deckspace from something else. Capable means it can do that, and do something else if not too busy defending the fleet.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Oh god he still doesn't get it does he - you're the word is you're. What are you, Scottish or something.

Yet again WHY oh WHY are you bothering me about spelling? Is that what all wannabe americans do?

Oh and if you want to make a jib at where my family go ahead, we'll see who holds the more mature ground. Last time I checked you ran away from britains problems, I have not.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
D/Wasp - take a pill and lighten up I'm just messing with you.


Originally posted by stumasonVery few nations in the world would pose a significant enough threat to the Navy in the air to warrant dedicated interceptor aircraft when the Type 45 can do the job just as well.


42 (ish) Aster missiles can protect me against anything that flies ?

Ooh that be a mighty big piece of pie to swallow - most pilots would take those odds in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even feel comfortable with the 96 cells of an Arleigh Burke (especially with an inferior missile). You want a BARCAP at 200 miles and a CIWS close in, the Type 45 has neither, they traded the CIWS off against the iPod sockets. I hear that the Harpoon launchers have been sacrificed in favour of a Jacuzzi in the officers gym.

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
D/Wasp - take a pill and lighten up I'm just messing with you.

I'm tired, been doing fire fighting all day and frankly not in the mood.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
The type 45's ASW outfit is limited at best.

She can carry either a linx or merlin helicopter carrying stingray torpedos.
There are not yet any ship mounted torpedo tubes (though there is room at a later upgrade). The bow mounted active/passive sonar system is ok but nothing compared to the type 23's with their towed arrays. She also has an active torpedo defense system fitted.

She can cope with a sub but is not specialised in it at all.


the type 45's are also all steel construction with the exception of the composite mast. The only aluminium vessels used in the royal navy were the type 21's (1970's). And they behaved so badly the RN doesnt plan on going back anytime soon



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
ASW:

For-
It's not an 'either or' scenario. Truth tell, but for the idiocy of the IJN and the general lack of a naval battle with Kriegs, it _never has been_.

AAW Pickets and Missile Traps are particularly easy and important targets to Subs simply by nature of their exposure outside the battle group center's multiple ASW overlaps and systems 'orientation' if not optimization (no zig zag, many not be able to come to bearing X if they have to have apertures unmasked, etc. etc.).

At which point, the question becomes how many buoy lines you can lay, how nice a datalink/CIC ASW console capability to /process/ what those buoys tell you. And how much your towed array or helo dunker (if any) can Yankee Search confirm what you 'think is true', through the layers.

And again, for pickets it may never be enough. Especially if the sub is in fact an AShM shooter with an NSM or Krypton/Brahmos type system. The irony then being that the ASW element of the operation may well start and end OVER the local horizon. So that the AAW 'mission' can begin with whatever ASST handoff platform is being used. And the weapon itself (stealth or supersonic, close aboard).

Against-
The best way to contain submarines if not to sell the bloody things to third world wannabes. MOST ESPECIALLY because the real danger of subs, /as always/ lies in the number of escorts you have to provide in hunting the damn things down _as commerce raiders_.

Fortunately, Iran's little adventure indicates we seem to have learned at least a little about life in this way, though I'm not entirely convinced it was not a dummy op just to pass off some other technology on the boat.

AAW:

For-
Only a fool defends his home by reaching for the gun in his nightstand while the intruder comes through his bedroom door. This lesson was learned over and over and over again at the cost of Royal Marines and Brit Army troops who learned that they could not count on their Navy colleagues to defend them against even the dumbest of threats to the amphib anchorage.

Yet to be a sophisticated offensive hunter you have a missile system capable of engaging targets /before they become threats/ to the full depth of your magazine. Rather than the SARH equivalent of a flint lock musket.

One Type 45 could have made the Elephant Head MT a viable solution because it could have engaged from the local horizon inwards. And the only 'failure mode' would have been on individual missiles rather than the entire Sea Dart system.

Of course there is still the 'small matter' of maneuvering your ships offensively to cover all strike lanes. And/or having a combined kinematic and sensor platform reach sufficient to cover them from afar. In this, the Type 45 is no better than any other surface asset unless it employs tropobounce modes. Indeed, at /some point/ it becomes both a WEZ localized by and protectively /bound to/ the kinds of AEW&C platform which you do not yet have (save the Hawkeye!).

That's not such a good thing. Especially since none of the ASTER tests mentioned seemed to indicate an ability to cue weapons into lane using Mountain Top/JLENs ADI equivalent capabilities.

Against-
Frankly, there are not many lubbered air forces that like to come out into the blue to kill principal force assets. Generally this is because they cannot afford the AShM or the ASST (even onboard) to maintain standoff past the point where it becomes missile:missile not missile:parent airframe. Certainly in numbers (20 per AAW DDG?) necessary to truly role back even an inshore threat.

_For those nations which can do this_. It is still far more likely to be a 'combined arms' exercise. Which is to say that mines, FAC-M and subs are all part of the equation and /made so/ by some moronic choice to go barging into /their bedroom/. After having CNN announce you are coming, six weeks before.

As such, the real questions that must be asked is this-

1. How much of a strategic and particularly theater effector are your carriers going to be? Showing the flag with a surface-only task group tends to require a lot closer exposure.

2. Is there an alternative that reduces the threat equation while increasing your offensive 'quotient' without having to have just a huge number of AAW picket/screen/goalkeepers?

The Answers to which are counter intuitive if not directly at odds with each other.

IMO, 2 carriers are just shy of useless. Nobody begins a naval air campaign with one carrier. They do so by pairing up two decks in adjacent ops areas to provide mutual support and deceptive ops options.

Britain will never be able to do this with one asset in port. Nor can she sustain a larger fleet. Because carrier ops costs are HUGE. Which tends to indicate that her 'patrol' assets will not be highly air predominant. And her navair capabilities more of a 'planned op' response.

i.e. No need for huge AAW assets for separate carrier groups if you sortie them together under nominally Joint-Force (landwards support) conditions.

And no ability /in the AAW platform/ to do more than defend itself means no ability to intimidate the enemy into not startin' sumthin' up. As say a functional TLAM VLS option would bring (before you go there, subs should not be paired to the 'defense' of DDGs either).

At the same time, once you get to a threat area with enough Air-ASUW teeth to make AAW necessary, the question must be asked: Why hunt a bird in the air. When you can destroy it in the nest? Using the Midway model, with only 1.5 sorties per 24hr period, 70+% of an assets 'flying day' is going to be spent on the ground.

Which means you need only (at best) defeat ONE major attack, while ruining the types ability to return and turn again by killing it's basing mode.

The way you gain the operational dominance to do this with YOUR airwing is not to play USN (1960's 70's doctrinal idiocy) of mixed outer air battle (Missile Trap/Screen and FORCAP) forces. But rather by putting ALL your developmental efforts into creating an asset whose radius allows you to attack from beyond the _targeting_ window that dictates initiation of threat operations cycle.

i.e. What If. The Japanese carrier groups had not been found because they had a realistic ability to launch from beyond the PBY patrol coverage and score devastating first strike damage to subsequent ASST/ASUW ops?

Again, this points towards EITHER a significant cruise + overhead targeting option on the little ships. Or FEWER of said little ships and an emphasis on UCAVs as a principle streaming ops (70-90 aircraft airwings, half in the air at all times with a 10hr deck cycle) alternative to close approach.

CONCLUSION:
No threat reach = No need for defensive platforms.

Nobody thinks about how few military (and how many economic) threats we face any more.

Thus everybody concentrates on one-upping each other as best-killer in a hollow threat condition which does NOTHING to consider the strategic and doctrinal implications of how to do things /better/ _cheaply_.

Within a fixed threat:budget constraint.

Such 'Missions over $$$' lack of common sense is what truly drives military diversity these days. Because by stuffing the golf bag full of useless clubs in all but 'one put' condition, you assure that you have to have all of them 'just in case'.

And so we create a Defense Dole that starves the civillian economy for no real gain or need.

The Romans Had It Right: Legions must pay their own way in PILLAGE. Or be disbanded lest their topweight unbalance the Empire.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I would assume that to reach 27+ knots these boats would have gas turbine propulsion. Just asking because I couldn't find it on any of the websites listed. If that's the case... These boats will have to carry massive quantities of highly volatile fuel below deck. Which, could make for some pretty nasty explosions.

*edit*

You have to love how the most important aspect of any ship is never discussed on these government web sites. The friggin' propulsion man. How does this boat move!!!



*edit #2*

OK... I found my information... Don't you love how that happens?


Electric propulsion... Which means these things will be damn quiet too.


Type 45 has been designed from the outset to be as economical as possible to run and maintain. Electric propulsion is a major contributing factor. link


This means it doesn't cruise at 27+ knots... It cruises at around 18 knots and can sprint at the 27+ range. Still no small feat for an electric propelled unit. It's going to have to generate copious amounts of electricity though. I would assume there will be up to eight medium speed diesel generators below deck running off of #2 diesel.

Pretty cool little boat I must say.


[edit on 2-3-2006 by LostSailor]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
no she has Rolls Royce WR-21 gas turbines to provide the power required to work the electric propulsion. with no direct tie to the propeller shaft, the use of electric propulsion allows greater flexability in the design. i.e. the main engines do not have to be low down in the rear of the vessel, they could be deck mounted if you wanted (there not in the 45's tho).

Yes she should be quiet, the propeller noise limits are specified in the contract and will be subjected to an acceptance trial in the near future.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Ahhh.. so we are back to the vast quantities of jet fuel onboard this thing. And they try to say it is economical. HAHA!!! No gas turbine engine is economical.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
she may well have some diesels kicking around for slow speed cruising (much like the CODEG system on the TYPE 23s). Your right that there is very little information on it about



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
I would assume there will be up to eight medium speed diesel generators below deck running off of #2 diesel.


I dunno. When I was on board HMAS Adelaide, an Oliver Hazard Perry (?)class guided-missile frigate, for a walk-through one of the stokers (cough) said that it's two deisels could fulfill Darwin's power needs.

Now, he could have been wildly exaggerating, though knowing a little about Mw generation I don't think so, he could have been misinformed, again I don't think so, or he could have been describing a pair of seriously large (they were) Tyne-type deisels whose purpose is motive power, not electrical power, and were therefore much larger than an equivalent generator would be (possible).

Now, knowing how much power a good radar needs, unless there's a massive saving in noise, I can't see why you would choose multiple small units instead of a couple of large ones...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join