First Type 45 Destroyer Handed Over To The RN.

[mr chris]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3702683/Worlds-most-advanced-destroyer-handed-to-Royal-Navy.html

Looks like a very nice piece of kit.
Add it to the new Astute class Subs and it looks like the navy at last have some up to date weaponry.
To bad the new carriers they were built to protect have been delayed.

[Skybird]

Checking its weapons, which are quite limited by current status and remain limited by possibility and/or intentions, I see that the only anti-ship capability is the 114 mm gun, the CWIS has been skipped, the older Phalanx not mounted so far, no land attack missiles, no ship attack missiles (Harpoon launchers were not mounted), no anti-submarine torpedoes but on board of the helicopter, and the arsenal of Aster anti-air missiles is limited to 48 missiles. In a missile exchange with an enemy flotilla or dedicated air raid, this ammount of weapons could get consumed extremely fast.

I assume it has good sensors, but beyond that I see this thing critical. The british navy says it wants to replace 11 destroyers with just 6 of these new ones. then you better make sure such a vessel does not get sunk - for when the fleet is so limited in size, every loss counts twice, if not three and four times.

Maybe I see it too amateurish, but a ship of that size should, I think, have a better punch to deliver, even more so when it should replace two older units instead of just one. My impression thus is that it is a an air defense platform and sensor platform, but anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-land combat capacities have been neglected. And for a ship of this high price, I think that is a bit too thin between the shoulders, or not?

the problem with forces composed of extremely expensive (and thus: limited in numbers) units is that forces are small, and that you cannot be in as many places as before, and ypou cannot afford any losses, whether it be by combat, or unlucky technical failure. There was a discussion in the 80s regarding this, concering the air forces of NATO and the WP. It was argued that the technologically better fighters of NATO would be able to compensate being outnumbered severely. Interestingly, many fighter pilots did not share this view. And I had two books on the matter where the authors, ex-pilots themselves, argued that such a comenpsation through better technology only works to this numerical relation- and not beyond, which is just common sense, I would say. Obviously, there were split opinions, between practitioners, and theoretical planners and politicians. and quite some people in the first group had their doubts that they would be able to compsnate the pressing numerical superiority of WP air fleets at that time, if there ever would be WWIII and an all-out war in europe taking place.

So, technological superioity can compensate numerical inferiority only to a given level, and not beyond this critical level of being outnumbered. Seen in this light, I wonder if the British really are having such a clever naval strategy anymore, with halving their destroyer fleet to 6 units by pointing out the new ships could spend 300 instead of just 230 days at sea per year. still, the number of locations and places of interest where they could be present at a given time, obviously is smaller.

Your views?

[AntEater]

The Type 45 is fitted for, but not with a lot of weapons.
PAAMS is a great system, IMHO superior to SM-2MR, maybe on par with the new SM-6.
The german navy should've gone for Aster instead of sticking to the standard missile.
The radar system is top notch for sure, but AEGIS like systems have become pretty common these days.

SAMPSON is an interesting idea as it does not us fixed antennas like AEGIS or APAR, but rather moving electronic antennas, like the SMART-L search radar complimentary to APAR.
So SAMPSON is some kind of a middle ground between AEGIS and APAR/SMART-L (as installed on german F 124 frigates). It uses a trainable antenna like the SMART-L search radar but uses a single array for search and tracking. SAMPSON doesn't need an illumination feature like APAR as Aster is active radar homing.
Of course the Type 45 is much larger than the F124 (7000 to 5000 tonnes), so it should be more considered on par with a DDG 51 class destroyer.
Compared to those, the 45 has less SAMs but more advanced ones. On the other hand, currently much VLS space on the DDG 51s is taken up by TLAMs, so the overall SAM number should be pretty similar.
But having a larger hull with less armament is not as bad as it sounds. AEGIS ships are top heavy and the royal navy always puts great emphasis on seaworthiness.
I suppose the type 45s will be steady missile platforms in very rough seas.
Regarding the other armament, the gun is pretty much a decent one with a good mix of guided and long range rounds.
CIWS is overrated anyway. The USN stopped fitting it to new ships recently as well.
Small missiles like RAM or Barak will take its place. I wonder why they didn't fit an additional VLS with the excellent british SeaWolf missile system which is exactly such a missile.
The VLS can use ASTER 15 which has a similar profile, but ASTER 15 has the disadvantage that the missile is exactly as wide as the longer ranged ASTER 30, only shorter. So you can only substitute one long range missile for one short range missile, while with ESSM/SM-2 you can substitute 4 ESSMs for one SM-2.
Another disadvantage is the land attack capability: The french navy wants to navalize the SCALP EG cruise missile, which the RAF uses as Storm Shadow.
Unfortunately the VLS system on the Type 45 is too short for a surface launched Storm Shadow, it can only take ASTER 30 and 15.
Harpoon launchers can be fitted, and I suppose the RN has a lot of leftover harpoon launchers from decommissioned Type 22s.
Regarding the torpedo launchers, I suppose they could be added if necessary as well, but a 45 stumbling over a submarine in range for a shipborne torpedo launch is unlikely. No reasonable 45 captain would deliberately close range to a sub, so it is only suitable as a last resort weapon.

[Raptor1]

The Type 45s were designed as AAW Destroyers originally, and they are built to replace the Type 42 destroyer (Of which there are 5 in active service)

[XabbaRus]

From what I have been hearing SAMPSON is more advanced than the current AEGIS system and what the Italians and French have on their Horizon ships.

The interesting thing about SAMPSON is that it is 360 degree full continuous coverage, the two AESA radars are back to back and rotate wihc with a steerable beam means great coverage. Also the thing is way up high about 20 metres or so from sea level so it can see more and further than the AEGIS ships.

I agree we need more than six and for what it was designed for I'm sure it will do a good job. I also bet that before we get the 6th one, the first lot will start sprouting Harpoon and CIWS.