HMS Daring eases through first sea trials

[Mr C Hinecap]

From the Telegraph today:

CLICK for article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/15/nwarship115.xml)

Daring is crowned by a huge 30-metre high Samson radar that can track more than 1,000 targets at once.

The system is so powerful it can monitor all take-offs and landings from every major European airport within 200 miles of Portsmouth.

The ship can engage 12 air targets and will carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Officers claim that if it was stationed in the River Thames, its weapon system would be able to single-handedly destroy any incoming airborne attack on Greater London.

[sarboy99]

And while it's shooting down cricket balls the crew can listen to their ipods too!:ok:

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

The Telegraph also says that BAE says that American visitors to the yard on the Clyde were left shocked and shaken. The newspaper desists from developing these heady emotions further so the reader has no idea whether they were prompted by envy, horror, disgust or satisfaction. Perhaps the Americans are perturbed at the fact that the Aster missile system, on which the T45 will be so heavily dependent, and London too by all accounts, is a French system with the major shareholder, either through the Thales group or through MBDA, being the French government?:hmm:

[peterperfect]

I might sound cynical, but its rucksacks we need to detect right now.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Peter,
Yes I agree entirely. Can't help think that the money could be so much better spent where it's needed at the moment, and that aint on the high seas, or up the Thames!!
TSM

[tablet_eraser]

She's the first of how many? Twelve?

Oh NO! That's how many we were supposed to be getting. Is it 6 now? Or 4? I forget.

Changing defence needs, people! The world's changing, and apparently we don't need as much defence...

:mad:

[Master Mariner]

Defending London.....the RN will be hard pressed to release one of their four Daring Class vessels to defend London when they have 2 carriers to protect.

Having said that, the RN will probably only have enough people to operate one carrier at a time, so the bean counters will see that as a means of knocking back the orders for more of these vessels.

Hope they get them though

[Gainesy]

How do you safely get forward from aft & vice versa in a fire? :suspect: No upper deck.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I see she is so good that they reported it twice.

It is also the most eco-friendly ship ever produced for the Royal Navy, with a unique electric propulsion system that can ferry it from New York and back without refuelling.

Interesting starting point.

Officers claim that if it was stationed in the River Thames, its weapon system would be able to single-handedly destroy any incoming airborne attack on Greater London.

So long as the threat doesn't number more than 12 simultaneously and 48 total. Please do not read that as a criticism of the ship, though.

[Blacksheep]

The ship can engage 12 air targets and will carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Officers claim that if it was stationed in the River Thames, its weapon system would be able to single-handedly destroy any incoming airborne attack on Greater London."Gannic Squadron, Hundred Plus at Angels two-five. Vector one two zero. Watch out for Snappers."

Well in 1940 they only had 12 aircraft to a squadron and they managed all right... :hmm:

[621andy]

knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound.



I have a vision of a giant Freddie Trueman lobbing cricket balls at London, being fired at by this ship like some King Kong type figure:ok:

[Not_a_boffin]

They didn't mention losing the hook then? Or not being able to run the "most eco-friendly propulsion system" (the Great White Turbine & an out of production baby DG) in it's designed mode then? Or the somewhat abbreviated 4.5" shoot.

Ho-hum........

[Magic Mushroom]

I suspect that the T45 is very much like Typhoon in that short sighted individuals like TSM and TE view it as merely a Cold War asset with no relevance to modern ops.
They need to open their minds a little to realise how valuable such assets as the T45 are in modern ops, particularly when Iran could potentially make life very difficult if they wished to take a more active part in the Gulf waters.
T45 is relevant and it's good to see the dark blue getting some very long overdue replacements for the T42s.
MM

[callsign Metman]

Beeb News item this morning quoted nought-30(ish) Kts in less than a minute. That impressed me!

CM

[Gainesy]

Boffin, I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that the electric drive pods were for berthing etc like on , I think, QE2?

I notice that the crew has Ipod chargers, so that's all right then, no more blubbing.:E

[greycoat]

Also from the factfile summary:

Size: Five times higher than Nelson’s column. The ship’s 20,000 power cables stretch 400 miles.

:confused:

[philrigger]

;)

The ship’s 20,000 power cables stretch 400 miles.

Does that mean it then has to turn around and head back to port ?





'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[ORAC]

Sampson MFR (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sampson.htm)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Well in 1940 they only had 12 aircraft to a squadron and they managed all right...

Is that why so many open spaces appeared in the centre of London then?

[backseatjock]

Just come off the sea trials and probably the best ever undertaken by any new RN ship. A speed of 31knts and some superb tight manouveres - not quite low level, fast jet standards but impressive all the same.

The PAAMS system trials come later, there is still some way to go before Daring enters service with RN.

Original talk was of a class of 12 Type 45's but this reduced to eight. Six are on contract although, the recent CSR statement in parliament mentioned that a fleet of eight remained in the long-term plan.

Relatively low level flypasts by a Nimrod MRA4 off the west coast of Scotland yesterday as Daring was heading home. Hopefully pics, taken from the air and deck, will make an appearance soon.

[Not_a_boffin]

Gainesy - she has no pods, just electric motors driving conventional shaft & props.

Backseatjock - are you suggesting that the Great White Turbine performed flawlessly (in ALL modes)?

[PPRuNe Radar]

The system is so powerful it can monitor all take-offs and landings from every major European airport within 200 miles of Portsmouth.

Nice to see that the laws of physics regarding radar horizon and terrain masking have been conquered ... or are the RN using a bit of poetic licence ?? ;)

[west lakes]

I was involved with the movement of one of the radar scanners last year from where it was built to a test site in the area. From conversation with the designers it is indeed a clever thing.
Some stats on the ball (not forces so can say!) 4.7m diameter in transit on a lowloader 6m, weight about 7.5 tonne value £14.4million ish.
The company was at pains to point out that not even the USA has this technology. was at Portsmouth last month and noticed them on test rigs on the downs, on a floating test barge and Ark Royal.

[Gainesy]

Ah, thanks Boffin, what's this Great White thing you refer to, the main engine?

Westie I'm pretty sure the Yanks have had low loaders for years.:)

[west lakes]

Yeah, Oh just got it :D

It was suggested to avoid chaos it be heloed from ship to test site, but it was felt that as the UK forces were busy the only option was a Russian machine, the worry was it would just fly away. Though we did consider trying to sell it on Ebay at about 05:00 the morning we were moving it

[backseatjock]

For those with an interest, here is the BAE Systems news release regarding sea trials of Daring:

WORLD'S MOST ADVANCED WARSHIP COMPLETES STAGE ONE SEA TRIALS

The world's most advanced warship, HMS Daring, has completed her stage one sea trials and has received glowing reports after performing above all expectations.

The high standard of the ship's overall design is such that not a single one of her almost 800 compartments exceeds the habitability standards for vibration when operating at full power. Such an achievement would be unlikely on a luxury yacht and is a unique achievement for such a large, complex and powerful warship.

The first of the new Type 45 Daring Class destroyers has been put through her paces off the west coast of Scotland by BAE Systems engineers and the Royal Navy personnel who will form her permanent crew once she enters service in 2009.

Trials began on 18th July and have focused on testing the 'ship' part of 'warship' – the platform itself; propulsion systems, controls, key weapons engineering systems, navigation, radars and gyros, as well as the habitability of the ship including the galley, cabins, sewage treatment plant, ventilation and lighting.

Some of HMS Daring's achievements are:
. Against an initial design target of 28 knots, the ship has already comfortably exceeded 30 knots
. HMS Daring reached top speed in little over two minutes from a standing start, an outstanding performance for such a large ship.
. The ship has spent two days at the Benbecula range in the North Atlantic trialling its 4.5 inch gun and twin small calibre guns on the port and starboard sides.

On her return to Scotstoun, HMS Daring will continue with her systems integration and testing prior to stage two trialling in March 2008.

Commenting on the performance of HMS Daring, Commander David Shutts, the ship's senior Royal Navy officer, said: "It is early days in her life, but Daring has already lived up to the high standards that we have set for her. She promises to be a tremendous asset for the Royal Navy and the men and women who will serve on her."

BAE Systems Type 45 chief engineer David Downs said: "Delivering any programme as complex as the Type 45 presents huge challenges. To know that we are meeting those challenges and remain on target to deliver these superb ships to the Royal Navy is a huge boost to everyone on 'Team Daring'."

[Not_a_boffin]

The Great White Turbine is the RR WR21 Advanced Intercooled Recuperating Cycle Gas Turbine, developed from the RB211 (I think) to produce a "flat" fuel consumption performance at part load at enormous expense by UK & US. So highly rated is the turbine that it was only put in the ship by the express intervention of Buffhoon, replacing the preferred GE LM2500+.

WR21 currently has an order book of 6 shipsets (12 units) worldwide. I wonder if anyone can guess which class that is. Word is that the recuperator is somewhat less than reliable and that the unit can only be run as a simple cycle engine. This would not be a problem, were it not for the diminutive size of the diesel generators fitted, which are both small in terms of output power and old (in that they're no longer supported by the OEM). Hence my bafflement at the allegedly impressive sea trial performance.......

WL - what you saw on Ark isn't Sampson......

[Gainesy]

Thanks Boffin, I think I'll have to read in on that, though it made more sense when I reread it as recuperating, rather than reciprocating, which I did the first time round!

I thought one of the Falklands' lessons learned (but obviously not heeded) was that a single barrel gun is not good, hence the Paras' lack of NGS at Goose Green when whichever ship it was allocated to support had a lengthy stoppage/jam? Would it be that much harder to have a twin-barrel turret?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

As MM points out, this is not before time.

The Type 45 was supposed to enter service in 2007 (according to that nice Mr Ingram) but was delayed. The delay is particularly unfortunate considering the fragile state of the RN's anti air capabilities, given the state and age of the Type 42s, the reduced sixe of the fleet, and the loss of the Sea Harrier (as discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)). Yes, the politicians did say that the T45 would cover the shortfall in capability caused. We were meant to get twelve, and should consider ourselves lucky if we get eight. You would need a lot of T45s to provide the same level of capability as a sqaudron of fighters.

When Des Browne made his recent announcement regarding the Future Carriers (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) many of us expected that the T45 order would be cut to six ships. It was not. Whether we actually get eight is another matter.

Some of the systems developed for the T45 will end up in CVF. SAMPSON comes to mind. Even the building techniques, where the bow section is made by Vosper Thornycroft down South and then transported by barge to the Clyde and integrated with the rest (VT also build the mast) will provide valuable experience for building and integrating CVF.

The Telegraph says that they will have Harpoon and Tomahawk. Really?

See these other PPRuNe threads:

Type 45 Destroyer - Embarked Aviation (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=205675)

RN T45s to be diverted for Saudi order? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=267382)

On the subject of NGS:

At Goose Green NGS was provided by HMS Arrow. The problem was caused by a microswitch, not by the gun jamming. Source: Task Force: The Falklands War, 1982 by Martin Middlebrook, Penguin, 1987, now on sale updated and under a different name.

BAE Systems proposed a 155mm gun. See this (http://www.bae-systems.com/programmes/landsystems/sea.htm):

In collaboration with DERA and GIAT, Land Systems are involved in a jointly funded study to assess future naval fire-support requirements for the Royal Navy. Work will focus on the potential to develop a 155mm naval gun which could take advantage of standard NATO ammunition and new extended-range guided munitions already in development for land-based 155mm artillery. The study was intended to identify key enabling technologies, risk-reduction and the most affordable approaches to future naval fire support.

[Not_a_boffin]

Is Sir suggesting a new development gun mounting? Different to that which we have now?

Please bear with me while I hire some risk consultants and talk to our accountants............

[Gainesy]

Well if its the same gun I saw several years back on Manchester, er yes.:)

[tonker]

Why we need T45's now....:bored:



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b85_1186787945

[JessTheDog]

I'm sure I saw the very vessel on Monday, as the ferry I was on was passing between Ailsa Craig and Arran en route to Troon from Northern Ireland. I thought "that's a 42" then thought "it's got a chuffing big mast...surely not..."

Was it HMS Daring or should I take along a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships next time?

[XV277]

:hmm:
The Telegraph also says that BAE says that American visitors to the yard on the Clyde were left shocked and shaken. :


They were fed deep fried Mars Bars!!

[Blacksheep]

Is that why so many open spaces appeared in the centre of London then?Of course. Ironic isn't it?

I just wonder how many more open spaces would have appeared if Fighter Command hadn't had over 650 modern fighter aircraft at their disposal and had to rely on an air defence system that could only handle a dozen targets at a time.

The Type 45 is a truly magnificent machine, but we could do without such claptrap as one ship being able to "defend the whole of London against air attack" appearing in the publicity blurb. That's exactly the kind of 'mind management' our government has employed to get away with reducing our defence forces to their current unrealistic levels.

[AR1]

capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound.

All that money just to regain the Ashes..

Range of 200 miles - Blimey, a sort of Air Defence Radar system if you like. Thats novel!

Nice looking ship though.

[Like This - Do That]

This is why we're putting Warney on a tight leash .... we don't want the enemy cloning 'im.

I would imagine even a T45 on a flat wicket would be deceived by a well-executed flipper .....


Is that my coat?

[Gainesy]

Is that why so many open spaces appeared in the centre of London then?

The opposite is the reason it is so difficult to park in Paris.:E

[AR1]

One other comment.

Isnt the size of that superstructure contrary to stealthy design, hence allowing detection from a much larger range by attacking A/C? IE if the enemy are in range, then so are you.

Its all very well detecting incoming at 200, but if you have bugger all to fly out there and shoot them down..

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Blacksheep, totally agree with all your points. The general public (well, those interested enough to read it) may now think that area air defence is so well provided for that we could allow a few savings for all the things they think they need.

AR1, for a good looking ship, how about the previous DARING Class;


http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/bartie/postcards/jswhite3/dainty.jpg

[ThreadBaron]

Good looking indeed! But Dainty???!!

[Gainesy]

Probably get a slack handfull of these for £1 billion.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v167/Gainesy/sov3.jpg

[6Z3]

Ah, but could it open for the MCC?

[AR1]

Looks not dissimilar to an Airfix Leander as produced in about 1970, but i dont think Leander had 2 turrets up front.

I should have been building series 1/2 aircraft anyway.

[WillDAQ]

Isnt the size of that superstructure contrary to stealthy design, hence allowing detection from a much larger range by attacking A/C? IE if the enemy are in range, then so are you.

Stealth is far stranger than that, so i'm sure BAES know what they're up to...

Wikipedia claims 75mile range on the ASTER 30 so that's still probably enough.

Some of the systems developed for the T45 will end up in CVF. SAMPSON comes to mind.

Hmmm... I suspect the RN would like that to happen, but it's not really needed, especially if you've got a T45 kicking around. Part of the reason CV(F) has been delayed so long is that the RN want a carrier with loads of aircraft AND Command, control, PAAMS and anything else they can think off.. oh and all for £2.50

[AR1]

Stealth is far stranger than that, so i'm sure BAES know what they're up to...
Good point, B2 springs to mind.

[Modern Elmo]

Isnt the size of that superstructure contrary to stealthy design, hence allowing detection from a much larger range by attacking A/C? IE if the enemy are in range, then so are you.

Nobody's air defense ship is stealthy when its main radar is transmitting.

The basic idea is to try to shoot down the incoming attackers, and, if you can't get 'em all, act as a great big radar decoy, take all the hits, and thereby spare the carrier(s).

[212man]

Commander David Shutts, the ship's senior Royal Navy officer

That would be the, err..............Captain (or does this class of ship carry a more senior officer than the captain?)

[glad rag]

Man that must have been so painful on runs ashore....HMS Dainty what on earth made them call a ship that?(unless they had started to run out of them (names) ) that is...

[Bruiser Loose]

212 man,

DARING has not yet been commisioned, ergo a Commanding Officer has yet to be appointed. When HM Ships are in build or refit a Senior Naval Officer is appointed. Cdr Shutts may even be a Ginger Beer, who is overseeing the final period of the build.

Hope this clarifies the matter.

BL

[621andy]

Cdr Shutts may even be a Ginger Beer

What's his sexual orientation got to do with it? Does it make him a better, more caring captain;):}

[AR1]

Nobody's air defense ship is stealthy when its main radar is transmitting.

Given me username, I should have picked up on that.:O

[Clockwork Mouse]

If I remember correctly from my long past association with the Andrew, destroyers and submarines are boats, not ships. Is that still the case?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Adding to what Bruiser L said, for Contractor's sea trials (ie she's still "owned" by the Contractor), she will be under the command of a Master Mariner of the Merchant Navy.

Some of those D for DARING Class destroyers did have rather nancy names; like DELIGHT, for instance.

Airfix did a Srs 1 kit of the DARING and it somewhat pre dated the LEANDER one.

[Gainesy]

Getting back to the sea trials, what was the problem with the gun? As its old technology, I would have thought that it would have worked OK, or is it because its old technology?

[Navaleye]

It was more to test the ships structure from the stresses of firing. The gun works well and doesn't need to be tested in its own right.

[DarkBlueLoggie]

If I remember correctly from my long past association with the Andrew, destroyers and submarines are boats, not ships. Is that still the case?

Ooh, first post.

<PEDANT>
Submarines are called boats, Destroyers are not, they are ships. Destroyers are ships as they are designed for sustained deep water operations. Submarines are still called boats by dint of their historical development from semi-submersible motor-torpedo boats, and that the first ones would be carried on ships to their target area.

A general rule of them is often applied, "ships can carry boats, but boats cannot carry ships" (hence it could be argued that a submarine is not a ship as it cannot carry boats, bar special forces.. Oh never mind). This is rather to simplistic as many mega yachts can carry boats, but shouldn't be classified as ships as they are not deigned to operate effectively in the middle of, for example, the North Atlantic. They may be capable of such a voyage in benign conditions, but are not deigned so to do.
(/PEDANT>

[MReyn24050]

As GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU stated:- Some of those D for DARING Class destroyers did have rather nancy names; like DELIGHT, for instance.
Dainty,Daring,Decoy,Defender,Delight,Diamond,Diana and Duchess with three more destroyers of the "Daring" class built for the Royal Australian Navy i.e. Vampire,Vendetta and Voyager.

[Rossian]

I was always told that submarines were boats and everything else was a TARGET.

But that was in the old fashioned days.

The Ancient Mariner

[stevehudd]

Im sure they called it HMS Darling on a big news channel. I think that would be a sweet name:p

[DarkBlueLoggie]

Im sure they called it HMS Darling on a big news channel. I think that would be a sweet name:p

Take a look in the headline here - http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=823&id=2374052005

:)

[scopey]

I was told by a Navy chap that the difference between a boat and a ship is whether it leans outwards or in to the turn; a boat leaning in, and a ship leaning out...

[D O Guerrero]

The only explanation that I've ever heard is that Ships can carry their own boats.
Except submarines. Which are boats. Obviously.

[Double Zero]

If you think 'Dainty' is potentially painful, how about a run ashore on a Friday evening in Portsmouth wearing the cap badges of the ( ex ) Beaver, or the USS Ponce ?!!! :bored:

[Toddington Ted]

I seem to recall reading a list of the proposed new "D" class T45s some years ago and "Diana" was definitely on the list. No more it seems.

[West Coast]

Jesus, capable ship. The Iranian navy can't wait to get it's hands on it.

[Pierre Argh]

Can't help think that the money could be so much better spent where it's needed at the moment Short-sighted, how long do such projects take to come into service, with Putin getting his long-range bombers into the air (BBC News yesterday) maybe we need to think beyond rucksacks... or even campaigns in desert regions once again... heck there might even be something for the Typhoon to do?

[Modern Elmo]

From the always reliable Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMPSON

“ …The SAMPSON uses two planar arrays to provide coverage over only part of the sky; complete coverage is provided by rotating the arrays, essentially similar to the way conventional radar systems operate. This is in contrast to the US AN/SPY-1 system, as used on the Ticonderoga class cruiser and Arleigh Burke class destroyer, which uses multiple arrays fixed in place to provide continuous coverage of the entire sky. Whilst this may seem to be a disadvantage, the SAMPSON radar rotates at 30 revolutions per minute, meaning no part of the sky lacks coverage for more than one second on average - the precise time varies as the beams can also be swept back and forth electronically. In addition, the use of a smaller number of arrays allows the system to be much lighter, allowing placement of the arrays at the top of a prominent mast rather than on the side of the superstructure as in the US ships. Placing any radar emitter at higher altitude extends the horizon distance, improving performance against low level targets; SAMPSON is at approximately double the height above the waterline than the arrays of its US equivalents. Although precise details of the SAMPSON's performance in this regard are unlikely to enter the public domain, such factors may mitigate or even eliminate the disadvantages of fewer arrays. …”

Umm-hmmm. . How far can an antiship missile travel in one second?



“…The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery. …”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm

[LateArmLive]

The Iranian navy can't wait to get it's hands on it.

:ok:

Just to settle the argument - they're all boats. ;)

[oldspook]

Apropos the Daring class names - pity Decoy is not being revived. Was a Midshipman on the old HMS Decoy back in the 60s - in the days when you went on a 'Flag-showing' cruise i.e. CTP to CTP with not a lot in between. I seem to remember that SNOWI (Senior Naval Officer West Indies) at the time was a bachelor who had two 'XI's of eligible unattached females for the said Cocktail Parties - his 2nd XI was wheeled out for the official one on the Quarterdeck, but his 1st XI was kept back for the post official thrash down in the Wardroom. Happy days.:ok:

Decoy and her sister ship Diana were sold to the Peruvians in the 70s - Decoy became Ferre, swapped her Seacat missiles for Exocet and has only just in the last year or so been decommissioned. Not bad for a destroyer laid down in 1949. And to think in the 60s we were not allowed to do much chipping of the hull for painting in case the chipping hammers went through the hull!

[BackPacker]

Officers claim that if it was stationed in the River Thames, its weapon system would be able to single-handedly destroy any incoming airborne attack on Greater London.

In peacetime, I would appreciate it if she were to provide a LARS for wherever she happens to be. Just NOTAM her whereabouts with a contact frequency. Good training for the crew, useful service for GA.

[WillDAQ]

"When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery. …”

Judging by how smug BAES is i'm guessing they've got this one nailed.

[Navaleye]

Umm-hmmm. . How far can an antiship missile travel in one second?
Quite a long way. The latest packages of nastiness can cover a mile in about 2 or 3 seconds. The maths are quite interesting. You are always trained to engage missile targets at the maximum effective range of your system. Lets say 6 miles for a Sea Wolf type system. To hit a Mach 3 missile at 6 miles with a Mach 2 interceptor, you would have to achieve a firing solution and launch while the target is still 16 miles away.
This raises another set of questions. If your target is a Mach 3 sea skimmer like an SS-N-27 Sizzler and you are on even an Aegis ship, it breaks the radar horizon at considerably under 16 miles, probably about 13 miles.
By the time someone in the ops room has noticed, blown his/her whistle, shouted "Zippo One! Bruiser!" its at 10 miles and closing and the maximum range at which you can engage wiith your inner layer missile system is already frighteningly close. Repeat the process with 4 Sizzlers coming from separated bearings and you can see how even a modern warship can easily be overwhelmed.
This is where, in my opinion, a T45 is a generation ahead of anything in the USN at least for now. Its radar is mounted at twice the height of the equivalent SPY/1D in an Arleigh Burke. An AB will pick up a Sizzler at an altitude of 3m at a fraction over 13 miles, A T45 will detect it at 16.6 miles. Then the AB with its clunky old semi active systems will have to assign directors to illuminate the threat (which takes time - and they might be busy dealing with other threats and not immediately available) and we are back to brown trouser mode.
A T45 on the other hand has no need to illuminate the target and so can respond much faster with M3.5 Active Aster 15 and can take down the target, this even leaves time for a second shot at any leakers. The AB is unlikely to get a second chance.
Also if the incoming threat is detected by an ASaC platform it can engage them at 35 miles plus at sea level with Aster 30. The AB has to sit twiddling its thumbs until they reach 13 miles. Semi active systems simply don't work in a high supersonic sea skimming threat environment, which is why I would take a T45 over an AB any day. It is the best AD destroyer in the world bar none. Make no mistake. I would pay for a day in the simulator.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Gratefully noted Komrade.

[Gainesy]

It is the best AD destroyer in the world bar none.

Apart, presumably, from the anchor falling off? Or will BAe claim that as a close-in anti-submarine weapon?:E

[Bob the Doc]

12 targets engaged at the same time? Surely, one vessel destroying 12 targets at a time can cope with a volley of considerably more than 12 in total. The chances of any opposition launching that number of targets simultaneously seems to me to be so vanishingly small that one T45 seems ample. Assuming you were happy to leave it on the Thames...

[glad rag]

Gratefully noted Komrade.


Actually he's left the best bit out.....................:ok:

[Navaleye]

All public domain information folks, that's why Adm West said that the T45 was only ship capable of defeating a Sizzler attack. It really comes down to old fashioned maths. It much like fighting an AMRAAM equipped fighter when you've only got Sky Flash or Sparrow.

You can guess how a T42 will do in similar circumstances. We need at least 8 T45s.

[Modern Elmo]

The PAAMS (ASTER 15/ASTER 30) system comprises:

A Fire Control System based on a new generation radar implementing or coupled with an up-link (either I/J or G or F bandwidth). The French and Italian Horizon platform will use the Empar MFR, the British T 45 destroyer the Sampson MFR, both in conjunction with the T 1850M long-range surveillance radar,
A 50 Sylver Vertical Launching Systems, each containing eight ready-to-fire missiles,
ASTER 15 and ASTER 30 anti-missile missiles.

This system provides 360 ° defence and an all weather capability. It also features an extremely quick response time, a high firing rate (8 missiles within 10 seconds), and the capability to engage up to 12 targets simultaneously.

…


Guidance accuracy

The Aster missile computes the predicted intercept time according to the target and environmental data it receives during the launch sequence. From the missile flyout and up to the point at which the active RF seeker switches on, the missile is inertially guided, receiving periodic target position and environment updates from the Firing Control Unit via the up-link. …

Implying that Aster missiles have rather long minimum range of engagement, and that Aster ought to be supplemented with a closer-in air defense missile.

…

This data allows the missile to update its own computations continuously as well as its optimum trajectory towards seeker switch-on and intercept and the predicted intercept time. As soon as the seeker has switched on and achieved target lock, the missile can home onto the target. The risk of acquiring the wrong target is avoided by means of sophisticated functions within the seeker and the on board computer.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=89 (http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=89)


Please explain the advantage of midcourse updates via data link over semiactive, provided that one’s system has multiple electronically steered antennae which can keep many targets “painted” simultaneously around 360 degrees az. and 180 degrees el. with mucho more kilowatts than transmitters in Aster missiles can emit. In addition, missiles used by brand AB can also get data link updates.

It seems to me that PAAMS/Aster's principal advantage is that it can be fitted to a smaller ship than Aegis/SPY.

[Blacksheep]

Assuming you were happy to leave it on the Thames...Assuming that the system doesn't have to be mounted in a floaty, boaty thing, it seems to me that we have a pretty useful close air defence system there. Why not deploy it at all important military bases (i.e. targets)? Oh, I forgot, defence spending cuts. The money is to be spent on a rapid reaction force (read carrier groups) that can poke its nose into any other country's business anywhere in the world. Why would we ever need to defend the United Kingdom?

[Magic Mushroom]

Make no mistake. I would pay for a day in the simulator.


I think you need to get out a bit more Naveleye.:}

[WillDAQ]

Implying that Aster missiles have rather long minimum range of engagement, and that Aster ought to be supplemented with a closer-in air defense missile.


Wikipedia claims minimum engagement for the Aster 15 as 1.7 miles which I make to be about 2.86 seconds from impact assuming Mach 3 @ SLS. It would appear that the Aster 15 is for closer in engagement while the 30 is for longer range. Presumably the two versions are optimised for their respective roles. I doubt there's much you could do with another system in that last window of opportunity.


Also just consider for a moment that these are not little fireworks, 4.2m tall is one hell of a lump to be throwing out with 3 seconds left on the clock!


Please explain the advantage of midcourse updates via data link over semiactive, provided that one’s system has multiple electronically steered antennae which can keep many targets “painted” simultaneously around 360 degrees az. and 180 degrees el. with mucho more kilowatts than transmitters in Aster missiles can emit. In addition, missiles used by brand AB can also get data link updates.


At last the much vaunted network enabled capability being used for something properly! I should imagine that the exact advantages of such updates would be liberally coated with a warm 'official secrets act' goo, were you even able to find someone to ask about it.


It seems to me that PAAMS/Aster's principal advantage is that it can be fitted to a smaller ship than Aegis/SPY.


Considering the UK MoD love of insisting everything is gold plated I should imagine that it's got some serious clout, but then who knows until it gets used in anger.


Assuming that the system doesn't have to be mounted in a floaty, boaty thing, it seems to me that we have a pretty useful close air defence system there. Why not deploy it at all important military bases (i.e. targets)? Oh, I forgot, defence spending cuts. The money is to be spent on a rapid reaction force (read carrier groups) that can poke its nose into any other country's business anywhere in the world. Why would we ever need to defend the United Kingdom?


Yes.. because we've spent no money at all on UK air defence, those Typhoons (of which will may well end up with more of than pilots!) are just there to look pretty..

[Arcanum]

The Aster missile computes the predicted intercept time according to the target and environmental data it receives during the launch sequence. From the missile flyout and up to the point at which the active RF seeker switches on, the missile is inertially guided, receiving periodic target position and environment updates from the Firing Control Unit via the up-link. …

Implying that Aster missiles have rather long minimum range of engagement, and that Aster ought to be supplemented with a closer-in air defense missile.


There is no reason why the guidance system couldn't have been designed to switch into RF seeker mode immediately after being launched.


Please explain the advantage of midcourse updates via data link over semiactive, provided that one’s system has multiple electronically steered antennae which can keep many targets “painted” simultaneously around 360 degrees az. and 180 degrees el. with mucho more kilowatts than transmitters in Aster missiles can emit. In addition, missiles used by brand AB can also get data link updates.

Taking a guess, a course update could be 'flashed' to the missile in a fraction of a second which would minimize the possibility of any system finding and blocking the ship->missile channel.

Alternatively it could be that the comms method used is similar to mobile phone technology that uses time domain multiplexing - each missile gets a time slot for communication and the command and control system iterates through each time slot updating one missile at a time.

There are many reasons why the system could have been designed as it is, but judging from what little is in the public domain it is quite an impressive piece of kit.

Also, I assume you meant 90-degrees elevation, not 180-degrees.

[Modern Elmo]

… From the missile flyout and up to the point at which the active RF seeker switches on, the missile is inertially guided, receiving periodic target position and environment updates from the Firing Control Unit via the up-link. …

There is no reason why the guidance system couldn't have been designed to switch into RF seeker mode immediately after being launched.

Soemthing like this?

… A Jet Vane Control (JVC) unit allows the RIM-7P to be vertically launched. The JVC unit rotates the missile immediately after it has cleared a ship’s superstructure, cancels the missile’s initial upward velocity, and controls transition to the initial intercept path. Once the seeker is pointing toward a target, the JVC is jettisoned. …

That description of the Aster – miisle flyout and all – They’re not boasting about the minimum engagement range.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm)

… Taking a guess, a course update could be 'flashed' to the missile in a fraction of a second which would minimize the possibility of any system finding and blocking the ship->missile channel. …

Yes, but wouldn’t it be nice if the radar transmitter(s) could also continually illuminate the targets for the missile seekers?

Also, I assume you meant 90-degrees elevation, not 180-degrees.

I don’t how Aegis actually does it, but if I had any say-so, I’d specify a 180 degree elevation scheme. Then if a track passed overhead, instead of “azimuth something, elevation 88, 89, 90.,-89, -88, -87 …, “ wouldn’t be clearer to have “…88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 …”? Or maybe not. A matter of taste.

But the way, does this Sampson radar provide complete coverage of the sky overhead? We'll assume it does. :0]

[Spinflight]

In addition, the use of a smaller number of arrays allows the system to be much lighter, allowing placement of the arrays at the top of a prominent mast rather than on the side of the superstructure as in the US ships.

The Ticos always suffered from topweight problems so I wondered how the T45s got away with such a tall mast.

A minimum engagement of 1.7 miles might sound good until you consider that a 4 ton object travelling at mach 2.5 - 3 would probably take the ship out anyway, even without a warhead, assuming that the Aster hits. You want to be taking those beasties out as far away as possible...

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Someone please tell me it doesnt just rely on missiles (even if it is a spangly good one) for it's CIWS? Please tell me there's something there that spits out DU at a high rate of knots....

[Navaleye]

Yes it has 2 Phalanx 1B systems port and starboard. I must say against a Mach 3 target taking evasive action, I would bet too much on them. One thing that is overlooked is that a T45 can manoeuvre itself into an optimal Chaff C and D pattern without compromising it weapons capability in any way. An AB always needs to have the availability and arcs of directors in mind.

[scopey]

I'm sure Chairman Brown would prefer it to be the ship's claypigeon team out on the deck with their twelve-bores...

[Navaleye]

The Spanish L100 is a pretty compact design. Smaller than a T45 ans still carries AEGIS. I think the Aussies made a mistake in choosing that design.

[Spinflight]

I wonder why they chose Phalanx instead of Goalkeeper? Topweight / Space / Deck penetration issues?

The only time Phalanx has ever been fired in anger against an incoming missile it managed to lock onto the Missouri and put a few dents in her armour plate. Gloucester took the kill with a Seadart.

In trials against a supersonic Vampire the Phalanx test rig and barge was destroyed despite getting a few rounds on target by the debris from the (much smaller than a Sunburn) missile. This was considered to be a successful test.....

[Kitbag]

I'm sure Chairman Brown would prefer it to be the ship's claypigeon team out on the deck with their twelve-bores...


Should imagine that won't be sufficiently egalitarian...

Maybe the RN could throw uckers pieces?

[glad rag]

Without consulting Wiki or any other online source if a sunburn weights 4 mT then the most reliable way of ensuring target damage/destruction would be NOT to have any chemical explosives that could be detonated/disrupted by outgoing warheads/rounds but a great big heavy lump of extremely dense Mach3 metal....

[Double Zero]

So, while 'great big' & 'heavy' may need a bit of refining to a numpty like myself, this sounds difficult to get to Mach 3 very quickly & accurately. ( I'm familiar with the breathtaking acceleration figures of rocket missiles )...

As this nasty pointy thing coming the other way sounds horrendous, I assume we're talking something substantial ( D.U. cricket / foot ball better than explosives ? ) even at M3, to deter it - or better still have the launch vehicle knobbled by the airborne early warning / fighter combination which will of course be in attendance...- Just like the CVS has now - , a situation which will persist for a long time methinks.

+ Without such top cover, is it me, or with it's mix of missiles, wouldn't one or two serious attacks, with decoys etc thrown in, soon empty the magazines if the poor T45 is doing everything for the entire Navy around it, as seems the plan ?

Ok, hat, coat...

[cyrilranch]

Check out this thread on a another Board which says that Phalanx 1B are the only CIWS that will be fitted from now on.
http://p073.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3.showMessage?topicID=6122.topi c

and as biggus states that they will be all reused & update versions (total upgrade was said to be about 16 max i.e 8 ships worth :bored: this is the whole fleet not only the T45's)

[Blacksheep]

One wonders what it has going for it below the water line?

I seem to recall that submariners say there are only two types of vessel - submarines and targets. :E

[Gainesy]

One wonders what it has going for it below the water line?



As I understand it, nothing much than harsh banter.

[Not_a_boffin]

There is "The Machine That Goes Ping!!", although as it was stuck on as an additional (and therefore minimised) cost, it is certainly NOT the most expensive machine in the hospital, sorry - ship!

Spinflight - the supersonic Vampire referred to wasn't a Talos was it? AIUI, the US supersonic targets were retired Talos SAMs until they ran out of them at which point they bought a whole raft of 3M80s off Ivan to use as targets. Either way, both those targets are pretty substantial.....

I personally would describe the F100 as "an exceptionally ugly bordering on child-frightening" compact design.........

[DarkBlueLoggie]

There is "The Machine That Goes Ping!!", although as it was stuck on as an additional (and therefore minimised) cost, it is certainly NOT the most expensive machine in the hospital, sorry - ship!Like the T42 sonar, the T45 sonar has what can be best described as "Oh ****!" range when it comes to submarines (i think the official term is 'limited capability'). It's really meant to help it avoid mines. It's a trade off between the the ships primary AAW mission, a residual ASW capacity (which hasn't stopped the French and Italians putting a half way decent sonar in their Horizon class frigates - cousins of the T45) and of course cost. It's primary organic ASW asset of course is it's helo.

[WolvoWill]

I wonder why they chose Phalanx instead of Goalkeeper? Topweight / Space / Deck penetration issues?

Reckon you're right with the space/deck penetration issues...relatively speaking, you can plonk a Phalanx almost anywhere on deck it'll physically fit and have a clear view from. Goalkeeper is a much heavier system which requires significantly more under-deck space (its ammo is stored and loaded from below, whilst phalanx has a drum mounted on the gun itself).

Goalkeeper also costs a lot more :hmm:.....but seems to me the better solution, though if it just won't fit, then it just won't fit.....

[DarkBlueLoggie]

Quote:
I wonder why they chose Phalanx instead of Goalkeeper? Topweight / Space / Deck penetration issues?
Reckon you're right with the space/deck penetration issues...relatively speaking, you can plonk a Phalanx almost anywhere on deck it'll physically fit and have a clear view from. Goalkeeper is a much heavier system which requires significantly more under-deck space (its ammo is stored and loaded from below, whilst phalanx has a drum mounted on the gun itself).

Goalkeeper also costs a lot more :hmm:.....but seems to me the better solution, though if it just won't fit, then it just won't fit.....

Probably issues with topweight - they've had to make the ship awfully beamy to take that tall mast. Goalkeeper (30mm) is a much better, heavier, system, but as WolvoWill says, Phalanx (20mm) can be put virtually anywhere, you just need a power feed. Goalkeeper needs below deck space, water and power feeds etc. A lot more expensive too - only 2 of the 3 CVSs were ever fitted with Goalkeeper (which we got in exchange for some RR Gas Turbines from the Netherlands).

[Navaleye]

Goalkeeper shoots further and faster. It has a much more sophisticated tracking system. It also weighs 5.9 tonnes.

[Not_a_boffin]

At risk of taking this way too far...

GK (above decks) 7.9 tonnes
GK (below decks) 3.7 te

Exc ammo = 10.9te

Phalanx 1B inc RCS, LCP, ex Ammo = 6.97te

So nearly 8 te difference (ex ammo) for a shipset and as posted elsewhere, GK needs a below decks bulk loader....

Now then - who wants to guess why a fair bit of the superstructure is well known material about three times less dense than steel.......

[Navaleye]

A Falklands scenario becomes very interesting when a T45 is added. Two T45 positioned along the threat axis between Rio Grande, Rio Gallegos and Santa Cruz would make the transit from Argentina impossible without AAR (which is a rare commodity in Argentina today). Another T45 stationed of the northern coast of East Falklands could control all air movements in and out of Stanley and presumably a captured MPA. With ASaC support, you could achieve complete air dominance in an AOA even without fighter defence. I'm not suggesting that should be done of course, but it does mean that CVF's airgroup could be used for fleet defence and in an offensive mode against key military targets in Argentina supported by TacToms flying through certain windows in the Casa Rosada, airforce and Navy HQs in BA.

[RichardIC]

As has already been pointed out, the priority should be stopping missiles as far off as possible.

The 57mm Mk 110, as recently selected by the USN, is a CIWS with a range of nine miles. And it's made by BAE S. And it can be fitted on hulls down to 150 tons.

Goalkeeper may have a longer range than Phalanx, but it still stops incoming far too close for comfort. Certainly close enough to leave mother within the debris field of something travelling at Mach 2.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

You need a lot of Type 45s to give the same coverage as a naval air-defence fighter. - Admiral Sir Alan West, in this interview (http://www.warshipsifr.com/interview_alanWest.html) back in 2003.

I put a link to this one on the first page of the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) thread (a long, long time ago:bored::eek:).

I suspect the reason that they are fitting Phalanx instead of Goalkeeper is due to cost, and being able to use the systems taken from the Type 42s as they decommision.

[Navaleye]

Yes, he's absolutely right. However the T45 does give us capabilities that were pure science fiction 25 years ago. A massive step up in capability. I would love to see TacTom or even Naval Scalp installed but I'm not holding my breath.

[Modern Elmo]

I was looking for the post earlier on in which someone estimated the Sampson radar's line of sight to the horizon to be 16 miles ( was it ? ) versus 13 for SPY radar on A. Burkes.

What height above surface were you using for the two radars?

Also, can anyone estimate the diameter of the Sampson antenna? Or is that Double Plus Top Secret RN info?

And doing a bit of advanced math -- Mach 2 X 16 miles or X 13 miles -- how much time until impact does that leave either man/machine system to react?

[Arcanum]

I was looking for the post earlier on in which someone estimated the Sampson radar's line of sight to the horizon to be 16 miles ( was it ? ) versus 13 for SPY radar on A. Burkes....

And doing a bit of advanced math -- Mach 2 X 16 miles or X 13 miles -- how much time until impact does that leave either man/machine system to react?

The post you are probably looking for was by Naveleye on page 3 - I'll use his figures for mast height and missile speed for the calculations you requested.

Mach 3 at sea level is 2280 miles-per-hour (0.633 miles-per-second). A distance of 13 miles (Aegis) would be covered in 20 seconds and 16.6 miles (Sampson) would be covered in 26 seconds.

Assuming the 1.7 mile minimum engagement distance is the same for whatever system Aegis uses, this distance would be reached only 18/23 seconds after detection (Aegis/Sampson respectively) so either ship has precious little time to detect, react and respond, but the extra 5 seconds the T45 gets might make all the difference.

If you are dealing with a 'slower' mach-2 sea skimmer the Sampson equiped T45 gets 35 seconds before the missile gets into the CIWS range and the Aegis equiped ship gets 27 seconds.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

If the last two T45s are ordered (considered to be crucial by the First Sea Lord) this should prevent our frigate/destroyer numbers falling below 25. Note that the opinion voiced by the Admirals is that this is too low, and we really need about thirty. The SDR said 32, after all.

From Janes:

UK navy chief fuels 'quality versus quantity' debate (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jni/jni061128_1_n.shtml)

The size of the RN's frigate/destroyer force has seen a significant decline over the past decade, falling from 35 ships in 1996 to 25 today. Admiral Sir Alan West, Adm Band's predecessor as Chief of Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, was public in his opinion that this level is too small to meet the full spectrum of taskings, noting that the figure of 25 was based on analysis of high-intensity warfighting tasks alone and did not address wider maritime security needs, or make any allowance for attrition.

Admiral West said this openly, both the media and to the Defence Select Commitee.

Perhaps the frigate/destroyer force could be augmented by cheaper, less sophisticated vessels geared towards maritime security operations and low intensity tasks? Like this (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw070830_1_n.shtml) perhaps?

Yet the MOD claims the RN is having a massive shipbuilding programme. Hmmm. :hmm:

[Modern Elmo]

It has a much more sophisticated tracking system.

Can you cite any data, evidence, or any specific features whatsoever of this Goalkeeper system to justify that pronouncment?

[Modern Elmo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system#Missile_systems

The current trend in CIWS is to use missile systems instead of guns, because guns have certain limitations:

Short range: The maximum effective range of 30-mm gun systems is about 2000 m; systems with lighter projectiles have even shorter range. The expected real-world kill-distance of an incoming anti-ship missile is about 500 m or less, still close enough to possibly cause damage on the ship's sensor or communication arrays. Also the timeframe for interception is relatively short; for supersonic missiles moving at 1500 m/s it is approximately one-third of a second.

Limited kill probability: Even if the missile is hit and damaged, it may not be enough to destroy it or change its course enough, to prevent it or fragments of it from hitting its intended target (short interception distance, see above). This is especially true if the gun fires kinetic-energy-only projectiles (e.g., Phalanx with DU rounds).

They are only able to engage one target at a time and switching targets needs up to one second for training the gun. A coordinated salvo of missiles can easily overwhelm a gun-based CIWS.

For a gun hitting a target travelling at high speed, it has to predict its course and aim ahead of it since mid-course corrections of projectiles are not possible. Modern anti-ship missiles make erratic moves before impact, reducing the probability of being hit.
Because of their greater range, a missile-CIWS can also be dual-used as a short-ranged area-defense anti-air weapon, eliminating the need of a second mount for this role.


A RAM launcher of the German NavyAfter an inertial guidance phase CIWS missile relies on infra-red, passive radar/ESM or semi-active radar terminal guidance or a combination of these. The ESM-mode is particularly useful since most long-range anti-ship missiles use radar to home in on their targets. Some systems allow the launch platform to send course-correction commands to the missile in the inertial guidance phase.

Examples include:

Crotale-NG
RAM - Sea-RAM is a direct replacement for Phalanx, using Phalanx' sensors and mounts
Sadral, using a version of the Mistral missile
Sea-Sprint, using the ADATS missile
Modernized Sea Wolf
Sea Sparrow Block 1, Missile used by the Nimitz class carriers, and other USN ships, as a short to medium range anti-aircraft weapon.
Evolved Sea Sparrow missile, used aboard all Sea Sparrow-capable warships, plus other warships of the Netherlands, Canadian, Spanish, Japanese and Australian navies.
…

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What about this Laser CIWS being talked off?

Going back to this comment by Navaleye:

A Falklands scenario becomes very interesting when a T45 is added. Two T45 positioned along the threat axis between Rio Grande, Rio Gallegos and Santa Cruz would make the transit from Argentina impossible without AAR (which is a rare commodity in Argentina today). Another T45 stationed of the northern coast of East Falklands could control all air movements in and out of Stanley and presumably a captured MPA. With ASaC support, you could achieve complete air dominance in an AOA even without fighter defence.

If a T45 is used for APT(S), thati s quite a deterrent. Of course, that also raises the issue of submarines threats, and (decent) sonar, helicopters (why not carry more than one?) and other equipment.

[RNGrommits]

Having seen Phalanx operating in a real life/death situation on a regular basis in the past few months (admittedly not in a maritime situation) I am not briming with confidence at its ability to defend any ship against an attack. Perhaps the powers that be should be looking at the stats for the phalanx systems that the UK is actually operating in a "combat" scenario and figure out how many ships we can afford to lose because of it.

[Navaleye]

It will be interesting to see how effective Daring's stealth features are. I have my doubts. The link below shows just how big the RCS of the current generation of frigates is compared to merchant vessels. No wonder they make such good targets.

Here (http://www.mar-it.de/Radar/RCS/Ship_RCS_Table.pdf)

[Razor61]

Will have to keep the Lynx airborne with their sea skua's then... they did pretty well defending the US Battleship in the gulf

[Bismark]

Naval Eye,

A completely meaningless table as it does not specify why type of frigate, what age, construction type, whether it is stealthy design or not and from which country.

[vecvechookattack]

The missile's viewpoint
It will be interesting to see how effective Daring's stealth features are. I have my doubts. The link below shows just how big the RCS of the current generation of frigates is compared to merchant vessels. No wonder they make such good targets.

Here (http://www.mar-it.de/Radar/RCS/Ship_RCS_Table.pdf)

Not sure what Frigate that is talking about but it isn't a Royal Naval one ( 103 M and only 2000 T ??? Far too small) Take it from me that the RCS of a T 23 is a lot smaller than the one suggested in that table.


Having another look at the table it has to be taling about USN Frigates as it talks about the RCS on the Bow and on the "Broadside"...whatever the broadside is..(I assume they mean the beam)

[Razor61]

Broadside means looking at the ship side on.... the full length as seen by the incoming missile....

[swampy_lynx_puke]

Great table!! LOL :E
... Data published 1978, biggest RCS on the quarter, ...
Let's hope our potential enemies use this type of information to design their weapon systems!:D

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Another one on the way. See here (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10506).

Building sections of ship at different yards and then integrating them is a technique that will be vital for constructing CVF.

However, Daring's entry into service (ie with everything working) has been delayed. See this (http://www.navynews.co.uk/view-story.aspx?articleID=73) from Navy News.

Of course, if the Sea Harrier was still in service (see this discussion (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)) then relying on the ageing Type 42 and the ageing Sea Dart system would be less of a concern.

[spheroid]

There are plenty of Harriers around but why would we need to rely on a T42? They serve no purpose and have no role so why should we rely on them?

[Rakshasa]

I suppose he means for AD.

[Navaleye]

Rumours persist that two of the T45s are going to be sold off to the magic kingdom and the completion of the 6 RN hulls delayed again.

[Rigex]

Details have been released regarding Britain's next generation of fighting ships: the Royal Navy is proud of the cutting edge capability of the fleet of Type 45 destroyers.

Costing £750 million, they have been designed to meet the needs of the 21st century; in addition to state of the art technology, weaponry, and guidance systems, the ships will comply with the very latest employment, equality, health & safety and human rights legislation.

They will be able to remain at sea for several months and positively
bristle with facilities. For instance, the new user friendly crow's nest
comes equipped with wheelchair access. Live ammunition has been replaced with paintballs to reduce the risk of anyone getting hurt and to cut down on the number of compensation claims. Stress councillors and lawyers will be on duty 24hrs a day, and each ship will have its own onboard industrial tribunal.

The crew will be 50/50 men and women, and balanced in accordance with the latest Home Office directives on race, gender, sexuality and disability.

Sailors will only have to work a maximum of 37hrs per week in line with
Brussels Health & Safety rules even in wartime!

All bunks will be double occupancy, and the destroyers will all come
equipped with a maternity ward and crèche, situated on the same deck as the Gay Disco.

Tobacco will be banned throughout the ship, but cannabis will be allowed in the mess.

The Royal Navy is eager to shed its traditional reputation for
"Rum, Sodomy and the lash"; out goes the occasional rum ration which is to be replaced by Perrier water, although sodomy remains this has now been extended to include all ratings under 18. The lash will still be available but only by request.

Saluting officers has been abolished because it is elitist; it is to be
replaced by the more informal "Hello Sailor".

All notices on boards will be printed in 37 different languages and
Braille.

Crew members will no longer be required to ask permission to grow beards or moustaches, even the women.

The MOD is working on a new "Non specific" flag based on the controversial British Airways "Ethnic" tailfin design, because the white ensign is considered to be offensive to minorities.

Sea Trials are expected to take place soon, when the first of the new
destroyers HMS Cautious, sets out on her maiden mission it will be
escorting boat loads of illegal immigrants across the channel to ports on the south coast.

The ship is due to be launched soon in a ceremony conducted by Captain Hook from the Finsbury Park Mosque who will break a petrol bomb over the hull.
The ship will gently slide into the water to the tune of "In the Navy" by
the Village People played by the Royal Marines.

The Prime Minister said that "While the ships reflected the very latest of
modern thinking they were also capable of being up graded to comply with any new legislation. His final words were "Britain never, never waives the rules!"

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Work has started on the sixth, according to this from the MOD (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/WorkCommencesOnNavysNewPowerfulWarship.htm).

When will work start on the 7th and 8th?

[Si Clik]

WEBF

When or if?

I don't think anyone knows the answer to this one. Apart from ministers.

Si

[Navaleye]

When will work start on the 7th and 8th?

When contracts are placed for them. At the moment they are only options yet to be taken up.

[backseatjock]

Good question re 7 and 8.

Current class is six T45s for RN plus an option for two additonal ships. The BAE business case is now based on six ships, although initial costings were for 12, which partially explains why each platform is now more expensive than initially thought (development costs spread over half the number, supplier costs scaled up accordingly etc).

There have been some rumours that Saudi Arabia might take the two options. Not sure how realistic that prospect is though. Guess that's a question for UKG.

[Navaleye]

Their is still talk of 2 of the last T42 receiving a SLEP and being run-on to relieve pressure on the equipment budget. I would not discount the idea. This still maintains 8 hulls even if two are past their sell by date.

[PPI Zulu]

glad rag,

It's a sad note that at the end of WW2 the RN had more than 100 aviation capable ships - fixed wing capable, as the helicopter hadn't entered service.
It's not surprising that we began to run out of names when you think that if there were 100 aviation capable ships there may have been five times that in FF/DD and transports/auxilliaries.

You're right though, I'm sure they could have thought of something more war like. We even called one of our aircraft the Turbot! What were they thinking? Hardly likely to strike fear into the enemy.

I seem to remember there being a story in the press saying that RN sailors had expressed disgust that one of the class was to be called HMS Duncan. Sound particularly fearsome.......?

[Not_a_boffin]

You've never met Duncan Ferguson then......

[Navaleye]

Actually she is named after this (http://www.clan-duncan.co.uk/viscount.html) gentleman. He seems warlike enough to me. :ouch:

[PPI Zulu]

Yep - I stand to be counted. He sounds pretty steely.:D

[mr fish]

' most powerful ship', wot about the boomers? oh hang on, a sub is always a boat!!:E

[althenick]

Just for once I have to back up WEBF on this

The cost of retaining Sea Harrier until 2012 was quoted on the 24th Feb 2002 as £109 Million. The reason given was T45 would take over the AD role in 2007 and Sea harrier could not shoot down a missile (was this ever proven?)

the T42's are now old and tired, Sea Dart is all but obselete. So the fleet now pretty much has no 1st and 2nd layer of air defence. Very few Nations that the RN will have to deal with in the immediate future have credible Submarine / Surface forces. But they all have Air forces! So when HNS isnt Available or too far away for the RAF to provide effective CAP then what happens? Have we learned nothing from 26 years ago (I shan't mention it - I know it is seen as "Not relevent" any more :sad: )

In the meantime the UK Tax Payer is shelling out £500 Million for the 1st 2 of class which are begining to look like white elephants. WHERE'S THE SENSE?

[Thelma Viaduct]

Post 89, 131 & 132 have me in stitches. :D

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAqQmIhudUs) of the trials.

On a less cheerful note, this (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ed300308.htm) is Richard Beedall's analysis of the situation facing the RN.

[richatom]

Officers claim that if it was stationed in the River Thames


As long as the captain doesn't try a U-turn against an incoming tide and end up parked under a bridge.:D

Can anybody remember which frigate did that? I was trying to google it the other day and found nothing.

[Cspook]

In 1984 the Royal Navy warship HMS Jupiter hit London Bridge broadside. The ship suffered considerable damage to her superstructure and the granite parapet of London Bridge was dislodged.

[D O Guerrero]

WEBF - I watched the vid... what's with the manned 20mm? I thought we'd moved into the 21st Century?
And on a slightly less war-like note... ditto the baseball caps.

[kiwi grey]

Was that the one where the CO was court-martialled, and reduced in seniority by two years, which pushed him back down into the promotion band.
Presto! Formerly passed-over gent is promptly elevated to unimaginable heights. :}

Ah, the law of unintended consequences

[Navaleye]

D O Guerrero,

That's a 30mm REMSIG Bushmaster mount, its either fully automatic or manual. Quite capable of taking out aerial targets.

[airborne_artist]

Those baseball caps are dire - are they meant to be cool? :yuk:

[D O Guerrero]

I think so. They're not the only things that look cheap and nasty onboard though. The furnishings look not dissimilar to the VT offerings aboard the River Class - ie very cheap, very nasty and more suitable for a mobile home than a warship. And the bridge definitely has a whiff of Townsend Thoresen about it.

[airborne_artist]

Bring back the County class, I say. Proper ships, albeit with an abortion of a hangar ;)

[PPI Zulu]

Pious,

I'm glad to have been of some sort of service.

I though for my first ever post it was a bit necky, but hoped it might engender some further discussion.
An immediate mauling by Navayeye put pay to that though!!

Maybe I'll just go for another tour in Ganners - it'll probably be safer.

:ok:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The furnishings look not dissimilar to the VT offerings aboard the River Class - ie very cheap, very nasty and more suitable for a mobile home than a warship

It certainly isn’t cheap! You would also be amazed how difficult it is to provision Committee approved fabrics to the correct toxicity, fire safety, colourfastness, dimensional stability and durability standards.

[D O Guerrero]

GBZ,

That may be the case... But it still looks cheap.

Check out a River Class Cabin. See if you can secure it for sea. I've been assaulted many times by items of furniture hurling themselves at me in slight sea states. And yes, they had been "secured". So the Committee didn't really do it's job in that case - probably because VT just do as they please until someone forces them to do otherwise.

It won't be long before someone has to remove a bulkhead panel to find that the sewerage pipes are held on with string.

D O G

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Regrettably, I can well believe that. Sounds like a job for Form S2022 to me. It covers design defects as well.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

1st Test Firing Success for Royal Navy's PAAMS (http://http://www.asd-network.com/press_detail/16467/1st_Test_Firing_Success_for_Royal_Navy's_PAAMS.htm)

The successful firing marks a key step in the demonstration of the maturity of the PAAMS(S) system in the lead up to the missile system entering service onboard the Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers.

The trial comprised the firing of a single Aster 30 missile launched against a Mirach target simulating an aircraft, flying at 10km altitude. All aspects of the system behaved as expected with the Aster missile achieving a direct hit on the target at 35km range.

Moving away from the Type 45, Navy News reports (http://www.navynews.co.uk/view-story.aspx?articleID=191) on the Seawolf upgrade.

However, you need a lot of SAM armed ships to provide the same level of protection as fighters, as mentioned here (http://www.warshipsifr.com/interview_alanWest.html") back in 2003 by the First Sea Lord, and on the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) thread.

[glad rag]

Actually I found the article, opposite on page 4, far more interesting and uplifting.

[seafuryfan]

I'm cynical when it comes to believing all that stuff about tracking x number of targets etc etc. You'd have thought after all the procurement fiascos we've had that these 'techo stats' are not going to dazzle anyone.

It's radar capability is unlikely to stop the detonation of an inflatable laden with explosives next to the hull. The sharp reaction of a poorly paid sentry will be it's best chance.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

seafuryfan. A bit below the boot toppings there, old thing. :}

[D O Guerrero]

Poorly paid sentry? Do you believe everything you read in the Daily Mail?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

It looks like DRAGON's weapons trials have started well!

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/34678B8D-4414-49FC-8059-6586FDBA80B1/0/NE08035838.jpg

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Royal Navy's Dragon enters the Clyde (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/RoyalNavysDragonEntersTheClyde.htm)

[Gainesy]

Looks like its just squished a yachty.:uhoh:

[Surrey Towers]

You MIGHT think of it this way.

DME/TACAN can handle a hundred different 'targets' at any one moment!

There could be difference but I can't think of one.

A boffin might have other views though.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

DME/TACAN will respond to any recognised interrogation signal. It doesn’t record nor measure who and where it was and doesn’t really care.

[Navaleye]

It's an awesome anti-air weapon. It takes 13 people on a T42 to launch a bird. Imagine how long that takes. PAAMS can take out any target automatically. One shot one kill. The SA that the T45 provides is light years ahead of anything we have now, even an Arleigh Burke with AEGIS. Its at least one generation ahead of anything Uncle Sam has. The RN is looking forward to taking one down to south Atlantic. Anything that leaves the ground in Argentina is a victim in waiting.

[Trojan1981]

Anything that leaves the ground in Argentina is a victim in waiting.
Does that include Aerolineas?
Judging by recent events I think it would be more useful in British waters defending HM from marauding Tu-160s!

Russian nuclear bomber flies undetected to within 20 miles of Hull | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1064713/Russian-nuclear-bomber-flies-undetected-20-miles-Hull.html)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Tonight, Channel 4 will show a one of programme about the Type 45 at 1930.

Building Britain's Ultimate Warship (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-45-destroyers/hms-daring/news/building-britains-ultimate-warship/*/changeNav/6568)

See also the more recent thread: Evolution of PAAMS/Sea Viper (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/365087-evolution-paams-sea-viper.html)

[D O Guerrero]

Presumably Trojan, if it had made it to Hull and released its weapons, it would have done a billion pounds worth of improvements?

[glad rag]

Treason that what you just said. Yardarm job.:suspect::suspect:

[Toddington Ted]

Thanks for the heads up about the programme. I thought it was awesome and I'm very impressed and somewhat envious of the young men and women who will be defending us in these new ships - we need more, of everything!

[D O Guerrero]

It looked very impressive indeed.
Although I did note that they still can't get decent windscreen wipers!

[A A Gruntpuddock]

Yup, very impressive except that the computers crashed during the trial.

Comments along the lines of 'It's ok chaps, we've still got the 30mm'!!!!!

Says it all. One fuse goes and your ship is sunk.

[green granite]

Yup, very impressive except that the computers crashed during the trial.

That's why you have trials, to iron out all the potential snags, learn from them and, hopefully, they never happen again. :)

[Army Mover]

Says it all. One fuse goes and your ship is sunk.

Must be comforting for the ship's company to know that the supplier of the said fuse was almost certainly chosen because he offered the best value, as opposed to the best fuse.

Handy things tick lists ...... :ugh:

[timzsta]

To quote from the after dinner speech "what goes up must come down" - "radar, like so many other modern systems, suffers from a major problem in that it is powered by the 3 pin electric plug. All was going well until Mrs Jones the tea lady......"

[Jabba_TG12]

"Presumably Trojan, if it had made it to Hull and released its weapons, it would have done a billion pounds worth of improvements?"


I've often thought that about my home city of Coventry, that the Luftwaffe ought to be invited back to finish the job off.... properly this time :E

[D O Guerrero]

Green Granite - I can only assume that your comment was tongue-in-cheek... Otherwise I'm guessing you have never seen a modern Ops Room in action. Or should I say inaction, given that everything stops working with alarming regularity....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The programme was reasonably good. I liked the way when it was stated that the Type 45 was the result of the lessons of the Falklands. Surely the results of the lessons from 1982 included the AEW (now ASACs) Sea King, the Sea Harrier FA2, CIWS (not currently fitted to T45), the Type 23, and lots of other things that didn't need a wait of over 25 years?

On which note, this interview (http://www.warshipsifr.com/interview_alanWest.html) with the then First Sea Lord in 2003, contains the following truism:

You need a lot of Type 45s to give the same coverage as a naval air-defence fighter.

There is the link to the same interview on page one of the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152). Funny that the delays weren't mentioned.

It was good that mention was made of the splashing of an Iraqi Silkworm by Sea Dart in 1991, and Eric Grove mentioned the use of anti ship missiles by Hezbollah, making the point that even non state players may have access to advanced weaponry. I also though it good that the price of these ships was put into context by comparing it with the vast sums spent of bailing out badly managed banks.

The second of class, Dauntless, was commissioned (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/rn-live/all-news/royal-navy-on-crest-of-a-wave/*/chang) today. Roll on the first Sea Viper firings.

[david parry]

Not impressed by Paddys comments :{ The mood is one of mutual respect as each person carries out their roles quietly and competently. “The young sailor that joins the Navy today is of a higher calibre than those in the past,” says Captain McAlpine. “They are more highly educated [many Able Seamen have degrees] and they need better management and better leadership. This is highly complex and advanced technology that we’re using.”

[glad rag]

many Able Seamen have degreesnot wishing to be pedantic, but if that is the case then why are they in THAT job, does the RN not believe in social mobility in the 21st century??:8

[anotherthing]

Because besides the very real fact that there are degrees and then there are degrees (ask any employer if they believe education standards are the same today), being well educated does not always mean that someone is capable or maybe more to the point willing to take on responsibility.

There are many hierarchical careers (forces, police etc) where people deemed suitably qualified both educationally and professionally are unwilling to progress up the greasy pole.

[glad rag]

Now you see your failure was that in you're rush you constructed your answer beginning with "because" which is acceptable orally but not in the written sense.

Which is of little value to either of us because if the Senior Service wishes to employ graduates to polish shoes off watch then they should be bloody glad of it I think we all should agree................................................:ugh::u gh: