But the USN normally have one along.......

it may not be in close formation so it doesn't have to cruise at the same speed - it can sprint and wait.........

You'd feel a bit of t** if some Kilo or a modern german built boat happened to be in the neighbourhood

Do they? I admit I'm a bit out of date with submarine tactics, but I was under the impression that the US SSNs always operated independantly, aside fro the odd duty of "sanitising" the area outside the port prior to sortie-ing SSBNs of major battlegroups. An SSN isn't much use if it can't stay covert, and any attempt to communicate with the battlegroup would remove the covertness.

Destroyers sprint & drift when conducting ASW, but then they're not covert in the first place. What's the point in an SSN which broadcasts its presence (and thus the battlegroup's general course and speed) every time it sprints?

I know Clancy proposed convoys of SSNs using sprint & drift so that one could be listening while the others proceeded, but I've never heard of the USN or RN using co-operative groups of SSNs like this, let alone using that as a tactic.

PDR

You are correct. Makes you wonder why the carriers don't have some kind of organic ASW capability embarked...

Oh, wait.

PDR1,

An USN Carrier Strike Group (CSG) typically comprises - depending on the threat level:

The US Navy Aircraft Carriers

- 1 x CVN.

- 1 x Ticonderoga Class cruiser.

- 2 x Arleigh-Burke Class destroyers.

- 1 x Los Angeles Class attack submarine.

- 1 x combined ammunition, oiler, supply ship.

During Fleet Week San Diego, I have had the opportunity to tour the USS Arleigh-Burke a couple of times and - considering the lead ship was commissioned in July 1991 - it is still a very impressive piece of kit packing a punch that makes a Type 45 look distinctly puny. The incremental improvements made to the ships in the class continue to the day with up to 42 new Flight III ships in the class being planned - the first 3 have already been launched.

Arleigh-Burke Armament - latest configuration - cost $1.843B

96-cell Vertical Launch System loaded as required with these options:
Tomahawk surface attack cruise missile
RIM-66 Standard medium range SAM with ASuW option
RIM-161 Standard Ballistic Missile Defense missile (AEGIS)
RIM-162 ESSM SAM
RUM-39 Vertical launch ASROC
RIM-174A ERAM (130>250 nm range)

2 x Mk 141 quad Harpoon launcher

1 x 5" Mk 45 gun
Phalanx CIWS
2 x 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon

2 x Mk 32 triple torpedo tubes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleig...lass_destroyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 45 Armament - cost $1.5B (at 1.5 USD/GBP)

1 x 48-cell Sylver A50 VLS with these options:

Aster 15 missiles (1.7>30 km range)
Aster 30 missiles (3>120 km range)

2 x quad Harpoon launchers

1 x 4.5" Mk 8 gun
2 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x Oerlikon 30mm
2 x Miniguns
6 x GPMGs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

Personally, I just don't see how the UK is ever going to be able to provide the level of protection to a QE Class carrier that it's investment and embarked assets merit in a multi-threat environment (aircraft, TBM, multiple surface combatants, SSN/SSK).

On the other hand, if Raytheon are to be believed, you're relatively safe if a late model Arleigh Burke is around (tongue in cheek banter).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-_4tfWR4c

Tourist has already alluded to the ASW helicopter screening that has served well in the past and (should) serve well in the future.

No they haven't. In fact, not even contracted for yet IIRC. The ones you're thinking of are Flt IIA+ (!) and the very fact they're having to do this indicates a major problem in their ship design capabilities. Some of the things they're having to do to make the planned Flt III ships pass stability certs without a complete redesign of the hull are "interesting" to say the least.....

You do realise that operational capability is not actually the same as Top Trumps, don't you?:rolleyes:

trouble is the lack of surface to surface missiles on the T45 - I guess the initial cost was too high and so we're retrofitting old systems from the T22's - but only 8 launchers on 4 boats

and each CVN has 4 surface ships and an SSN as escort - I doubt we'd be able to keep both carriers at sea together if that became an RN standard

T45 is an Air (and maybe soon space?) defender.

Adding endless all round capabilities doesn't work any better at sea than it does in the air. You end up with a master of none.

so we need three types of surface ship?

Anti-Air, Anti-surface and Anti-sub?????

plus of course a Carrier..................

You mean a bit like in the Air where you have bombers, fighters, transports and helicopters?

There have been multi-role aircraft, and there have been multi role ships, but often they are not great at anything...

I think if the initial order plan for type 45 had been stuck to, Then having your AA assets on two ships rather than one would have been a good idea. Alas......

We now need warm water and cold water versions...................

Inquiry reveals UK's Type 45 destroyers are even less reliable in warm water | IHS Jane's 360

Inquiry reveals UK's Type 45 destroyers are even less reliable in warm water

Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
09 June 2016

Senior defence industry officials revealed during testimony to a parliamentary inquiry on 7 June that the problems with the integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system on the Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers are more acute in warm environments such as the Gulf.

Rolls-Royce's Tomas Leahy claimed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to specify that the Type 45s would have to operate in warm environments. "There was a specification for Type 45, the engine met that specification," he told the inquiry. "Are the conditions in the Gulf in line with that specification? No they are not, so the equipment is having to operate in far more arduous conditions than initially required by that specification."

"The operating profile considered at the time [the Type 45 was specified] was that there would not be repeated and continuous operations in the Gulf," BAE Sysyems Maritime Managing Director John Hudson said. "It was not designed explicitly or uniquely for operations in the Gulf."
He said that BAE had nevertheless attempted to design the ship so it would experience a "graceful degradation" of its performance at high temperatures, but then added that the exact opposite was happening.

"What we have found in the Gulf is that it takes the gas turbine generator bit into an area which is sub-optimal for the generator, and also we found that with the drive units that the cooling system created condensation within the drive units which caused faults and that caused electrical failures as well," he said. These electrical failures leave the Type 45s unable to operate their propulsion, sensor, or weapons systems.

Leahy suggested the problems would be experienced by all gas turbines, not just the Rolls-Royce WR-21 engines fitted to the Type 45. "It's not a fault of the WR-21. Even if it was a simple-cycle gas turbine it will still suffer the same fate in those circumstances, it's a law of physics."

If a carrier is cruising along with side lift down a Somali in a motorboat with a missile can fire it into the open area. The consequent explosion amongst aircraft, fuel etc can sink the carrier.

Eh? What are you talking about?

Nurse!
Meds!.

...............

well - it's true up to a point but as they say................ one would hope not ......

"The operating profile considered at the time [the Type 45 was specified] was that there would not be repeated and continuous operations in the Gulf,""

when was this? presumably it was a carry over from thr NFR-90 & Horizon projects - I'd suspect the former as after 1990 it should must have been bloody obvious we'd be operating in the Gulf........................ idiotic really...................

So will our Carriers be unable to operate properly in warm water areas too?

Perhaps we should have built nuclear powered ships instead! :ugh:

bit like the dreadful Challenger tank issiue in Gulf War I..................