Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New British Destroyers
neofire1000    4/22/2007 11:32:40 AM
Hi folks, want to ask a question. I was just a soldier so don't know massive amounts about surface ships (well not current ones) however like all things military I have great interest. I was reading about the new Daring class destroyer (type 45) and was wondering how it compares to other nations current/future equivalents in terms of quality, weapons and computer systems etc. I know there are alot of knowledgeable posters here so would appreciate your opinions. Thanks, Neo.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Armchair Private       5/1/2007 6:29:22 PM
Compared to latest ABs?
radar = great.
Missiles = mediocre.
Multi-role = rubbish.
In terms of growth?
radar = Best.
Missiles = Good
Multi-role = Good.
As an AAW platform alone?
I have no idea, but reading the educated guess work on sites like these I think all platforms would run out of luck before they ran out of missiles.
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/1/2007 8:42:15 PM

Compared to latest ABs?

Apples and somewhat different apples, but at least for once we are in the same fruit family with area defense AAW destroyers instead of overglorified point defense frigates.. 

radar = great.


Missiles = mediocre.

Awful missiles, simply awful. ASTER is a DOG. Britain could've done much better updating Sea Dart.

Multi-role = rubbish.

Not so sure. The SYLVER VLS was a bad mistake, but here again Britain could tear it out and do it over better with a native design. The VLS could have been made multilaunch multiordnance capable like dare I say it the Mark  41 VLS? Buying into a THALES restrictive weapons VLS launcher really limited the Type 45 to a bunch ofd FRENCH systems as THALES intended.

Sometimes you have to look at the military necessity you have, rather than politically placating an ally across the Channel. The RN was screwed.  Not to worry though, THALES has been screwing its French customers for DECADES.

In terms of growth?

 There is room if you replace the restrictive SYLVER VLS and replace those dud missiles. Room was allloted.

radar = Best.

Would tend to agree now with the caveat that AEGIS has greater potential for upgrades than SAMPSON over the next decades.

Missiles = Good

Disagree. French ASTER missile is about as bad a dud as could be selected. I've stated why elsewhere, but for here, if the radar updating fails as it does[faulty killbody receiver antenna design plus wrong GCU clock synchronmization], then ASTER goes dumb, and might as well be a rocket propelled brick for all the good it does.. 

Multi-role = Good.

 Potential says much better than good; but you have to fix the mistakes made in the priimary magazine sytowage and your PAAMS as noted above.

As an AAW platform alone?

Suicide boat when it works alone. That is not how you use a Type 45. It works best as part of a GROUP which is for what its design originally called.  

I have no idea, but reading the educated guess work on sites like these I think all platforms would run out of luck before they ran out of missiles.

Depends on the countermeasures and ship handling. British countermeasures against torpedoes are great and British skippers get the most out of their ships and crews. AAW countermeasures and air defense battle drill? Not so good.

Quote    Reply

VGNTMH    Type 45 versus other options   5/1/2007 10:49:16 PM
Concentrating on the air defense radars, combat systems, and missiles, here is my ideas on the pros and cons of the modern western air warfare destroyers:
This combat system will be used by the UK on the type 45.
It consists of:
* S1850M (variant of SMART-L) single panel rotating active phased array L band main surveillance radar
* Sampson twin face rotating S band active phased array radar for surveillance and target tracking
* The PAAMS combat data system
* Aster 30 and 15 missiles in a Sylver vertical launch system
The pros of this combat system include:
* Very modern active phased array radar technology for both the S1850M and Sampson radars
* Modern Aster missiles, with terminal active radar guidance, resulting in multiple channels of fire, no need for illuminators, and over the horizon capabilities (though there are some damming comments about Aster above!)
* The Sampson radar is mounted very high on the mast, resulting in a larger radar horizon
* The Sampson radar is active phased array and therefore can produce multi simultainious beams and has graceful degradation rather than a single point of failure in the wave generators
* The S1850M radar is very long range and has possible ballistic missile defense and counter stealth capabilities
The cons of this combat system include:
* The rotating main radars raise the possibility of mechanical failure
* The type 45s have a very limited volume of fire without quad packed ESSMs, they only have 48 missiles in total, though they could perhaps be fitted for 64, compared to upwards of 200 on the ABs when many quadpacked ESSMs are carried
* No current theatre ballistic missile defense capability without SM-3
* Commonality with USN lost from not using AEGIS/SM-2/ESSM
This combat system is used on the new Dutch (LCF), German (F-124), and Danish frigates and consists of:
* SMART-L single panel rotating active phased array L band main surveillance radar
* APAR fixed X band active phased array radar for horizon search, target tracking, and semi active radar illumination
* SM-2 and quad packed ESSM missiles in a mark 41 vertical launch system
The pros of this combat system include:
* Very modern active phased array radar technology for both the SMART-L and the APAR radars
* No single point of failure, unlike SPY-1D's wave generator and Sampson's rotator, as APAR is OK for self defense even if SMART-L is down and APAR is both a fixed non mechanically rotating radar and a gracefully degrading active phased array
* The APAR X band fixed active phased array radar excellent for horizon search and SAR illumination
* Very large number of channels of fire due to APAR active phased array radar illumination
* Large volume of fire due to the quad packed ESSMs
* The combination of X band AESA APAR and quad packed ESSMs is optimized for littoral saturation anti ship missile defense, the main threat faced by western warships
* The SMART-L radar is very long range and has possible ballistic missile defense and counter stealth capabilities
* Compatibility with the USN is increased by the use of the SM-2 and ESSM missiles and the mark 41 launcher
The cons of this combat system include:
* Although the APAR radar is fixed the main surveillance radar is rotating and this is the radar which is constantly used! Though as mentioned above APAR has some shorter range search capability
* No existing theatre ballistic missile defense capability without SM-3
* Older semi active radar missile guidance technology is used, though ESSM is very highly respected, SM-2 and ESSM are much more widely tested and used than Aster equivalents, and the semi active radar terminally guided missiles do have the advantage of a much more powerful radar
* Some commonality with USN lost from not using AEGIS
* There is no over the horizon area air defense capability as the SM-2 missiles are primarily semi active radar guided (though SM-2 block 3B has IR terminal guidance)
This combat system is used by the USN, Japan, Spain, Norway, and soon to be Korea and Australia.
It consists of:
* SPY-1D fixed S band passive phased array radars
* AEGIS combat data system
* AN/SPG-62 mechanically steered SAR illuminators
* SM-3, SM-2 and quad packed ESSM missiles in mark 41 vertical launch systems
The pros of this combat system include:
* Widely used and tested
* Offers compatibility and commonality with the USN
* Its main/constantly operating radar is fi
Quote    Reply

neofire1000    VGNTMH   5/6/2007 8:29:22 PM
Input is superb, what is your background? just curious. One of the T45's are docked at Scotstoun on the river clyde at the moment, it looks like a very sparse design when you see it in the to speak.
Will need to take a few photos if anyone is interested.
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       5/6/2007 10:16:58 PM
Hey photos would be great if it wouldn't put you out any.
You should wear one of those Russian hats when you take them. :)
Quote    Reply

VGNTMH    neofire1000   5/7/2007 4:19:10 AM
Thanks for your comment. I am just an interested amateur. An Australian. An Accountant and Financial Controller by trade. No military or defense industry experience. I tried to get jobs in the defense sector but couldn't get past HR people who couldn't tell how much I knew about their company’s products and how much passion I had for the defense industry! Either that or a chicken and egg situation to do with security clearances!
Anyhow, enough of me. Back to Naval radars and missiles!
Remember that there are also at least four modern lower end or middle tier naval air defense systems out there as well as the above three.
These are:
* The Australian CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/Saab combat data system/mark 41 VLS/ESSM/Sagem Vampire IRST combat system being installed on the upgraded ANZAC frigates.
* The Hercules radar and Aster 15 combat system being fitted to the Singaporean stealth frigates.
* The South African Umkhonto missile, combined with a variety of radars and combat data systems, currently in use by the South African and Finnish Navies and rumored to be being purchased by the Swedish Navy for use on the Visbys.
* The SMART-L radar and VL-MICA combat system recently ordered by the Royal Oman navy.
I will research these a bit more and see if I can write a similar summary for these as above. I already have some notes on CEAFAR somewhere.
Quote    Reply

neofire1000       5/7/2007 1:27:46 PM
Will be passing there tomorrow or Wednesday so I'll try and get a few pics.
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/8/2007 1:45:28 PM
Missiles = mediocre.
I still stick with Aster which is able to counter massive attack by supersonic high manoeuvering seaskimmer antiship missiles contrary to SM2.Aster has outstanding terminal maneouvrability due to vector trust and active autodirector.
Whatever Herald says!
Chosen by France, Italie, UK, Singapore ... all nations with incompetent engineers..
Quote    Reply

AdamB       5/8/2007 2:58:25 PM
[quote]Chosen by France, Italie, UK, Singapore ... all nations with incompetent engineers[/quote]
That's a silly thing to say, considering that Britain used to be THE world's manufacturing powerhouse producing more goods than the rest of the world combined (including 90% of all the world's ships in the 1910s), and considering that the RN's largest-ever aircraft carriers, largest-ever submarines and largest-ever destroyers are all being built in Britain.
Quote    Reply

AdamB       5/8/2007 3:02:05 PM
The type 45 destroyers - the largest and most powerful destroyers ever used by the Royal Navy - are the world's most advanced warships.

Originally conceived under the multi-national 'Horizon' project, from which the UK withdrew, the Daring Class destroyers represent the largest escorts ever built for the RN.

Six ships have been ordered, and a total of eight are expected to enter service by 2014. The original planned purchase of twelve was reduced in the Ministry of Defence's Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities review, published in July 2004. The Type 45 design utilises the Principal Anti-Air Missile System, PAAMS, a joint British/French/Italian design, which comprises the SAMPSON fire control and tracking radar, MBDA Aster 15 and 30 missile systems and the 48-cell SYLVER vertical missile launcher, giving the Type 45 both short-range and long-range anti-air capability. The PAAMS system is able to control and coordinate several missiles in the air at once, allowing several tracks to be intercepted, and the SYLVER missile launcher can be upgraded in the future to add more modern weapons if necessary (as they become available). It has been suggested that the SAMPSON radar is capable of tracking an object the size of a cricket ball travelling at 3 times the speed of sound.[2]

The Type 45 destroyers will replace the Type 42 Destroyers currently in service with the Royal Navy. The First two, Daring and Dauntless will enter service in 2009 and 2010 respectively. The Type 45 may also be fitted with cruise missiles if the need arises in the future.
Image:IMG 7240-01.jpg" width=800 border=0>
HMS Daring being floated on the River Clyde after launcing
Type 45 ("D" Class) Destroyer
Daring Class

Part 1

Type Designation: Destroyer, Guided Missile (DDG)" width=500 border=1>
(Source: BAE Systems)


(Below)  The latest artists impressions of the Type 45, first published in June 2002.  (Source: BAE Systems and the Type 45 Prime Contractor Office.)" width=300 border=1>" width=300 border=1>" width=300 border=1>" width=300 border=1>" width=400 border=1>

Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT