Home
RSS Feed
Categories: Analysis and Proposal
Tags: Defence Reviews, Royal Navy
The Type 45 is an antiair warfare destroyer armed with advanced sensors and the latest air defence missiles.
The Type 45 is a salutary lesson in the dangers of multi nation partnerships, starting in the NFR-90 programme which eventually collapsed (those pesky national interests again) and splintered into various programmes. Instead of realising that multi nation programmes to produce a common design are always fraught with risk the UK and other nations decided to have another go, this culminated in the Horizon Common New Generation Frigate. Differing requirements, industrial problems and other issues meant that the UK withdrew to pursue a national design, the Type 45, although some common equipment would be carried over from Horizon.
Designed to throw a protective bubble around a multi vessel task group the Type 45 is likely to be the most effective anti air destroyer in service for quite some time but then it should, it is one of the most expensive as well.
Utilising modern construction techniques like modular blocks and having a clean, reduced signature design, the Type 45 is thoroughly modern. The integrated turbine/electric propulsion system whilst expensive in capital terms will have very low running and maintenance costs, a good example of investing to save.
With a displacement of approximately 8,000 tonnes it is relatively large yet can still comfortably achieve 27 knots (with more if needed) with a range of 7,000nm. Armed with up to 48 Aster 15 or Aster 30 missiles (now called Sea Viper) as part of Principal anti aircraft missile system (PAAMS)
In addition to the main missile armament it is also equipped with 4.5” Mk8 Mod 1 main gun, a number of smaller automatic weapons and can carry the Lynx or Merlin helicopters.
Once the Sea Viper integration trials have completed and the Type 45 comes into service in the next few years it will be a worthy successor to the Type 42. The recent test failure was completely over hyped by the mainstream media and the UK version of PAAMS will be a genuine world leader with plenty of development potential.
All in the garden is not rosy though. The Royal Navy asked for 14, this was reduced to 12 in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review and the numbers have been whittled down gradually to the current position, 6.
The basic design, although very sensibly having room and provision for expansion, does seem lightly armed. It has no close in weapon system, torpedoes or sea/land attack capability.
In an ideal world the numbers would be increased to 8 but the time for extending the run has passed, in the context of reduced budgets the money would be better spent on making it more effective in its primary role and perhaps more suited to a number of secondary roles.
With this focus on its primary role, that of air defence, it would make sense for additional Vertical Launch Silos to be fitted for additional Sea Vipers.
When the RN moves to the 155mm main gun concept it is working towards then this should be installed on the Type 45’s although only for commonality reasons, the thought of using such a valuable asset like a Type 45 to provide Naval Gunfire Support should fill everyone with dread!
Close in defences should also be improved with something more effective than the Phalanx, perhaps the Millennium Gun which would also provide protection against short range surface targets. The newer blocks of Phalanx provide this dual role capability but its effectiveness against the latest generations fast and low flying missiles is in question. Soft kill systems are arguably more effective than CIWS like Phalanx but the two are complimentary and neither should be skimped on, especially as the Type 45 is a high value target.
The stop start programme that is Collaborative Engagement Capability which provides a single integrated air picture (SIAP) should be fully committed to, the US Navy CEC was cancelled for the Royal Navy in 2005 in favour of a UK centric version but given the obvious need to operate in conjunction with the USN it would seem to make sense to resurrect this. It will dramatically improve situational awareness creating something that is more than the sum of its parts.
Air defence is all about layers and with each active and passive layer playing its part, with our questioning of the CVF one of the outer layers is missing, this is an important argument for the CVF so the question is, can the Type 45 in conjunction with a CEC enabled C1 force and other measures provide sufficient air defence for an amphibious or other task group?
This is an important question but the capabilities of the Type 45 should not be underestimated, the likelihood of facing such a competent offensive airborne attack capability that has survived an initial Tomahawk attack (for example) and the very real possibility of operating in a coalition with either France and/or the United States should also be considered.
To summarise, the anti air warfare capabilities of the Type 45 should be developed over time but with the numbers remaining at 6.
5 Responses
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
So how was 15 picked as the original number and how on earth could tat be lowered to 6?! Either the initial assessment of requirements was way-off or we don’t have enough, surely?
CEC sounds like a really good idea, especially in command and control areas.
On the subject of CIWS, AFAIK no CIWS has ever actually fired at an incoming missile, more over it is believed (but unproven, there’s a suspicious amount if hush hush over what CIWS can actually do) that Goalkeeper (and probably other CIWS) only kills a missile at about 300 meters from the ship, or about 1 second before impact, which is a little close and there are thoughts that bits of missile may still strike the ship.
Now that paragraph has a lot of if, maybe’s and possibly’s, but the further away from a ship the missile is when it explodes the better, Millennium Gun says it can do that. The scatter based ammunition should give better hit probabilities, fitting it consists of finding some spare space and a plug socket and it can be used against surface targets. However I can’t find out if it has it’s own radar? Frankly the main point of CIWS is that they are completely independent of the ship for anything but power, the time when your radar is on the fritz being the time when you most need the CIWS.
155mm gun sounds like a good idea although I’d rather it were replaced entirely by something more useful, say more SYLVER launchers (even if it’s A-43 for aster 15′s only), CAAMS, more CIWS or just a prominent looking flag pole, something that might get used. I’d also rather see more SYLVER instead of any plans to fit Harpoon, firing harpoon means getting within 300km ish of something that can probably shoot back, not the place for an expensive Anti-Air destroyer. Tomahawk however might be a good idea, if we want more cruise missiles we may as well put them on the safest ship.
On numbers, I really think we’re not going to have any more than 6, though post CVF construction, come the building of C1 to replace T23, if C1 does get built on a T45 hull then I’d be tempted to try and sneak another batch of 1-3 ships into the budget.
The article in general I’m going to hold off commenting on directly until I have read what the plans are for the rest of the escort fleet. However I’ll respond to some of the points raised in the comments.
The Dark Knight the Royal Navy asked for 14 and the politicians have constantly cut down the numbers since then and the RN has not put up much of a fight as they want the carriers. The answer I and many would agree is the latter we don’t have enough; with the current fleet you’ll have 2 destroyers available at any one time 3 if you’re pushing it. That would be enough to escort one deployed amphibious group consisting of an LPH, LPD and 2 Bay class LSD’s but not necessarily defend it from anyone with an air force. We would be reliant on friendly allies willing to put their ships in harm’s way if we wanted to do anything more than float around off the coast.
Ashley, The Millennium CIWS uses offboard sensors in the case of the Absalon class it relies upon the Saab CEROS 200 fire control system. This is arguably a big disadvantage vs system such as the Raytheon Phalanx system which can be set to an autonomous mode to shoot anything within set parameters. The Weapon itself should be more effective at downing targets thanks to its innovative ammunition which seems to have worked well in testing. You do have a good point in general about CIWS systems they don’t seem to have a proven combat record but neither do many military systems. As the Admin said soft kill systems have a better record at actually dealing with missiles even when they were extremely basic rockets with no computer timing and control. What happened in the Falklands is somewhat misleading as the RN used Exocet and also had been given help by the French so knew what they were up against. However they should be standard on any vessel even thinking of going anywhere there is the slightest possibility of getting a missile launched at you.
The constant Question over which main gun the Royal Navy should be using is an interesting one, has BAE actually managed to get the 155mm gun working successfully where others have tried and failed? If so what are the drawbacks such as rate of fire, weight, cost and suitability for the naval environment. If the answer is no then we should decide between sticking with the current Mk 8 Mod 1 114mm mount, switching to the NATO standard 127mm gun or keep on trying to get a 155mm gun working. I think the switch to the 127mm gun would be the logical choice especially given the emphasis on joint operations with allies, doing so would allow the adoption of off the shelf advanced ammunition types as well as access to future ammunition types. During operations it would simplify logistics by allowing for the use of NATO standard ammunition from supply ships as well as spare parts on land and at sea. The problem with this decision is that it would mean the adoption of a new naval gun requiring the background support and training infrastructure as well as the possible re-gunning of the Type 45 destroyers.
thedarknight: The end of the Cold War and 1998 SDR changed the requirements in a way that the navy could not have originally foreseen.
Although saying that 6 IS too few until the new SDR turns us into a coastal defence force. The navy says that they need 5 operational at any one time. I don’t care how much more efficient these ships are, there is no way they can guarantee that with a class of 6. 8 would have been sensible and is a very good reason to hope C1 is T45 based so there is a chance for more to be snuck in as Ashley said. It is simply unacceptable to say that we can’t really afford any more so you can’t have what you need in this case. By the time they realise they do need more it’s likely to be too late, as in one is on the bottom of the ocean and British sailors have paid the price for penny pinching. To argue otherwise on the basis that they’re very capable is naive.
I would like to point out that the T45 will almost certainly get a CIWS fitted if it is needed in a crisis, it’s FFBNW at least.
Harpoon would be a good idea to fit as you can’t guarantee a T45 wouldn’t have to go near enemy vessels in a task force, but i’d rather see A70 launchers added and fitted with either Tactoms or SCALP-N’s as a more multirole alternative.
The 4.5″ should stay until the 155mm is ready to be added because guns they do have their uses despite Ashleys comment.
On the development of the T45 platform, i’d recommend returning to the original (cancelled) navy plan for developing it, which was actually very well written (on the internet somewhere, cba to find it now) and greatly increased the ships versatility. I suspect the idea was to get hulls in the water and use spare penny’s to make it better later. Shame the original money and the penny’s all disappeared and less us with too few less capable ships. In hindsight they should have gone all out and gold-plated it some more before the money could be cut off. The govt. couldn’t have reduced numbers to meet costs any more than they have now anyway.
Wow lots to discuss here, where to begin:
CIWS: CIWS in the shape of U.S. Phalanx MK1 have been fired in anger actually. A U.S. Perry class frigate hosed down the upper decks of the battleship that was target by a shore battery Silk Worm missile in GW1 – the missile that was shot down by HMS Gloucester using Sea Dart !
Also the “bits still hitting the upper deck” is not theory either, the U.S.N put a Phalanx on a barge and fired instrumented Harpoons at it – thus the knowledge that even with sub-sonic missiles, the momentum of the missile transfers into the shrapnel that is the result of missile break up – hitting your upper works with considerable kinetic energy.
Sensors on the gun, or sensors elsewhere on the ship makes no difference at all to fully automatic engagement, Phalanx and Goalkeeper are not the only systems to provide this.
Millenium – its still just a 35mm gun with advanced ammunition. Personally I like the Italian view of this – go big ! 76mm Super Rapid with the new radar beam riding sub-calibre anti-missile round – nice..
Don’t forget, RN shot down an Exocet in the FI with a 4.5 inch gun !!
However lets face it, in the short term T45 can get Phalanx 1B taken from retiring Type 42′s – a good system for “asymetric” warfare as it has an EO sensor pod attached to the radar, and “man in the loop” aiming (if required) – thus a good “anti small boat swarm” weapon (if limited by by ammo capacity in this role). Eventually I would like to see them upgraded to SeaRAM on the T45 – much more useful last ditch, inner layer anti-missile capability.
Big guns: I really, really dont understand why the RN stuck on its lonesome with 114mm. We should have gone to 127mm years ago. 155mm is a red herring, why do we need ammo commonality with the army if it results in a complicated slow loading mechanism for the two part ammunition ? Just go to Italian fast firing 127mm with modern ammo such as their IR guided ‘anti ship’ version of the Vulcan and the even longer ranged laser guided land attack version. Big guns also have great versatility in “operations other than war” – want to put a warning shot across the naughty merchant ships bows, scare the crap out of pirates etc – its not all about NGS. Also, if not fitting Harpoons, that IR guided anti-ship round at least provides some non-helicopter dependent anti-ship firepower.
Torpedo tubes: I really can’t understand any ship being put to sea with the ability to launch close in, last ditch counter attack through its own shipboard torpedoes. I know your really on Helo to attack them further out, but surely it can’t be that expensive to fit ?
Land attack: We only have six of these ships, they need to focus on AAW, they dont need SCALP or Tomahawk, the money needs to be spent on CEC and maybe then ABM later.
Ref: Developing the capabilities of the six instead of upping the number to 8 – as already explained in previous article, a hull can only be in one place at a time, I would rather see 8 ships with no Phalanx, no Harpoon / Tomahawk / SCALP and even no tubes…. !
6 is not enough !!