I have been meaning to post this for a while but concentrating on the green stuff has meant a lack of watery posts around Think Defence for a while.
One of the great capabilities of the Type 22 was an advanced set of signals intelligence systems so the recent announcement that the 6 Type 45′s will probably get the latest US ‘Ship’s Signal Exploitation Equipment (SSEE) Increment F’ system from Argon ST is very good news.
This from ASD News
The UK is procuring SSEE increment F as a Cryptologic Electronic Warfare Support Measure (CESM) replacement program for the Cooperative Outboard Logistics Update (COBLU) currently fitted on Type 22 Frigates and it will be the future maritime CESM system fitted on the Type 45 Destroyers. It is expected the UK will be able to fully absorb and utilize the Communications Intelligence (COMINT) system and capability.
SSEE is an evolutionary programme designed to be incrementally upgraded with new computing and storage systems, exploiting the rapid advances in commercial computing systems.
The official notice of a foreign military sale says;
The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) has requested the sale of seven Ship’s Signal Exploitation Equipment (SSEE) Increment F, seven Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Modules (SAASM) GPS Receivers, and seven System Signal and Direction Finding Stimulator packages, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, support equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics, and technical support services, testing, publications and technical documentation, Fleet Information Operation Center upgrades, installation, life cycle support, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $90 million.
I expect 1 set will be used for shore based training
The system has been delivered under a joint US/UK project called COBLU or Cooperative Outboard Logistics Update which was to replace the existing AN/SSQ-108 based OUTBOARD system.
A rare bit of good news
Nearly had a semi on then when it said 7 sets , thought they may suprise us with another type 45 , im back into reality now .
I did read once that Outboard was one of the prime drivers for stretching T22.
It was good news when I heard about it.
Fingers crossed for Merlin next year.
Great bit of news, to say the very least.
Now i hope into developments re Cooperative Engagement Capability. Is CEC still planned for 2014…?
Also, there’s now four sets of Harpoons and Stingray launchers following Type 22 retirement: they would also be well used if they “migrated” onto the 45s…
It’ll take some more time, but the 45s will one day be the supremely good ships they must be.
I will say it again, the T26 “design” money should been spent on arming T45 properly.
“I will say it again, the T26 “design” money should been spent on arming T45 properly.”
Type 23 forever…?
On a serious note, how long could they be kept going, without ripping everything off and starting with just the hulls?
“Type 23 forever…?”
- I have referenced the Canadian rebuild programme a few times
Gabby said “Type 23 forever…?”
My issue with T26 is yet again we are paying BAE to design yet another wheel.
There are some good European designs out there.
The UK has a strong naval architecture sector outside BAE.
The best course of action would have been to continue to build T45 in pairs. Hopefully this would have resulted in the final gate price falling if only by a tad. (Though as I have said elsewhere Sea Viper should have been available for CVF….)
We don’t face a significant naval threat at the moment. Somebody in the Admiralty should have done some future gazing and looked at future force levels. All they are doing now is repeating the 1980s……..
X
If you are looking for a naval threat, look to the East. India,China, Korea, Japan, etc all in a naval arms race. The T45 looks puny against some of the larger Destroyers from Korea & Japan.
The T23 was/is a good design. Most other nations would have kept building, but improved it. A stealthier, cleaned up T23 with more modern systems (T24) should have been in low rate production to fill the gap til T26. Otherwise we will have an expensive job to regain skills again.
I do find it encouraging that, for once, the principle of getting a good basic design into service and then adding the bells and whistles later (“for but not with”) seems to be paying off quite quickly, first by adding Phalanx and now with this.
I suspect that it might have been cheaper to have put them in to start with, though.
Hi TW,
RE “I suspect that it might have been cheaper to have put them in to start with, though.”
- without any factual basis whatsoever, I suspect that by now there is a good enough idea of what will go onto T26s, and the upgrades for the bigger class are being confirmed to be not only compatible, but also complementary (giving an enhanced capability when operating together)
@ JH
I meant for the next decade or so. To my mind T26 just eats into that buffer. We will waste money now and then when there is need for escorts we won’t have them in the numbers and dare I say configuration that is needed. Further even if I haven’t said it explicitly I have implied it that I think T45 is under armed. You have to balance soft capabilities against hard kill capabilities. It is subtle. And something that has to be considered when you look at British warship policy from the 70s onwards. T42 being the prime example. Better have a system tell you where the enemy is and one missile than lots of missiles and be blind. And I have often said here that simplistic me believes the navy’s job should be sinking things not dropping ordnance on Third World tribesman. T45 needs a heavy missile, but I think missile needs to be carried by a Merlin. In fact a Merlin plus a hull sonar to contribute to the total defence of ship and group would be my first priority.
As for T23. Well call me silly but the simplest thing to do would have been to get the plans for T23 and increase all major dimensions by about 7%. This would have allowed the deckhouses to be enclosed without damaging ship’s righting characteristics. The CODLAG fit out is still a good one. The propeller would need a bit of work but it isn’t insurmountable.
X
I agree with you that the T45 is under armed. The original plan would have had a thicker hull, 155 or 127 mm gun, Harpoon, Tomahawk, AS Torpedos on top of the Sea Archer,Phallanx & 30mm guns we have now.
Anti ship missiles are to deter a naval battle, rather than fight one. If our ships lack them, while most other navies have them, then they can steam in & launch theirs at us without fear of retaliation. Yes, you can launch anti ship missiles from helicopters, but they cannot operate in rough weather, or be airborne 24 hours a day.
I agree, a modernised ,cleaned up T23 (T24) should be in low rate production to fill the gap from the cancelled T45 batch 2.
I’m sticking to my guns on this. Scrap any notion of Type 26. Upgrade the Type 45 design and create either one or two more batches to fill out the future escort needs, including ASW. I can just see Type 26 going wrong, getting delayed, and having millions if not billions poured into it for a grossly reduced number of ships.
Of course I’m counting on the MoD not to f**k up the further development of Type 45 in the process which might just prove to be as much of a fools errand.
I like the idea of using the Type 45 hull for the next GP frigate/destroyer – it’s been an obvious possibility ever since it was clear that the Type 26 wouldn’t be much smaller – but the AA system is surely too expensive and not really necessary for that purpose. I’d put on a different superstructure to provide the same kind of flexible accommodation as the Danish Absalon class.
@ TW
One way to potentially reduce costs on the T45 is to remove the longer range air search radar, the spinny one at the back (are you all keeping up with these technical terms?)
According to BAE, so I’m taking their word at face value here, that system is not really needed. They say the ship was designed with SAMPSON in mind and that SAMPSON should be sufficient for the task. “Apparently” they were essentially forced to put the second radar on, for reasons that are unclear.
Now in T45 it does serve a purpose, operating on a different band to the SAMPSON and being optimised for long range search. This facilitates the use of SAMPSON for focusing on shorter range target engagements while allowing the other unit to maintain a high degree of long range coverage.
A batch 2 T45 could probably drop this radar and save cash, maybe use the space for something else like Tomahawk (yes, I am obsessed).
In the long run, surely there is more room for wiggling in new things to that design (like top notch sonar) and with savings leveraged due to the fact that the design is current, tested (or at least would require less testing than a brand new design) and having got the production process in the bag surely BAE can leverage savings compared to building a brand new ship?
Flexible modular wotsits and increasing accommodation for penny packets of troops are hidings to nothing.
The main question is whether there is space aft at the 02 level for handling towed/VD sonars and such?
By “flexible” I didn’t mean interchangeable modules, but permanent accommodation which can be adapted for different purposes. It could be for command and control, or for marines, or for disaster relief work and emergency evacuations (seem to be a lot of those), or for managing different weapon suites.
I like the idea of a batch 2 of T45s which TD suggested ages ago for the ASW role and upgrade all to be a better all round GP vessels. The focus should be on getting a useful MHPC design that can perform other roles (UAV mothership and RM assault) in a much greater numbers.
My question is that if for batch 2 T45 ASW vessels you took away the requirement to operate Chinooks, could you extend the hanger back to house two Merlins?
@ Tony W
Firstly an apology. I hammered out my last post quickly and on second reading it sounds a bit sharp for which I apologise.
I know what you are saying but I am still not sure. It is a given that “bigger” ships are better; Brown often suggested in his writings for Very Long Range variants of warships. The longer a ship is the more “efficient” balanced against bigger engines. More volume means bigger bunkers, more space for stores etc. (so less demand on auxiliaries.) So I suppose extra messdeck space could be found for emergencies……
@ Repulse
T45 has enough beam for a hanger that could accommodate 2 Merlin side-by-side. The problem is finding a home for the RIB……..
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/15/7bf8c078-e6d8-4cc1-9f32-ba127d431c07.Full.jpg
There are lots of what-if stretched Daring pictures on the web.
@X, thanks. Perhaps the ribs could go internally and launch through a stern ramp. Maybe, an extended hanger without the ribs could support 3 ASW Merlins or 2 troop carrier Merlins + 2 Lynxs? That would be a real game changer…
If you put the RIBs on 2 deck where would you put the towed array/VDS?
(I have just noticed above I typed 02 level. Whoops!)
There should be plenty of space for everything in T45; there appears to be a lot spare. But I suppose if too much is moved about the re-design becomes more complicated and so expensive.
As I have said several times here my current favourite idea for a cheap ASW frigate would be an Absalon / Iver Huitfeldt hybrid. The basic layout and weapons of the former and the engines of the the latter. That would eat into the internal space but still leave a big space for towed array and VD sonars.
To fiddle with the specialist AAW Type 45 design to get to a £350-400M ASW/general-purpose frigate has as much, if not more potential to go wrong as starting with a new purpose-designed ship, i.e.: Type 26. So, it will not happen, and should not happen. Apply lessons learnt from T45 design process and government propensity for cutting programmes by all means though.
Pred – what a defeatist attitude ! There is much to be gained from a second batch of T45 with ASW specific kit, and as the ships construction is modular and it was designed with built in weight and growth margin, it may be less complicated than you think. Remove the long range 3D air search, shift stuff around on the arse end under the flight deck for the T2087 Towed array, maybe move the boat bays forward a little for hanger wide enough for 2 x Merlin and et voila….
By the way we have had these conversations before; My take on the Absalon for the RN:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/fdr-maritime-futures-part-2-another-view-on-c2/
And TD Admin and myself on a joint article on a replacement for the T23, including my rough graphic of an ASW derivative T45 BII:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/11/the-future-of-the-royal-navy-05-%E2%80%93-the-type-23-replacement/
one of the the best ever:
“TD Admin and myself on a joint article on a replacement for the T23″
- we should have a rerun, as the split to T26 and the other, four-letter acronym (which I never remember) is still at the requirements stage (for that latter); numbers required/ to be funded surely flow out of the capability overlap and what the other type singularly cannot do… just look at the T45 and its hot-war capabilities; while they are not required, she/ they can be SIGINT for any task force, large or small (the latest news)
Jed said “shift stuff around on the arse end”
You and your sailor talk. No you are right an ASW version of T45 is eminently sensible. As you say it is more about removing than adding stuff. Final gate price for Astute is £650m. Using Brown’s 60/40 weapons & sensors / hull ratio gives a cost of about £260million for the hull. Leaving £140 for weapons and sensors. It would be hard to buy everything from the gun to Smart-L to Aster15/CAMM in the VLS with a budget of that size. Saying that it would go along way to cover the costs. I don’t believe for a minute that BAE will keep to the £400million. But one way to stop cost creeping up is to save money on hull design. Unless God radically changes the physical properties of water and matelots why do we need a new hull? One of the design requirements of T45 was that it was to be quieter than T42; as we all know T22 was a lot more noisier than Leander and T22 weren’t bad ASW ships. So all that is perhaps need is one of those fancy air bubble systems for the prop’. And thinking about it the spool for towed array can be virtually anywhere in the last water tight zone. Or the next one over for that matter. There is a lot spare volume in T45.
As for Abaslon it isn’t quick enough. It needs that extra set of diesels. Now there is a design that could be kept to £400million.
X – cost benefit trade off’s for T45 BII are plentiful:
1. You want it to be “under the radar” development of a “full spectrum” war fighting sleek grey bringer of death, then keep SAMSON and Aster.
2. You want cheap and cheerful AAW self protection alongside the ASW capabilities then ARTEMIS and CAMM should be fine (and cheaper)
3. You want land attack alongside either of the above, then add the 16 Sylver A70 “strike length” cells that the design already has space for and buy some SCALP-N (no, we are never going to fit MK41 and Tomahawk, so lets get over it).
As for noise, stealthiest platform for purely passive towed array is the SSN. Towed arrays are evolving into hybrid active / passive sonars, with the passive element tilting towards being the receiving element multi-static active LF. In other words I don’t think underwater radiated noise is going to be a problem.
As for Absalon – we would not need the full flex deck, shift the internals around a bit and fit bigger set of diesels, not that I think they need a high sprint speed if they would be our workhorse “global patrol” frigate – tactical speed is provided by carried boats (SCM90E or RHIBS) and helo’s. Absalon derivative built in foreign yards and fitted out in the UK, with ARTEMIS, Harpoons lifted from T23′s and fitted for but not yet with CAMM should be quite cheap ??? Need to budget to convert 2 x Phalanx into SeaRAM for each hull, or they would have zero anti-air self defence until CAMM comes into full operational use.