Why Type 45 Gold Plating Matters
Share by EmailIt is fashionable to deride the ‘gold plating’ of defence equipment that inevitably leads a spiral of increasing costs and decreasing quantities but we must not forget that sometimes that gold plating is there for a reason.
The Type 45 is the poster child of the gold plating tendency; everyone (me included) cites the project as a typical example, pointing to the billion pound plus cost and ever decreasing numbers but let’s not forget, the enemy has a vote and opposing defence technology does not stand still.
When push comes to shove and the crew of a Type 45 plus whatever she is protecting are looking down the barrel of a salvo of supersonic anti-ship missiles I want them to have the gold plating needed to come out the other side.
It is also worth noting that the specification for Type 45 and its weapon systems were ultimately derived from experience in the Falklands conflict, harsh and expensively won experience.
Just to reinforce the point, have a read of this story from RIANOVOSTI
A contract on the supply of advanced Russian anti-ship missiles to Syria is being implemented, head of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Mikhail Dmitriyev said on Wednesday.
Russia has repeatedly said it would honor a 2007 contract on the delivery of several Bastion anti-ship missile systems armed with SS-N-26 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles to Syria, despite efforts by Israel and the United States to stop the deal.
“This contract is under implementation,” Dmitriyev told reporters in Moscow but declined to elaborate.
The SS-N-26 Yakhont/Onyx is a 3 tonne missile with a maximum range of 300km and has a warhead weighing 250kg. The coastal defence version is called the SSC-5 Bastion and is launched from a modified Scud Transporter Erector Launcher (TEL), each one having 3 rounds.
It’s performance is reportedly ‘fearsome’ with a top speed in excess of Mach 2.5 any of its targets are going to need every last drop of performance, or gold plating depending on whether you are a sailor or accountant!
Just in case there is any doubt, have a look at a map of what 300km looks like off the coast of Syria.
SSN 26 Range
This is a fundamental dilemma we face with defence equipment and there does not seem to be any easy answer, maintaining technology superiority is not cheap.
Category: Land, Sea and Air
About the Author (Author Profile)
Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Effective AShM range differs a lot from theoretical AShM range.
This is especially true for OTH range weapons.
For one, there’s the targeting problem. Has (for example) Syria the sensors to spot a ship reliably beyond the horizon (and identify it, tell it apart from decoys)?
The next issue is flight profile. Yakhont has 300 km range in hi-lo profile, but only 120 km in a lo-lo profile (publicly known figures).
Then there’s the question about whether the Aster missile is effective against such a threat. The published SAM tests are without exception unimpressive in their setup.
More importantly, if the Italian’s think the cost of fitting Cavour with Aster 15 (and EMPAR) was justified, how come we have not done the same with the CVF’s? To be honest most of the defence aids on Cavour seem to be exceeding what we will fit CVF with.
SSN 26 is an interesting threat but it has been around since 1993 and has an export version. Combined with the fact that it goes active at 50km giving it 2 minutes still to fly and it being a group 1 missile i am fairly certain that we have well developed proceedures in place based on hard kill followed by soft kill measure.
So the SS-N-26 can hit royal navy ships at Akrotiri.
The MOD is always very carm about other contries exports.
The problem with the Type 45 was that we decided to both buy a missile which, so far, has not even been tested against a supersonic SSM target, as well as developing our own radar and fire control instead of just using what came with it originally. This massively increased costs and delays, but doubtless made the French happy. Everyone else bought Aegis off the shelf, which is both proven and works….meantime, instead of a class of 8-12, we now have to make do with 6. The A400 will reduce the RAF air transport capacity by half, the Eurofighter has effectively reduced the RAF by half…please God stop parroting the utter crap that Euro projects “make sense to reduce costs” Mr Ashdown
T45 is not gold plated, its half finished ! No CIWS, no ASHM, no torpedo’s………
Personal view but but looking at where surface to surface and air to surface weapons are now and where they will be next decade you either have warships that you fit with everything or you have vessels you can afford to lose.
Where exactly does Type 26 like vessels fit in that equation? Point Defence is not going to be good enough.
@RF: EMPAR I thought was designed for covering a carrier group, whereas SAMPSON has broader area defence capabilities. With this in mind as long as T26s are “escorted” by T45s then similar capabilities are not necessarily required. AEGIS is also a good system but also has it’s limitations in saturated attack due to the fact the arrays are fixed – when you say proven though what do you mean?
I agree with Jed though, the T45 is half finished both in weapon / ASW capabilities and numbers.
When the government / RN finally realizes / accepts that we should have a single general purpose high level class it will a happy day or too late.
Jed,
Daring has had a very fetching pair of Phalanx 1Bs since the summer, and should be getting Harpoon shortly.
Have to agree with everyone so far.
TD, I posted about this earlier, pointing to the danger of these things ending up in the Gulf (Syria paying its only remaining supporter…)
RE Sven’s “Has (for example) Syria the sensors to spot a ship reliably beyond the horizon (and identify it, tell it apart from decoys)?”
- I think not
- but why not fit out a few fishing trawlers? They don’t have to cover the whole field to be effective
RE “the Italian’s think the cost of fitting Cavour with Aster 15 (and EMPAR) was justified, how come we have not done the same with the CVF’s”
- that’s a pure self-defence version
- I believe that the T45s are not only more numerous but more capable than the Italian fit-out on their two AA FREMMs? But that’s not the whole point as Cavour is designed to be able to stay on station in expeditionary mode (marines, AFVs…)for up to 6 months. It could not have that kind of protection idling on its side at all times
Does it actualy work though?
I keep hearing all this talk about the fearsome Russian Military Technology, but I dont really recall ever seeing it in action.
Russia itself had to resort to carpet bombing cities to force Georgia into a surrender, and virtualy flattened Grosney.
Where else has Russian Tech surpassed NATO?
Syrias supposedly unstoppable SAM network was turned off by the Israelis before they bombed the most heavily defended target in the country.
Personaly, I dont think the T45s are gold plated, the costs are only so high because we bought so few, actual construction was only £650mn per ship.
I’d argue US/Israeli concerns are far more likely to be that a couple of these missiles will find their way into Hamas/Hezbollah/Brotherhood of Nod hands and used against a civillian ferry, necessitating a “blood price” response.
I agree with the genweral view that they arent gold plated, true, the radar and combat systems are very very good, but they dont have ASTER 45, they dont have any self defence capability, they dont have an ASW capability and they dont have a land attack capability.
Tubby
I’m sure we did look at fitting a SAMPSON/ASTER combo to CVF, but, as our very own Jed told me once, “if you emit, you die”.
As expensive as the T45s are, if it protects the carrier, they are sacrifical.
“I believe that the T45s are not only more numerous but more capable than the Italian fit-out on their two AA FREMMs?”
Italy has two Horizon destroyers and 6 (had to be 10, but 4 are likely not to happen) FREMM frigates. Said frigates have the SAAM-ESD, which is self-defence only, but with the VLS Sylver A50 instead of the A43. This means that the launcher is deep enough to take on board and launch the longer-range Aster 30 if necessary.
It is not as capable as the Horizon at all, but better than SAAM only with Aster 15.
The Horizon itself is a bit weaker than Type 45 in AAW work. It also misses a gun suitable for naval gunfire support. (It has 3 76 mm Strales guns, but mainly they are CIWSs, not very suited for shore bombardment). They do have, however, ASW torpedoes and SSM missiles fitted. You could just fit them onto Type 45, however, as it is fit to receive them anytime. Personally, i had hoped that the Harpoons and torpedoes from the retired Type 22s would migrate onto the first four Type 45s, but for some reasons it does not seem to be happening.
The 45s also have space for 16 more VLS cells, so tomorrow morning, given the funding, you could have a programme to fit MK41 Strike Lenght cells, opening the way to SM3, TLAM and even ASROC if you wanted.
The two FREMM air-defence you mention are not italian, but French. They are called FREDA, frigates for air defence, and are modified FREMMs designs. They are a partial replacement for a planned second couple of Horizon destroyers that will not come.
France and Italy have 2 Horizons each, integrated, in Italy’s case, by all FREMMs having SAAM-ESD, and in France’s case by 2 specially-modified frigates with Air Defence role.
RE: Aster 15 and CVF
ACC: “But that’s not the whole point as Cavour is designed to be able to stay on station in expeditionary mode (marines, AFVs…)for up to 6 months. It could not have that kind of protection idling on its side at all times”
Surely given that we are now trying to use CVF in a very similar role now to Cavour (with a tailored air group likely to be heavy in helicopter’s and very likely with embarked marines) then we should equip for self defence in the same way as we are also unlikely to be able to have more than one frigate attached in sustained operation.
Dominicj “I’m sure we did look at fitting a SAMPSON/ASTER combo to CVF, but, as our very own Jed told me once, “if you emit, you die”.”
I have heard the same thing from Jonesy over on the Key Publishing Forum, when describing how a strike carrier works, but the point I am making is that CVF is not a strike carrier any more we have turned it to something very different, which can be used as a strike carrier but is much more likely to be used to support marine operations with a small number of F-35C’s and few escorts in low intensity conflicts. I bet money in the long term the RN will be much more interest in what rotary wing, UAV and manned fixed wing ISTAR/transport assets it can operate of the CVF.
Thanks Gabby, I meant the Italian Horizons. How I hate acronyms (for getting them wrong every now and then)!
About the SM3, doesn’t it need target illumination whereas the Asters are actively homing? So there’s more to it than just dropping them down to VL silos?
- personally I think the active homing is a great asset in a saturation attack type of situation
@AAC
The SM3 is guided from the launching ship for most of the time, yes. The kinetic projectile homes on the target only very close to terminal engagement. Then again, even active-homing missiles such as Aster dialogue with the ship’s systems at least for a part of the engagement.
The Sampson is said to be more than capable to direct exo-atmospheric engagements. Just like with the Aegis radar itself, it is more of a software issue than anything: the radar has to concentrate all its power of emission on a tiny ray some 2 degrees wide, and scan vertically to spot the ballistic missile from 1500 or more miles away.
(such a concentrated emission also has potential, at some ranges, to work as electronic weapon, and eventual exposition to such emission power is said to give people what is cruelly but effectively termed FLK (Funny-Looking Kids)…!
As for integration, of course it is not just a matter of VLS, some integration is required. But the Dutch and Raytheon are doing most of that themselves:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2777971/posts
The Dutch are going to use SM3 on their ships, with the SMART-L radar.
The S1850 long-range radar on Type 45 is a variant of SMART-L, so there might be an off-the-shelf, ready solution soon enough, if the UK decides to have a part in the missile shield.
SM3 on Type 45, with anti-ballistic and anti-satellite capability, isn’t impossible at all. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be that complex.
Totally agree with TD on this.
If the ships are gonna be put in harms way I would rather they have the gold plated than not. That’s presuming the gold plating actually works as advertised!
@Repulse: SAMPSON does have better capabilities than EMPAR. But given that Hawkeye has better capabilities than either for the most likely targets, it could be considered a moot point. Aegis’s SPY-1A/D wholly electronically scanned arrays scan faster than SAMPSON, were designed from 30 years ago for saturation attacks by supersonic AS4, and have actually been tested against supersonic representative targets: the USN bought Russian KH-31′s, modified them to “MA-31′s” and used them for testing, and it developing a new drone.
Sounds very good to me (from Gabby’s link):
“Raytheon’s dual-band datalink will allow ships that use AEGIS and SMART-L/APAR variants to employ the full range of Standard Missiles. Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom operate more than 20 naval vessels that utilize a variant of the SMART-L/APAR radar system.
… and Denmark will add three more by 2013 [these are probably in the total already, whereas the following are not]. Norway and Spain operate AEGIS frigates.”
Other point of note on SSN 26 is that it has a minimum range of 50km so unless they are going to move them inland and have a clear area for them to fly out to sea they would be useless against a NATO task group imposing an embargo at 12-18NM from shore. these are a purely offensive weapon.
@RF The way to attempt to defeat Aegis is the exact opposite of how you defeat a normal warship. You make all your missiles arrive from the same direction and overload 1 plate. sampson rotates and can be steered making this extremely difficult. it is also a generation ahead of SPy in terms of anti jamming agility.
Much as I hate to pay 1BN a piece and wish they had everything they were meant to they will develop into decent platforms.
The intro of CAMMS will allow quad packing of a missile with a range of 16NM for self defence and shorter range engagements allowing extra launchers for aster 30 and Mk 41 silo for TLAM plus CIWS and harpoon will see a mature 45 become an extremely capable combatant.
Self Defence ASW torpedoes are really a last resort and it is unlikely a sub would ever get close enough for them to be effective.
Hi APATS,
I agree with “Much as I hate to pay 1BN a piece and wish they had everything they were meant to they will develop into decent platforms.
The intro of CAMMS will allow quad packing of a missile with a range of 16NM for self defence and shorter range engagements allowing extra launchers for aster 30 and Mk 41 silo for TLAM plus CIWS and harpoon will see a mature 45 become an extremely capable combatant.”
But the SSN 26s you exactly pull inland, behind the mountains (hi-lo mission profile), have target acquisition on the shore line or on the mountains (or up in the air, or in a fishing trawler)… so that it all becomes networked, and to weed it out you will have to take out every single launcher
Warning Jed and others…. anti RN comment coming!!!
According to the BAE t45 Website:
“Right from the beginning of the Type 45 project the comfort of the crew and the standard of their accommodation has been of primary importance.”
Maybe they have gold-plated taps? See what I did then?
Seriously I do wonder how much effort they put in to the war-fighting aspects compared to the creature comforts?
Does it have room for the Captains Range Rover for example?
I hope there is enough room for a cocktail lounge, yes of course there is, that’s where the second 48 cell Sylver launcher was going?
Sorry just couldn’t help myself
@PD
Actually it was a bit of commonsense, somebody worked out that having a maximum of 6 man cabins for junior rates didn’t take up anymore space than a huge 48 bed mess deck. Small ensuite technology as used in ferried is also utilised in more cabins and uses less space.
As for the “cocktail lounge”, a wardroom without room for a proper game of mess rugby is not a proper wardroom.
@Phil Darley
“…comfort of the crew and the standard of their accommodation” regarded as important? Outrageous!
When, many moons ago, the Royal Navy put a photo of a sailor on the first page of the Divisional Officer’s Handbook (BR 1992) with a caption underneath stating “THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR”, that should have been enough. No one actually believed he or she deserved such ‘treats’ as decent living quarters before being packed off to sea for seven or eight month at a time, often working in Defence Watches (interminable bouts of six hours on/six hours off as well as having to complete normal ‘day work’, personal admin, eat, sleep and, yes, enjoy some recreational activity such as keeping fit during one’s ‘off time’).
I believe sailors even have their own bunks with bunk lights and privacy curtains nowadays instead of hammocks. They still live several together in a mess deck, the size of which which would contravene DEFRA regulations for keeping pigs, but as to having a separate eating/recreational space? Well, I ask you. They’ll be asking for TVs, internet connections and iPod docking stations next. What was wrong with sitting around an old gramophone in the middle of the mess deck (apart from the needle slipping on the record whenever it blew more than a Force 2 and keeping everyone awake before they went on watch)?
The Navy’s going to the dogs, I tell you. Going to the dogs!
On a serious note I have no problem of the need for good accommodation but I don’t think it should have been their PRIMARY concern! Secondary maybe, nice to have, aspiration etc.
Primary concern should have been the ships war fighting capability?
However, I could be totally wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time , just ask the wife!
France in March 2007 acquired ONE Coyote supersonic target drone from the US at a cost of 9.2 USD millions… I think it was meant to be used against PAAMS for trialing the missile against a real supersonic threat (Coyote can run against you low on the water at mach 2.5 or dive from high above at over 3!).
Launch was expected in 2009, but to this day, the trial still hasn’t happened. I’m not aware of what happened with the French effort.
As for the RN, they have long wished to acquire such drone targets for high level training, but… Coyote costs over 3 million dollars apiece for the US Navy, and France had to pay it over 9 millions! And it is meant to be blown into bits!!!! The US Navy itself only buys a very handful now and then. How can the RN hope to fund such an acquisition…? At 9 million dollars, even a single target drone would mean sinking money that would be far better spent for buying some PACSCAT landing crafts for the RM, or other kit.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/combined-aerial-target-service-cats.html
Phil
But people ARE the primary warfighting capability.
As long as we need a person in the OODA (dont shout Sven) loop, we need a rested, happy, functional person.
Admitadly, I very much doubt it was the “primary consideration”, the ships simply massive compared with the preevious one, and requires fewer crewmen.
They had empty space, what else would they do with it?
I muist admit, watching Albion on “Warship” made me wonder what the hell overload entailed, half the marines swimming behind?
@Sven, I am not discounting the difficulties of targeting and thanks for the clarification on stats but do you think the deployment or even threat of deployment of this system (and it’s like) has that final target identification as a high priority?
@APATS, does everything we might need to protect have the right mix of hard and soft countermeasures?
@Rupert, ah, you touch on the fundamental dilemma, does buying off the shelf actually end up cheaper overall and is its performance good enough?
@Jed, fair one
@AJ, does CAMM on T26 coupled with an outer layer(s) from T45 make a sensible mix?
@Repulse, another interesting point, specialist v generalist
@ACC, yes, as you close down the distance between launcher and target you of course have to shave time off response times, maybe this is where the 20% of performance but 80% of cost lies
@Dom, it’s a good point but the system as a whole isn’t fully mature yet so I am sure confidence building testing will proceed, as will beefing up capabilities. For a given bundle of cash I would concentrate on AAW enhancements and training rather than making it into a more general purpose ship. T45 has to be absolutely on tip top form when push comes to shove.
@Gabby, however anyone thinks BMD might be easy or not I do not think there is any chance of Mk41 and SM3 ever appearing on a UK surface vessel. Anything is possible of course but would be very surprised.
@Phil, what can I say! In all fairness though, matelots today have different expectations (as do all service personnel) so on a retention tack, it’s important to make the ship a better place to be, you never know, it probably works out cheaper in the long run if it contributes to less crew churn. I don’t buy into ‘it was different in my day’ stuff even though I am as guilty as the next man, because the world changes and the services have to adapt. I think the accommodation was all modular by the way, have a look here for a spot of background
http://www.strongboxmarine.co.uk/content/pages/defence.html
All
The general point I am trying to make is that it is easy to deride gold plating and lament what it produces in terms of quantity reductions etc but there are no easy answers, going for the fashionable 80% might have not so pleasant consequences
@TD
The capital ships that require protection from this sort of threat should certainly be fitted with soft kill countermeasures. Hard kill other than CIWS would not be fitted generally as RN policy has always been one of layered air defence. Roughly something like(some orders and points vary dependent on threat) AEW and CAP(organic or not) followed by area air defence platforms(42/45) then PDMS/short range air defence systems either for self protection or by an FF in the babysitter position on the HVU and finally soft kill by all vessels fitted. it would be up to the AAWC to designate an ASMD course for the task force and the PWO/CO of any unit assigned to “babysit” the HVU to ensure they were in a position that allowed them not only to engage the incoming threat with hardkill but also ensure that there softkill did not interfere with any launched by the HVU.
On accommodation for the crew, no problem until the Trafalgars are around. On them, you can still end up sleeping on a torpedo rack, with a TLAM on one side and a Spearfish on the other…!
I’d love to see the inside of one of the US Navy SSGNs… how the hell did they find the space inside the sub for carrying “66 to 102 SEALS”, i’ll never know. After all, two Trident tubes now are pressure chambers for going in and out, and the others filled with TLAMs.
There should not be any additional space inside than there was when the tubes contained Trident missiles… so, how is it even possible? I don’t think the Ohio had single-bed hotel rooms for each member of the crew….
Gab
Well presumably the pressure chambers are semi liveable
BAE systems will test a modified sampson radar for BMD tracking early next year. I would think this will probably be in the pipe line in the future probably on a aster missile. Also hasnt type 45 not recently got a intelligence gathering capability. I think there are some areas in each of the service were we just have to accept “gold plating”. Mainly fastjet a/c, surface to air missile capability (t45 being our only area defence missile system, submarines and MBTs.
@ Rupert, I disagree with your statement concerning Aegis VS SAMPSON. Aegis was first developed in 1969 (13 years before the ZX spectrum). I think its shear American arrogance to asume that this is the be all and end all of AAW Radar. It does have its faults. It ain’t cheap and as far as I know the only time it has actually been tested in combat was against an Iranian Airliner. To my knowledge the only vessel to ever successfully engage a sea skiming missle in a combat situation is HMS Gloucester in 1991.
While no one can deny that T45 was an uber cluster f**K in procurment terms I do feel the RN has got the right ship. I think the biggest issue was trying to build a 7000 tonne AAW destroyer and kiding ourselves the job could be done for £300 million a pop. The Flight III burkes are working out at £1.2 billion each with little in the way of R&D cost absorbed into that as the program is already mature. As for the extra bits. I want to see TLAM, SeaRAM, Torpedos and Phasers onboard as much as the next man. However if we are being brutally honnest other than TLAM none of these weapons systems would probably ever get used in the next 30 years. It was better to spend every last penny possible on the best Radar and AAW missle’s and add the rest later. I also feel that the ASTER missle has allot of legs in it and can be further developed. SM1 was first deployed in 1967 and SM2 which SM3 is based on was deployed in 1979. Do we really feel that technoligy is moving so slowly that we should opt for 30 year old missles on our new shinny ships.
One thing people are forgetting about AEGIS vs Sampson is probably the most important radar lesson that was learnt from the Falklands; higher = better.
The higher the radar, the further the horizon over which it can see low flying targets, something which Sampson has a huge advantage in. It also has a combo between the long range search radar for tracking multiple targets at range while the Sampson can deal with actual engagements.
I was wondering if anyone knows if the two radar systems onboard the T45 gives it an improved ability to detect stealthed targets. I know NATO conducted a study which stated that the optimum layout for an AAW vessel was to have a wide area search radar combined with a phased array targetting radar. Do the different bands of these systems make it harder for an aircraft such as the T50 to get closer?
Mark, I think you make a good point, there are some things where the very best is only just good enough and we just have to accept the cost, this of course produces pressure points elsewhere because the budget is of course finite. Maybe this is something we should arguably do more of, nominate those priority capabilities where cutting edge and paying for cutting edge is acceptable, conversely nominate things where good enough or the well worn phrase of 80% is acceptable.
So its not gold plating that is the enemy, but gold plating in areas where silver plating will do
Like £60bn vehicle programs……
I am sure someone here posted up a power point presentation not long ago that showed that there was going to be an interim development of Aster before Block 2 which would give limited ABM capability and which was already funded (if my memory serves me right as part of the complex weapons programme).
Gabby
regarding the Ohio SSGNs, I think they cut down the length of all the tubes so there is a lot of space underneath them.
Perhaps as the BAe Hawks are retiring, we could make drones out of them? Just an idea, the Americans do it, and BAe is part of the team in developing the QF-16 drone…
Would make FRADU a bit more interesting ;D
I cant see how the cost was so high but these things having a lot of ‘fitted for but not with’ – I hope the ’22 and ’23 kit is eventually migrated across as they retire.
@Rupert Fiennes,
MA-31 flies fast, but (relatively) high, and in a straight line – as did Vandal before it. AEGIS has *never* been tested against a supersonic weaving threat either, at least in reality… the modelling and simulation, though, says you’d want T45 rather than AEGIS against something like SS-N-26.
Also, E-2 radar isn’t well optimised for tracking low-RCS missiles right down on the deck – another significant driver for R1045 – and won’t provide sufficiently accurate data for engagement. Warning yes, firing no. (CEC is still a misnomer – it’s fantastic for picture, but you can’t acquire and engage tracks off it)
AEGIS/SM-2 is good kit, but it is definitely showing its age and it’s the gold standard that the threat is designing to beat.
@Mike,
Drone Hawks wouldn’t tell us a great deal – determinedly subsonic and relatively large RCS.
My memory was a tad faulty I was talking about this presentation: http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Phil_Jackson.pdf
Not clear if the Aster Block 1NT is funded or not, but it does look like it is, and that limited TBMD is intended to be introduced in 2016 with the Aster Block 1NT.
@TD, I totally agree with your statement. If the country is only prepared to spend £6 billion for AAW and that buys 6 ships then we get 6 ships. I think silver plating is far more the RN’s problem. Ships to expensive to build in numbers but not really capable of doing the high end job. Better to go for a few gold and allot of brass.
@Martin
“I was wondering if anyone knows if the two radar systems onboard the T45 gives it an improved ability to detect stealthed targets…”
- Isn’t this what PAAMS’ much-vaunted ability to detect, classify and destroy a low-flying supersonic object having the RCS (Radar Cross-Section) of a cricket ball – or indeed several at once – all about?
Think the RAF has a few GR4′s going spare that we could use for target practice. We could save a fortune on the future upgrade program.
@Dunservin I take your point about PAMS. However stealth aircraft or missles are generally optomised to defeat certain types of Radar. I am unclear if having both D and S band systems gives any additional advantage in how early certain targets can be detected. Personally I would not like to fly even a stealthy aircraft like T50 any where near an s band phased array but as the Argintines pointed out in 1982 if you know enough about a single radar there is always a way to trick or defeat it upto a certain point. Having two surley makes such tactics more difficult.
Most “stealth” planes are designed to beat X-band radars, but there’s a good reason why X-band radars are used for targetting which, to the best of my knowledge, is because they provide the optimal mix between detection ranges, classification ability and targetting. The Type 45 may be able to detect stealth targets at long range, without neccessarily improving its ability to target them.
But I still think Type 45 is better than an aegis equipped cruiser.
“@Sven, I am not discounting the difficulties of targeting and thanks for the clarification on stats but do you think the deployment or even threat of deployment of this system (and it’s like) has that final target identification as a high priority?”
ID is important in order to avoid wasting ammo on decoys.
The coastal defence role is least relevant, though – so I’d like to object to the example. Coastal defence threats are no threats. You cannot be attacked by Syrian SSMs if you stay away from their region. I don’t see Turkey feeling threatened, nor Cyprus – so the West can be fine with those missiles. They are no threat.
AShMs fired from mobile platforms don’t put such a premium on long range. In fact, long range is often detrimental. You cannot combine normal ARMs for a combined arms attack on a ship from 100 km, for example. You need to close in somewhat, and as naval pilots (Tornado IDS, for example) claim, you need now a combination of ARM, AShM and bombs to succeed against a capable opponent.
Even a beyond the horizon missile such as Aster 30 coupled with targeting data from an aerial radar (AEW) would not push the desirable attack distance beyond 60-80 km.
TD
Yes I would agree with that we also need to ensure these high end assets are cost controlled as best we can. This in my view is were co-operation with the US or France (keeping this group as small as possible would be of benefit) will be important in terms of joint procurement of platforms bringing some benefits of economy of scale and through joint supply chains for thru life support. The number of these gold plated assets must be scaled for a UK only operational requirement eg most likely up to a single medium scale op.
A high low mix for sure is the way forward but the politicians must be warned exactly what the low end of that mix cant do.
chris b
sometimes detection is enough.
Lob a missile, you can always update later, and a launch might be plenty to scupper an attack.
Mark
france and the us are the last people we should be cooperating with on procurement.
We offer each other nothing.
We can drop out of something and buy it in, the frogs can drop out of something else and buy from us.
But theres no such thing as half a design team and the eurofighters shown you cant have half a production facility.
@Mark, I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but wasn’t the reason why the Horizon project split was that the RN was looking for something different and the French / Italians were being too greedy on what share of the construction contacts they got vs planned numbers. The USN, RN and MN are still quite different in how they view the world and their needs.
I really wish the RN / MOD would get the hi-low bit, twice the number of T45s (with the additional bits) with equal numbers of dumbed down global patrol T26s plus helicopter carrying EEZ patrol Rivers is exactly what we need in my view…