HMS Defender came out of dry dock today as the complex programme to maintain and update the Type 45 destroyer moves ahead.
PIPKeep
HMS Defender began a complex £68M upkeep, engine replacement and weapons upgrade project in July 2023. She was taken into number 15 dry dock in Portsmouth, the hull was cut open and three new diesel generators inserted as the key work on the Power Improvement Project. Ultimately the PIP project aims to achieve 4 out of 6 Type 45s available (not necessarily at sea) by the end of 2025. (Although this is subject to the very challenging project to regenerate HMS Daring. The long period of dormancy, about 9 years without going to sea operationally, makes it much more difficult to bring the ship back into working condition).
Concurrently with PIP, Defender is also undergoing a major upkeep period, the ship has previously been run hard since her last major refit lasting 18 months completed in 2018.
CIP
HMS Defender is also in a Capability Insertion Period as the first of the Type 45s to be fitted with Sea Ceptor missiles housed in a separate 24-cell silo that will be added in front of the existing Sylver VLS silo. The additional silo is being manufactured separately ashore and will be lifted on to be embodied in the ship. She will also be fitted with the Naval Strike Missile, replacing the obsolete Harpoon anti-ship missile system as well as giving the Type 45s a modest land-attack capability for the first time. Defender is expected to return to the fleet in the Summer of 2026.
In October HMS Diamond began the same PIPKeep / weapon upgrade as HMS Defender but a higher level of Capability Insertion is required as she missed a refit a few years ago. She had an unplanned motor replacement that resulted in planned work being deferred. Diamond will shortly enter the dry dock vacated by Defender.
The Type 45s are also set to benefit from the Sea Viper Evolution programme which will equip them with anti-medium range ballistic missile capable Aster 30 Block 1 missiles, upgrades to the Sampson radar, Sea Viper command and control systems. IOC for SV-E is February 2028 with Diamond the first vessel to be equipped.
Photos: Steve Wenham
Related articles
Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers – reaching their full potential with addition of Sea Ceptor missiles
The evolving approach to maximising Royal Navy warship availability in Portsmouth
In focus: The Power Improvement Project for the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers
When will the Type 45 destroyers leave Royal Navy service?
Will Duncan go into refit or hold off if until they get Dragon or Daring back in?
Daring will never come back into service its been laid for nearly 9 years and its not spending money on her, it cost the taxpayer a billion to build and spent most of her life lying idle.
They’re in the process of restoring Daring, they’ve already finished the PIP work so unless they find something unfixable the plan is to restore it.
Any update on when daring is likely to put to sea
Exactly – the hull is pretty good it is just a question of putting all the stripped and STOROBed systems back together!
No small task but it is worth the effort and manpower as they are superb AAW destroyers and that is what everyone knows we need as well as ASW…..
It’s not like there are a lot of free major surface combatants just waiting around. Escort numbers are likely to drop down to 12 by 2027.
Canning the T23s freed budget for fixing Daring.
Hard to tell what they’re doing with the silo walls, they’ve taken some panels off but doesn’t look like they’ve cut it open yet
Interesting that they’re taking off the side panelling…wonder if they’ll go for side CAMM silos too? 2x3x6 in parallel with the Aster to give 36. Why not then add another 2×6 and have 48!? 96 with the Aster. That should do it!…LOL.
the graphic explains the layout of the 4 new ‘6 packs’
A hypothetical, but i wonder if they could actually shoe-horn any ex-T23 32 CAMM silos becoming available into this space with a bit of rework? And save a few quid?
T23 was an inventive bodge using the old Sea Wolf outer and putting inserts into them.
No way would you want that bodge transplanted onto a modern ship. I also think it would cost far more to produce a bespoke rather than turn the handle on a perfected x6 launcher module. Sometimes MOTS is the way to go. That way costs and timelines are fully understood – this is one of those times. We just need T45 to work properly.
In any case the complexity isn’t in producing the metal plug that sits in to top of the gym but in getting everything wired up to work on #1.
This is also a test out for T26 [mainly as it has BAE CMS and ARTISAN] and T31’s Sea Ceptor as they use the x6 launcher.
I remember seeing a photo somewhere of the CAMM fit out on the NZ Anzacs as a 6+4×2 arrangement so they managed to squeeze 20 CAMM into a single mk41 space. So 24 is okay but they really could do more with that space and not a half to 2/3rds job. And considering no missiles are currently reloadable and you don’t want to have to fire Aster’s at everything having a bit more CAMM on these great ships would be really handy.
There wasnt a ‘single’ Mk41 space unless you mean 2x 4 Mk41 pack plus the adjoining space that was ‘for but not with’
Great photos Duker. I didn’t realise there was a 2 x mk41 space there which must be the same space for the RAN Anzac’s but they only have the 1x mk41 with 32x ESSM.
That was what I meant, with the 6+4, 4 +6 arrangement.
Being a bit silly here but they could do a x4 and a x8 launcher for other ships spaces even for the RFA and the new MRSS. I wonder if they’ll get any CAMM?
9 years never ceases to shock 🙄
Is any one going to be held responsible for leaving Daring Idle for so long? Unbelievably reckless way to run a Navy. Next time up (eg. for the T84’s) we need to plan for high end ships to have built in longer refit times if things go wrong. People are always over optimistic on these kinds of work.You always need a minimum of 8 in a class. 6 is the worst of all worlds.You end up with 2 in Commission.
“T84’s” … crikey, we don’t even know what the T83’s will look like yet.
If they can get Dragon, Daring and Defender out next year, that’ll be a big win.
Dragon is nearly there, Daring has had all the PIP work done, but has likely been STOROBed heavily, so will be a fiddly job and Defender will be a major new A&A to complete and set to work. I’d expect Diamond to take a slightly slower path.
Depends how long Duncan can stay out before needing the PIP update.
Still, getting there – and not before time.
Defender is projected for 2026 iirc, which is kinda ridiculous
Which suggests they are doing more than fitting CAMM, PiP and NSM.
I suspect we will see that move up to second half of 2025.
Or they’re just their usual slow selves. Plus crewing is an issue, we’re already bringing dragon and Daring back in, it’s doubtful we can deploy a 4th ship
It is really down to a few key trades that are short.
Plenty of matelots looking for a berth and getting very frustrated with time ashore – I thing that is a part of the reason behind awful retention stats.
As I understand it there is one particular skill shortage.
I think we will probably be able to crew four with some use of reserves – which I encourage. All depending on what length and type of deployments are planned.
Reckon that means Dauntless has to be wrapped in cotton wool, so she’s available for CSG25!
Is there any news on the RN surface fleet that will accompany POW on CSG 25?
Only reference I’ve seen here is RFA Argus and Norwegian Maud as FSS in absence of RFA Fort Victoria. Tide and A boat should be possible. All guesses welcome for T23 and T45!
A Norwegian frigate will also participate. Although which one hasn’t been announced, HNoMS Otto Sverdrup has exercised with Maud and QNLZ before, so that would be my guess.
“ Sea Ceptor missiles housed in a separate 24-cell silo that will be added in front of the existing Sylver VLS silo“
Between the silo and the ASTER VLS
“The additional silo is being manufactured separately ashore and will be lifted on to be embodied in the ship.”
As I guessed it would be – but other kept saying it wouldn’t be…
Cutting the side off the breakwater is to be expected as the breakwater is also a blast deflector/containment. I’d expect it to be extended round the enlarged silo. You wouldn’t want the tubes, sealed canister or not, given a good dousing in a heavy sea state.
If the CEPTOR tubes are put in the same depth as the ASTER ones then potentially you could use the longer range flavours?
Do we have any of the longer range variants?
No, but we should.
We co-developed CAMM-ER with the Italians and the land launchers at least can take it, it seems silly not to design the missile into the newer ships.
Height limit on T26 midships silo might be an issue but the fore mushroom farm at least should have the depth, as well as here on T45.
CAMM-ER exists and was developed with the Italians.
CAMM-MR is being developed with Poland.
So these are not fantasy systems.
Thats because the British Army has zero-zilch-nada in the medium to long range air defence missiles. It never bought Patriot
The RN does with its Aster 15 and 30.
The Fantasy part is thinking there is a missile range gap in the RN
Wrong analysis.
There is a missile cost gap.
If you can fill the shorter range interdictions with cheaper missiles that are proven then you should/would.
If you want a stockpile of decent size then you want best value/HPK.
All of the CEPTOR family have the same front end and software so maintenance and stockpile costs would be vastly reduced.
Thats why standard Ceptor is fine – its the longer range CAMM thats for a non existent missile gap
The cheap drones all come at below 5000 ft or less
Of course there is a missile gap if T26 and T31 operates without T45 cover which there are only 6 with one of them mothballed.
T45 isnt a frigate configuration is it.
Anti missile system such as standard caam is very suitable to ‘catch the arrows’ within 10-25 kms
or as the picture shows in the NL story
Looking at that image, if the Camm silos are not too deck penetrative and they make the silo walls more rectangular they could get some more than 24 CAMM in there. Even another 8 will give you 32+48 Aster = 80 loadout. Anyway we’ll have to wait and see.
Theres two decks below empty space ( used for a small gym). Camm uses the upper space plus the above deck enclosure
Its not just the missile length, there is the gas generator at the bottom of the silo to create the cold launch gas which drives a ‘piston’
this image is just the reloadable launch tube ( common for land and sea) , the deck silo itself is bigger again and fixed of course
Thanks Duker. I’ve seen similar before and I believe it’s around 3m so still quite tall.
Morning SB, our last sales pitch for two mk41s or at least some additional CAMM side silos to take their loadout up to 36-48! Seems a waste of space utilisation with just the 24. Move the gym to the back somewhere. Or if they made the CAMM in 8 packs you’d get 32 in there and with 48 Asters you’ve got a nice 80 load out. I guess we have to look at the whole of the T45 upgrade and a real boost in their capabilities.
4 x ExLS (three cells each), would take 48 CAMM if quadpacked. Committing to quadpacking for T45, T26 and T31 seems the best way to go to me.
I think the ExLS was considered on earlier designs but is now only on the Canadian T26 unless thats changed?
There are no CAMM anymore in Canadian T26.
What happened there? Have they gone back to ESSM with an additional mk41? Wasn’t it something about their CMS not being compatible with CAMM…which sounds like code for being squeezed out! It’d be good to get an update on the RCN T26. And even better if the UK lands the Norwegian T26 order…with CAMM!
Navy Lookout topic and graphic
https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to-the-future-canadian-surface-combatant-the-river-class-destroyers/
Hi Duker, yes, i had seen that article but the “6 cell mk41” is still showing there so wonder what’s going in it if not CAMM? Maybe they’ll make it an 8 cell for ESSM if they’ve only got 3 mk41s up front? Looks pretty well kitted out.
Apparently there is now a RAM blk2 that fits in ExLS for vertical launch.
Not sure on its effectiveness relative to CAMM but it would certainly be more expensive. The Canadians already have it in service, however.
Bit odd that they have only 3x mk41 blocks up front when the Australians fitted 4.
Thanks for that . A great catch, quad packing apparently
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_Host_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
QuentinD63 and Supportive Bloke
You two have both made a good number of “very fair points”
However seems to me that the RN destroyer fleet is now copying the regular bad practice of the RN frigate fleet – becoming far better at being “dockyard queens” rather than “sailing on the high seas“.
Given the cost of all of these upgrades on the T45 and – especially – the sheer length of time being taken to upgrade these very complex ships = at what point does it become quicker and more economical tosimpy say:
“sod the T4% upgrade programme – just out and buy some new ships“
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Which gets built by whom, when?
That is the problem. There is no capacity to build T83 for ages.
If you could push a button and a new ship appeared by magic a few months later with its crew ready in a blister pack then I’d agree….
Spot on. No magic wand exists.
talking of refits, there is a stunning silence about HMS Richmond. I hope she is not going down the Westminster/Northumberland route.
The cost of these upgrades don’t even add up to the cost of one new destroyer though 1
In many ways the T45s are “new” given the time spent dockside rather than on operations…
Who knows exactly what is being done here?
Nothing has really been announced.
I doubt it will be Mk41 based. That was what the space was reserved for: as we all know.
I think if decisions were being made right now then it would be Mk41 VLS as that would give commonality with T31 and T26.
Which does make me wonder if there will be a pivot on this….just musing out loud mind….maybe, just maybe, the later upgraded ones will get Mk41…that would require an upgraded defence budget! It is the sort of upgrade of existing kit that an additional 0.3% gets you.
Check the Navy Lookout topic pages to find what is exactly being done
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-45-destroyers-reaching-their-full-potential-with-addition-of-sea-ceptor-missiles/
All the announcements were made in 2021
My comment was around the pivot in the world situation changing thinking.
I don’t understand how a 3 year old article assists in this matter?
Your words were …”nothing has been announced….who knows what has been done here ..”
The sea ceptor is being added to the missile launch area.
You havent kept up is why a 3 yr old story is VERY relevant.
Pivot in world situation???
Lol what has that to do with a mid life upgrade and refit, they are planned years in advance you know
Just 24 CAMM when it could easily be 36 or 48 or with 2 mk41s, 64. They’ve had a lot of time to further maximise the full potential. They could make the 5x T31s a hybrid 2x mk41/CAMM farm model and transfer mk41s over to the T45 or, better still, make a few more T31s… which would need 3×4 =12 mk41s, the same needed for the T45s.
*And remove the forward 40mm on the T31s which could be used to upgrade the B2 Rivers or go on the carriers.
All of this comes at a cost. What would you cut to pay for it? Even if there was an increase in the defence budget there is no guarantee that these plans would be top priority.
Defence equipment is always about making choices between useful things.
ATH, QuentinD63 and Supportive Bloke
According to the offical website gov.uk the costs of the three T45 fleet upgrade programmes – as annouced on the dates stated below – were given as follows:
Additionally, whilst the upgrade for NSM seems never to have been officially costed by gov.uk – it is however being widely reported that it is costing UK / RN £200m for fitting NSM to eleven ships
So lets add say an extra £100m for fiiting NSM to the T45 fleet
Those costs quoted above were at the then-current prices. However given the rip-roaring inflation over recent years, one can probaby add at least 35% to the above figures (simply to bring them to “current”)
Additionally one has to separately account for the purchase of the new missiles themselves (separate line item in the RN budget for the CAMM and BMD munitions themselves: apparently included in NSM?)
Additionally, regardless of these upgrades, the bog standard and ongoing ship repair costs requird on the T45 are still all being incurred annually – so painting, general repairs; hull inspections; woodworm and weavil treatments etc etc – these all have to be reguarly paid for and thus are additional to the cost of these “capability upgrades”
Then, of course, during the refit period of the T45 fleet there is what proper economists call opportunity costs:
——————
I for one am up for getting plenty of properly armed RN ships out at sea and prep’ed so they are ready for 21st centry warfare
However give that these T45 ‘s are all now within a decade of going out of service, one really has to ask this question –
Whether, or not, it is really worthwhile refitting them with over one billion quids worth of “different missiles?”
I am still of the view that it is all too easy for the bureaucrauts (both naval officers and civil service) to press the “refit” button – even when in the medium term it would be financially far more economical to buy new ships ASAP – and just work the existing ones hard until they are given an “early” decommissioning ………..
……….even if that does mean building some extra naval / militaary shipyard infrastructure / new build capacity somewhere in the UK.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Sean: Too long – Do Not Resusitate!
I do believe that Sean does actually read your stuff though…. despite what he types….. I must admit though that sometimes I don’t manage it all in one session…. Either way, you crack me up….. keep it coming as it makes such a change from the old Zoo blokes guff and the oh so boring Duke’s Copy and pasted sad attempts to appear knowledgeable…… He must have been really glad when Google came along !
I do read small parts where a particular word jumps out of the never-ending diatribe…
I would actually read it all if he only broke it into shorter posts. Then it’d be easier to reply and develop conversations on the interesting points he makes. But bunging them all together, and wrapping some waffle or really awful attempts at humour around it makes it too much effort to engage. Maybe that’s the tactic 🤷🏻♂️
Still at least he’s not a misogynistic racist like the Zoophiliac, and not a crazed conspiracy theorist like Ducker.
not a crazed conspiracy theorist like Ducker.
So says our resident witch hunter pursuivant
Moderators please
“Please try to stick to the subject matter of the article you are commenting ons,…”
This person is a serial offender of irrelevant posts
Its in the Comment guidelines
Feel free to present any opinion, but make your case using facts and evidence. This is not a chat forum – fewer and more in-depth comments are appreciated.
Notice that its NOT a chat room
Golden rule is no personal attacks
Why the wish not to be resuscitated? Did you lose the will to live by actually trying to read one of your own posts?
TLDR
Sean
TLDNR
Peter (Trate Taxpayer)
If I can just add, if all these new/ upgraded missiles could also be part of an increased shared stock pool for the UK GBAD they’d be even more value in it! Happy to be corrected if the current CAMM/SkySabre stocks are co-shared?
Quentin
I do believe that the UK’s CAMM / Sky Sabre stocks are being shared.
I have to add that is an all-too-rare example of inter-service cooperation …… and that is something which, quite frankly, we need to see far more of them all doing……especially with very expensive aerospace “stuff”
———————–.
I must admit that what really surprised me when I was looking up the official costs of the T45 upgrades yesterday was the realisation that “UK naval only” CAMM was costing us hard-pressed taxpayers £500m plus inflation.
= so turning out at a cool £100M per CAMM per RN T45 ship
For installing a “already very recently developed AAD missile system” into an “already existing hull” – and indeed installing those silos into an area of the ship which has always been designated as a “weapons zone” – that is a lot….
That ship refit figure seemed to me to be one hell of a lot of taxpayers wonga for what I had quite-naively imagined would be a relatively simple “new for old” upgrade.
Now remember what I said yesterday = that the missiles themselves are NOT INCLUDED in that £500m – that is only the cost of slightly modifying the ships inards
Somebody really ought to be explaining why T45 CAMM was so b***** y expensive!
Or is it BAE (note the capital letter at the end!) sneaking in some extra profit margins, to pay their directors Xmas bonus = probably hoping I will not notice ????
Worth adding here that the NSM – Norweigian Strike Missile – was far cheaper “per ship”.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS. Whilst on the topic of BAE. I can confidently- and confidentially – report to all NL readers that BAE’s very senior management now have their Xmas advert calender nailed to the boardroom wall
BAE are counting down the days to when their long-awaited announcement about “fire damage to big submarines at Barrow” can be sneaked out…….
...obviously waiting for “a very good day to bury very bad news“
Good morning, are you saying here only 5 ships getting the CAMM upgrade?, why not the full 6? Does seem like a lot of money but maybe due to being a bespoke add on silo, wiring, etc? Hope someone is being held accountable for all that spend…it’s basically a cost of a whole T31 with some change.
I tell you what would be interesting…if they did a cost comparison with inserting 1-2 mk41s here instead…and if that is actually cheaper or same well why didn’t they choose that instead? Missed opportunity? Maybe weight, reballasting would be an issue with the mk41s though the space is already there. We’ll see the outcome soon. At least stuff is definitely happening.
I cant find anything saying CAMM upgrade for T45 costs £500 mill.
Information bundles the all the T45 Aster/Viper and Ceptor missile upgrades along with radars and such for BMD etc
This story gives a better figure
‘The refit of the UK Royal Navy’s T45 destroyer HMS Defender, which will see the integration of a 24-cell silo for the Sea Ceptor surface-to-air missile system and three new diesel engines under the Power Improvement Project (PIP), is projected to cost £68m…
So thats the whole PIP plus CAAM silos
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-06-29/191748
Duker
As I quite clearly said in my first (earlier) post, the offical annoucement was made on the 6th July 202
TO REPEAT:
Here is the Royal navy’s official website
Destroyers’ firepower enhanced with addition of Sea Ceptor
I do wish you would learn to use the internet properly. This is not the first time which you you have missed very important information….
All of us here on Navy Lookout are still waiting for you to post the three definitive maps of the territorial sea limits in the Barretts Sea: off Siberia and especially in the South China Sea
…….SO £500M IT MOST DEFINITELY IS!
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
If you bothered to read the link and were less hysterical, you would have learned the £500m covers
• adding and integrating Sea Ceptor
AND
• upgrading Sea Viper / Aster 30s
In other words, it’s cost of the entire Type 45 capability enhancement, and not just one missile system.
https://des.mod.uk/des-secure-multi-million-upgrade-for-t45-destroyers/
My HoC reply is more specific and the ministers have to tell the truth.
I stand by that number for Duncan. Other destroyers may vary due the timing and any other work required
yes. The Tube round the missiles are transported stored and loaded in is interchangeable between RN and royal Artillery
Yes agree, everything has its costs but you can be sensible with maximising their usefulness. I won’t harp on too much but there’s a bloody great 2 mk41 hole there and they’re putting in just 24 CAMM? In today’s climate and T83 ages away and these ships are still youngish the opportunity to go for more is there. Why do the T31s need 4x mk41s even 2x 40mm? Nice to have but maybe a 2xmk41s/24-48 CAMM farm mix for them might be sufficient for their roles. And order a few more T31s for coastal/ mcm? Give the spare mk41s to the T45s? On the positive side at least some good upgrades stuff is happening for the RN!
Pocket battleship syndrome
I’ve almost no idea of the costs involved in the T45 refit programme, but – can it be too expensive to extend the silo both forward and aft (to the main superstructure); the area forward of the current Sylver VLS could be refitted with ExLS VLS for quadpacked Sea Ceptor.
The area aft of the Sylner VLS could have MK.41 [Strike-Length] VLS for Aster ABM [BII] Missiles, FC/ASW and/or Tomahawk LACM.
That would give the T45 a formidable AD/ABM defence of 48 A30 NT BI, 96 CAMM-ER and a number of A30 BII ABMs; additionally, the T45 would have greater utility being able to use Tomahawk Missiles.
I’m sure this is impractical because of space usage below the inclined launchers [currently] or the cost will be counted in the billions or something – anyway, I’d be interested to know if it is feasible and we’re [RN] aren’t being very ambitious?
Missile silos cant be extended aft as thats where the Harpoon launchers were and are replaced by the NSM system
Photo Sea Forces
The space aft of the silo structure would indeed be lost for either Harpoon (current) or NSM (planned) launchers.
The T45 wouldn’t have the ability to mount canister/included Launchers forward of the main superstructure [although, whilst we’re going for maximum lethality, there is a space amidship where NSM could be fitted – again, I’ve no idea whether the T45 design could tolerate the extra top-weight or the if there is a need to strengthening the structure, etc].
However, the advantages of being able [if it is possible] to install ‘strike-length Mk.41 VLS would greatly outweigh having lost 8 ship-launched anti-ship missiles and ultimately the FC/ASW system(s) would, after a ‘capability gap’ [or maybe NSM can be launched using VLS], restore the capability in due course.
So, its really just a simple question, for those with a great understanding of warship design; that, if it was necessary to drastically increase the lethality of T45 whether its feasible and what might it cost?
The ship was designed with 2 decks below “space” for long missile silos and that was the existing Aster launchers and the smaller area forward now being used for Camm.
There was no ‘ left free’ below deck space behind the launch silos
The NSM is both a ship AND land attack missile
https://www.navylookout.com/what-is-the-state-of-royal-navy-land-attack-missile-capability
Like it MT!!
“ can it be too expensive to extend the silo both forward and aft (to the main superstructure); the area forward of the current Sylver VLS could be refitted with ExLS VLS for quadpacked Sea Ceptor.”
The actual armoured floodable silo isn’t being extended. It was built into the T45 from the design stages.
What is being utilised is a space that was left for Mk41 VLS that was never fitted. So the surgery to the breakwater/blast deflector is above deck only.
To extend the silo back towards the bridge would be a massive job as the compartments under the NSM location would have to be cleared and new locations found for what is down there. That is before starting to alter the protected space for the silo.
There is also the issue of proximity of the bridge windows to debris and a misdirected launch. NSM and Harpoon are angled canister launch so they don’t cross that bridge windows at all.
Thank you for the insight, I’d rather imagined extending the silo back towards the bridge was likely to be a significant undertaking; its unfortunate that the original design wasn’t ‘future-proofed’ with a large silo structure.
Anyway, the addition of Sea Ceptor (even if the VLS isn’t ExLS) is a good thing and that with Sea Viper-Evolution/A30 NT BI the T45 will continue to be an excellent Air Defence Escort.
It would have been good, with the shortage of active warships if, with MK.41 added, the utility of the T45 could have been greatly increased with a resulting benefits to the RN [et al].
The Harpoon or NSM missiles launchers are between the enclosure and the bridge !
The Mk41 doesnt offer any benefits to the T45 . The expansion of the silo structure was always designed to be forward only- with 2 decks of free space below
Without being overly contentious, on what after all is an academic point (a T45 refit including MK.41 wasn’t ever very likely).
However, the advantages for the RN’s warships being fitted with MK.41 (‘Strike’) is self-evident – the ability to launch LACMs from surface vessels would significantly increase the utility of the surface flotilla whilst free the SSNs for more valuable tasking.
So, its just a cost/benefit decision, and to my mind, it would be a major benefit to have six additional platforms able to use Tomahawk Missiles; unfortunately, it appears [thank you ‘Supportive Bloke’ for the info] it would be a costly and difficult refit – shame!
No. That doesnt make any military or cost justification at all for Britain.
Its hard enough with the money available just to keep the ships we have sea going capability/crewed without thinking they can be decked out like a christmas tree with baubles
Wouldn’t it also make sence to upgrade the main gun to either 5″ or 57mm? Since as it stands in the 2030s the RN is going to have 3 different calibres of main guns when the 26s and 31s become active.
a 5 in gun mount and its entire magazine and hoists could be £30 mill each plus the cost of changing the CMS
“In 2019, the State Department approved a possible $1.021 billion sale of up to 13 MK 45 5 inch/62 caliber naval guns to India. The sale included the guns, ammunition, spare parts, training, technical data, transportation, and other logistics support”
How about going the full hog, replace the 4.5 with a 57mm, replace the two Phalanx CIWS with 40 mm and relocate one Phalanx to the hanger roof.
What would you cut or forgo to pay for that plan? Money is very tight in defence.
MOD approach:
– do minimal upgrades to guns
– recover cost by scrapping Duncan rather than refit (given the RN can manage with 5, proven by not needing Defender)
– reduce Type 83 order to 4 as more capable than Type 45 and only replacing 5 ships
Money will appear suddenly after a RN ship is damaged or sunk.
Sailors need to die for the Government-Administrative State-Journalist complex to learn anything…
Totally agree, I think putting the T31’s gun systems into T45 is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary in these days of mass drone attacks…
Maybe after it has been tested?
Bear in mind that the 57mm would need to be integrated onto the BAE CMS that is on T45. So it isn’t bolt’n’play.
The 30mm to 40mm is easier for a variety of reasons.
T45 already has Phalanx AND 30 mm and they can handle slow moving drones ( especially for Phalanx as its ‘close in’ when its small target x section, high speed, wave skimming missiles, but is accurate further out for slow large X section)
“The long period of dormancy, about 9 years without going to sea operationally”
What a joke!!
People think there is a chance the treasury will fund 8 replacements of T45 despite the RN making do with 5 that spent half their lifespan in refit and 1 that spent 90% of their lifespan laid up.
More likely we will get 4 cruisers and because the missile load out will be double the MOD will spin it as an increase in capabilities.
I would accept 3 T83s with 112 Mk41cells on the condition that we get 6 AAW T26s with 40 Mk41 (possibly 48) cells by replacing the forward CAAM cells for two blocks of Mk41s (possibly three) and 24 CAAMs midships. The cost of build for a T83 would be in the region of £2 billion so three T83s plus 6 AAW T26s would be the same as six T83s, but we would get three more hulls and six more tails in the fleet.
Whoops CAMM not CAAM.
That would be the minimum needed to address the ASBM threat but likely too late to matter if the enemy decides to refit their current platforms.
Seeing as T83 is more than likely going to fixed arrays how are you going to fit that same radar system on T26, also 40-48 forward seems like a no go, Australia has enough trouble fitting 32
I think defence assumption have changed since T45 was ordered….when T45 was ordered who we were going to fight at sea wasn’t that clear.
The thought was more defending carriers for expeditionary warfare such as Corporate or Granby against second tier navies.
Fortunately the Corporate AAW failings were rectified with T45.
9 years?!!!! I nearly fell off the starboard bow!
Andrew
If a senior RN officer opened the BAE (note 1) dockyard manager’s office door and shouted in:
“There is a War On!”
I for one very strongly suspect that the T45 refits would get done “much quicker”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Just for the benefit of the Pedantic Git – please can you note that, as you spcfically requested, that I have used the correct TLA for BAE this week!
No doubt about it, but that would involve a lot of extra overtime (some paid, some not) and probably stretching the bounds of health and safety in the workplace.
It’s easier to get that kind of cooperation and goodwill from the workforce in wartime when you can call upon their patriotism and instinct for self-preservation.
Not so easy when there is no apparent war…
Sean
Two wars are ongoing at the moment – one of which an RN T45 has already been involved with
With regards to delivering faster refits and upgrades – your comments are simply not true. There are currently very few workers used per shift.
To get these job(s) finished quicker = the dockyard(s) simply need put in more personnel.on each shift
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
What part of “apparent” didn’t you understand in my original post???
So eager to post that you couldn’t be bothered to read and comprehend my post…
You’ve clearly not done any real project management if you think you, “well if it takes 10 men 2 hours to dig a trench, let’s employ a million men to dig it in less than 1 second”…
4 out of 6 ent bad, we could have had 8 destroyers with the money waisted?????!
The money ‘saved’ from not buying the last two T45 on option ( around £650+ mill in 2008 £) was diverted to the T23 replacement design development and early construction.
But T26 program was kicked into the long grass by 2010 Tory SDR, who closed the purse for another 6-7 years till work started in 2017.
They could have ordered all 8 in 2017 but it cost more to break it into 2 batches with 2nd order 5 years later.
For same money they could have in continuous build from 2011 have a class of say 12 by 2030
If they had built the ship’s properly in the first place the propulsion systems would have gone on until SOSD. But No HMG interference and cost cutting has produced a set of ships with have not been or ever will be VFM. Let hope the T83 is better designed and put together otherwise they to will be an AAW platform for defening HM Dockyard Portsmouth only!!!!
It was built properly. However the advanced electrical generation control system built by Westinghouse US ( the W in WR21) wasnt suitably software tested and validated for the actual conditions the ship operated under. Westinghouse Electric ( Marine Div in Silicon Valley) is no more so the least risk fix was to add another diesel genset
Err no.
The whole mode of operation is flipped so that base load power is from the three new uprated DG sets.
That way the WR21 system isn’t stressed into the thermal runaway regime. The GTs can just add icing to the cake as needed.
The GTs are not needed at cruise speed only at sprint.
This system should be both quieter and much more fuel efficient at cruise. As well as having huge power margins.
Thanks for that , but I disagree completely. While its been said elsewhere ( NL) that they will ‘cruise on the diesels only’ and only use GT for ‘high speeds’
This doesnt add up – just look at the T26 frigate also an electric propulsion warship
It has 4 x DG sets of the same T45 MTU type/ power output ( 12MW total) but only a single GT for high speed.
They are designed for cruising/shipload [Combined Diesel-Electric OR Gas Turbine (CODELOG) ] and have nowhere near the radar power load of the bigger T45. Its DG only used up to 20kt probably less as you need ship load power too
The integrated propulsion and electrical system is still there along with a newer fuel saving intercooler-recuperator system.
Westinghouse marine was the prime contractor , RR was just a subcontractor providing the most marine gas turbine system. But BAE has the overall system responsibility now that Grumman marine who took over Westinghouse marine ‘walked away’
RR also now provide the 3 set of MTU (3MW) V-20 Series 4000 DGs which replaced the previous 2 only Wartsila W200 (2MW). So now 9MW DG compared the smaller T26 has 12MW
GE marine is a part of the previous and latest upgrades as the control systems are theirs
So the conclusions are that one the T45 20 MW GT/generators is going to be used as a fuel efficient generator at say its half max power output ( like airliners do) alongside the 3 DG at anything above say 10 kts Cruising speed is 15-18 kt
Nope.
The “Radar Power Load” on T45 is a tiny fraction of the electrical demand (according to the load charts). The biggest consumers are what we call Group 5 items (primarily the marine auxiliaries).
Comparing T26 and T45 is non-sensical, primarily because the T26 arrangement is driven by the turbine available, which was the MT30 (RR having already decided to bin the WR21). It’s also why the GB arrangement is distinctly sub-optimal.
The other reason why WR21 will be primarily used for boost rather than your suggestion of half-load is the eye-watering amount RR charge to support it (based on usage).
You need to go around them and see the build quality? In addition the mod was sold a pup because of the promise of savings on fuel which also never materialised. Strange really because the Darings of the 1950s, the first 440v ship were also full of trouble!!
Given the time they’ve spent dockside, I imagine humungous savings on fuel have been made…
The fuel savings were real and still are . Thats what intercooler recuperators do and having all electric propulsion as well.
Hot climates overwhelmed the electrical control system software
Hot climates did not “overwhelm” the ECS. What actually happened was a combination of a number of things including the output power of the WR21 when considering both hot inflow air and also cooling seawater, allied with reliability of the intercooler components, but primarily enabled by some “interesting” power system software logic….
N-a-B
Computers Says No
= is the curse of all modern engineers and naval architects
Only one thing for it – bring back proper, A0 sized, drawing boards..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
No it was not build properly and you even say so.
Software no , hardware yes.
The F35 is a similar situation, the airframe, engines and sensors are mostly first class.
Its the software that operates the plane alongside the pilot ( and the software that checks the hardware and maintenance side) is probably at the stage of being ‘unupgradable’ without major rewrites.
When all these ships are finally through reactivation, repair, all the upgrades to propulsion, weapons and systems, painting pretty pictures on the bow (nothing wrong with that actually) and finding crew for 6 ships they will be over 15 years old, lets hope the MOD and government of the day don’t don’t play the the usual game after spending loads of money of declaring the ships are now at the end of their design lives and therefor have to go, as keeping them going is too expensive and the savings will pay for their replacements, we don’t need 6 anyway as the replacements will be soo much better
lets also hope there are enough weapons in the shed to fully bomb up 6 ships (and the frigates) and actually re load them a couple of times in the event they actually have to shoot something
Personally I cant see a time there will ever be 6 T45 at sea at the same time, other than when they are towed to Turkey
Pugwash ! are you back ?… I used to love your stuff on the UKDJ site…. Please stick around, that site was rather sad when you left.
Interesting piece on the USN’s use of the 5” for AAW. Folklore has it that on the Type 45 it was always planned that, in addition to installing Mark 41s in the gym area, the main gun would be replaced with a 5”.
https://www.twz.com/sea/uss-carneys-red-sea-operations-highlight-5-inch-deck-guns-anti-air-capability
The cost for 6-7 USN 5 in guns at around US$500 mill means that folklore can be discounted
A fraction of that could be used to re-instate the AA capability in the CMS plus add an electro optical sensor
Its all dreaming of course as the Thatcherites in Treasury say ‘what do you give up for this’
I’d give up listening to the Treasury.
The ministers do and the Treasury has its secondees amoung the top decision makers in Admiralty
So Thatcherites are paying for all your woke country?
Or you should say Fabianites?
Thats silly. How does US France, Italy Germany, or Australia even seem to fund their services in an equitable way without Thatcherite Treasurys interference
Would that be the Germany that has a smaller army than ours? The Germany that was reduced to a pitiful number of airworthy airframes due to spares shortages? The Germany who literally issued its soldiers with broomsticks to represent rifles (and asked them to shout “Bang”) for exercise? That Germany?
T45 was to have had the cancelled BAE naval 155mm
This article is pretty accurate
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.php