Subscribe
Notify of
guest
233 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jed

Is this not a golden opportunity to retire the 4.5 from service and standardize on the new guns – cannot see us paying for the 127mm, but isn’t the 57mm good enough, as we probably don’t want to send our 6 specialist AAW ships close enough to shore to do NGS anyway?

Tim Hirst

As we have stocks of 4.5 ammo what do we get from changing to the 57mm?
To me the money the 57 and extra ammo would cost is better spent on a bigger stock of Sea Ceptor missiles.

RichardIC

A gun with a much faster rate of fire and programmable ammunition that is genuinely useful against airborne and small surface targets. There’s also the potential for guided rounds which would make it a low cost SSM killer, which is potential the 4.5 will never have.

Very unexpected but welcome news on Sea Ceptor.

Tim Hirst

It’s got lots of advantages, but is adding it to the T45 the best use of money. Any money spent on the T45 gun has to come from not doing or significantly delaying some other project.

Simon m

The DARPA MADFIRES round if ever adopted by the RN would give the ability to engage large numbers of cruise missiles. ALAMO gives enhanced anti-fiac protection. Considering T45 is there to protect the carrier & the 4.5inch won’t ever get such rounds the 57mm is a complete no-brainer for T45 even if only standard P3 rounds it has a higher RoF & more effective against these threats than 4.5inch it’s not being put on US FFGX Constellation frigates just for fun

Humpty Dumpty

Yep, ORKA rounds as well to provide protection from fast attack craft. From what I’ve read MAD-FIRES seems an excellent option. Well assuming it works as advertised, that is. Any idea the fastest missiles it can deal with? Can it only deal with sea-skimming missiles or missiles at altitude as well?

Last edited 4 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
X

T45 is never going to go near a gun line. Really the whole mount could be lifted off right now and not missed. Further now it is reliable it no longer serves its main purpose of giving the weapons engineers something to play with…… 🙂

Something smaller with PGM would add to the T45’s primary role.

DaveyB

I would contend that the T45 is the best ship we have to put on the gun line purely because Sampson is a quantum leap in performance over Artisan. Being on the gun line is going to be a much more dangerous job, especially if your main gun doesn’t have the range and means the ship as to be in view of land to be effective. Therefore you will need a ship that can counter swarming attacks, especially when escorting amphibious ships. The PAAMS system will also add a large area of aerial denial.

When the T31 comes on line with the NS100 radar it “should” have a better littoral capability than Artisan, but won’t have gun suitable for NGFS or enough SeaCeptors (22 or 24) to counter a large swarming attack.

The T26 has the best gun available for NGFS, a decent amount of SeaCeptors and a radar that is still very good for operating in the littorals. But it is our primary ASW ship. Can it be spared to do gun line duties?

T32 and T83 who knows.

X

Remind me again how many T45 do we have? That is why it won’t be flung forward. If we had 12 or 18 or 24 then yes maybe. But not with just 6.

DaveyB

I know, but what realistically are the options? It will come down to what ever ship is available.

Glass Half Full

Perhaps one option is to evaluate the utility and risk-reward tradeoff of NGFS in future conflicts? We aren’t going to be doing opposed landings, much too wasteful on trained, experienced and hard to replace personnel.

So when will we use NGFS? Against whom? What else might we use instead, perhaps to greater effect? Perhaps also with less collateral damage and with less risk to the T45? Pretty much any small country might have the ability to respond to a ship close in to shore by using 155mm tube and rocket artillery, before we even get to the increasing proliferation of ever more sophisticated shore based ASM.

We’d expect a T45 to be able to defend itself against these threats but does that then mean we might also significantly deplete our missile silo to do so, requiring a return to a base for re-loading, or continuing with a reduced defensive capability that might come back to bite us later? And if we have used up missiles for defence then does that really make sense in order to put down relatively few 4.5″ rounds vs. using the RN’s vision for using Wildcat and/or UAS for strike?

donald_of_tokyo

In many cases, small country do not have even 155mm gun, nor rocket artillity to out-reach the Mk.45 127mm gun. No ASuM, no airforce at all.

There are also many (not all) countries with 155mm gun, rocket, ASuM, and drones.

If all depends.

For the smallest countries (which I guess is about a half of the shore line), very lightly armed French Floreal-class surveillance frigate can even do NGFS.

For medium class countries, you need to effectively disable their artility systems by CV air wing, before starting NGFS. With QNLZ/PoW with their air wing, now UK can do it. But, in some medium class countries, eliminating their SSK threat might be needed. To do that, UK has T26, Merlin and P-8As. Or, even SAS and SBS to do some special operations to neutralize it. Doable, but not easy, I guess.

So I think RN needs some good operation research to identify what ship shall have NGFS capability.

Last edited 4 months ago by donald_of_tokyo
Glass Half Full

I’m sure we can come up with scenarios to use NGFS, but with the smart weapons we have available today I’m not convinced it would be the best option over the latter in most situations. Particularly with the increased political and population sensitivity to collateral damage. Yet NGFS is often used as the only justification to add a $60m+ Mk45 gun system to existing or future vessels.

A Mk45 does have far greater utility and justification if it gets capabilities like the 57mm MAD-FIRES and particularly if the BAES Kingfisher or similar systems make it to production, so that the gun becomes an AAW and ASW asset.

Using the Mk45 as a missile launcher with a deep silo supporting many different effects makes it much more relevant. Perhaps ironically, conventional NGFS capability then comes as a bonus, but perhaps with the addition of smart, long range, powered rounds.

Humpty Dumpty

How exactly are we going to take out SSKs? They’re so damn quiet how are we going to detect them?

Hell, even subs have trouble detecting each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision

How are ASW ships, helicopters and aircraft going to detect them?

AlexS

The T26 has the best gun available for NGFS

I don’t think American 5″ can get Vulcano rounds since it is a two piece round gun.

Glass Half Full

BAES collaborated with Leonardo to produce Vulcano rounds, including for Mk45

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/vulcano-precision-guided-munitions

Humpty Dumpty

I’m at a complete loss. Why use T45 destroyers that cost £1 billion a pop for NGFS? It makes absolutely no sense. We only have 6 of them and they’re not particularly well defended as it is, but using them for NGFS? That’s absolutely bonkers.

X

Oh yes. But the 76mm Super Rapid with STRALES would be my preference. It is one of the best features of the Horizons. I would exchange Phalanx for something else too.

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/fullscreen.php?lid=775175

Tim Hirst

Where in the MoD budget would you find the cash to pay for the total 76 system?

X

I am just expressing a preference for the system I would fit if we could.

It comes from the same pot much of the spending comes from on sites like this the Fantasy Fleet Fit Out Budget.

I would take Mk8 off T45 to be honest.

Humpty Dumpty

Where in the budget do you find the money for 2 carriers, F-35s, Astutes, Dreadnoughts, T45s, T45 propulsion fixes, CAMMs for T45s, cats & traps to launch drones from the QE and PoW, T26s, T31s, T32s and T83s?

Bob

Spot on, same goes for the T26. Use the T31/32s for NGS if needed.

Humpty Dumpty

My preference would be to replace the 4.5 inch guns with 5 inch guns firing HVPs. That would provide another way to take out anti-ship missiles. I’m in favour of 57mm guns because they’re versatile and can fire a range of ammo, but in addition to 5 inch guns, not instead of.

d.petrie@hotmail.co.uk

Sorry for being off subject a little but I find the rendering provided fascinating. Could someone tell me what the four white cylinders are, two port side and two starboard, just forward of the bridge and either side of where Harpoon was mounted? …. and what are the brown sheets surrounding the main gun?

Challenger

I believe the cylinders are Seagnat chaff dispensers. Not 100 what the brown sheets are – at a guess either something to protect the base of the gun platform from saltwater spray or to protect the deck from empty shell casings / other debris when the gun is fired.

RichardIC

The white cylinders are for floating anti-radar decoys. The brown sheets are good old fashioned hessian matting to stop cartridge shells ejected by the gun from damaging the deck.

Last edited 4 months ago by RichardIC
Andy

And to protect against Deckpeckers! (https://darwinawards.com/personal/personal1999-35.html)

Grimey

I served with the author and heard the dit first hand. Still cracks me up 30 odd years later.

Last edited 4 months ago by Grimey
Gunbuster

Cylinders are DLF 3 Launchers

Around the gun are coconut “shot” mats. They stop the deck Paint getting trashed by the ejected 4.5 shell cases.

Challenger

Great news and completely out of the blue!

Can Sea Ceptor be quad packed into the existing Sylver silo’s or is it only the Mk.41 that can fit multiple missiles?

The time-line is depressingly slow though. By 2032 they will all be pushing 25 years old.

Jon

Can CAMM be quad packed into Sylver? Yes, but as it’s been announced additional dedicated silos will be added for them, why would the Type 45 need even more short range / local area defence? Aster 30s are the minimum I’d hope they’d put in the Sylver VLS.

Last edited 4 months ago by Jon
Ron5

They could be quad packed into Sylver but that would be a very large expense for the MOD to get them tested and qualified by the French. So why not use the British VLS at a much cheaper price?

valeoak

Would it really be a bigger expense than procuring more sole-purpose VLS tubes and installing them in the ship?

I have to say I find the method of implementing Sea Ceptor on the T45 slightly odd (even if it’s positive that they will have a larger missile loadout).

Joe16

To be fair, they’re not really sole-purpose tubes; Sea Ceptor has both a local area air defence capability and a local area surface attack capability. While it’s not two different missiles, it’s two different functions from the same deck space.
From that perspective, it’s a bargain- T45s (assuming that they get the interrim AShM once the Y23s retire), will then have a fully layered air and surface warfare capability- for the reduced cost of the Sea Ceptor silos compared to additional big VLS.
Air Warfare: Point defence (Phalanx, out to a few km)>local air defence (Sea Ceptor, 1.7 km out to 25-35 km) >area air defence (Aster 30, ~20 km out to 120 km) > maybe BMD (Aster 30 1NT).
Surface warfare: Point defence (Phalanx, DSM30) > Local area warfare (Sea Ceptor, similar or greater range against surface targets than air targets, one assumes) > long range (Harpoon, Interim AShM, out to 150 km ish).

Sonik

Excellent post and good points. IMO this shows why strategic thinking is needed in defence procurement. And to be fair, with regard to the CW programs this is something the MOD does seem to get right.

The substantial investments in PAAMS/SAMPSON, consolidation of LAD capabilities onto CAMM, and the iterative development of ASTER starts to pay dividends, because the commonality inherent between these systems reduces costs and makes upgrades easier. FC/ASW, when it comes, will complete the picture.

Last edited 4 months ago by Ben Robins
valeoak

I think by any reasonable use of the term the Sea Ceptor VLS tubes are sole-purpose: the missile might not be (though its ASuW use is only intended for use against small craft), but the tubes are.

It seems odd to me that the RN are procuring more of the Sea Ceptor VLS tubes and cutting holes into the T45 to fit them (into space intended for strike-length VLS – even if, admittedly, it was unlikely they’d ever get the strike-length VLS) rather than just buying the magazines to quad-pack them into the existing Sylver A-50 VLS cells fitted to the ship. I wonder if it’s because the RN expects the T45 to be the only RN class of warship to use the Sylver VLS and that the T83 won’t.

I thought it was a shame (again, presumably for budgetary reasons) that the Sylver A-50 or A-43 VLS wasn’t selected for T26 in place of the Sea Ceptor VLS tubes.

Humpty Dumpty

Yep, T26s need Aster 30s at the very least. Defending ships that cost £1 billion a pop with CAMMs is utterly idiotic. Ideally they’d have the same radars as T45s as well as SM-3 and SM-6 and get TWISTER when it’s available in about a decade.

Last edited 4 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
valeoak

I disagree entirely. Sea Ceptor is a very capable anti-missile missile, is more than sufficient for the T26’s requirements and the fact that it’s almost certainly cheaper than Aster 30 (and Aster 15) means that it can be procured in greater numbers for a given budget.

Humpty Dumpty

Why do you disagree?

CAMM AFAIK has only been tested against a subsonic Mirach drone. BAE 57mm guns firing 3P and MAD-FIRES ammo could take out subsonic missiles (and possibly low supersonic ones) far cheaper and they have good magazine depth. Far better than CAMM.

Plus there’s no way to know if CAMM (or any system) is very capable unless it’s subjected to stringent tests against the sort of missiles they’re designed to shoot down. The Falklands showed how woefully inadequate ships’ defences were against a third-rate power and we won’t know if any existing tech will actually work properly until it’s put to the test in a war. Not stringently testing tech is absolutely shameful.

And what IS the Type 45s requirement? The ship is incapable of shooting down ballistic anti-ship missiles, which for a so-called dedicated AAW ship is utterly idiotic. It needs SM-3 and SM-6. Or else SM-3 and Aster 30 Block 1NT. It also needs an anti-ship missile that outranges Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18 and the only such missile I’m aware of is the Tomahawk Block Va. The T45 needs a lot of other things too, but they’ll never be added so I won’t even mention them. Suffice it to say that T45s woefully lack both defensive and offensive capability. It’s a very poor ship that has good radars, but not the missiles to make the most of them.

Plus, even after the CAMMs have been added (which are inferior to Aster 15s that T45s already have), T45s will still lack missile cells compared to equivalent enemy ships. (Mk41 cells would at least have enabled CAMMs to be quad-packed, although so would more Sylver cells while also retaining Aster 15.) Assuming a T45 is staying out of range of DF-26 or Kinzhal, all enemy ships (and aircraft and subs) have to do is fire anti-ship missiles at a T45 until it’s out of missiles. Phalanx as a last layer of defence is garbage and might as well not be there. All the more reason to fit 57mm guns.

Last edited 4 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Joe16

Sorry for the late reply- for some reason my notifications are out of whack.
I take your point about the launchers- but if they’re delivering a multi-use system then I think that my point more or less stands.
I’m wondering the same thing regards Sylver, although admittedly for slightly different reasons, but I think that the Sea Ceptor VLS have been selected to keep pace with the USN; With the introduction of the latest radar systems and fully active Standard missiles, the latest Burkes coming online are now effectively one-shot-one-kill air defence systems- like the T45 is now. That means that their 96-cell VLS (minus some for TLAM and ASROC, so let’s assume 90 for AAD) is literally that- 90 shots. Beforehand they’d have had to ripple fire at least two to a target, which brought their 90 shots down to ~45. That compared favourably with T45, but now that they can (on paper at least) take on 90 targets, the T45 is left behind. Hence, adding in the additional Sea Ceptor silo gives a more reasonable total 72 shots without reducing the number of Asters. The bit that clinched for me that we might be leaving the Sylver system behind was that a) T26 is getting Mk41, and b) FC/ASW will be fitted to T26 in 2028 (presumably in the VLS). If the RN are willing to pay the extra to integrate FC/ASW into a VLS system that isn’t used by their project partners (France), then I assume it’s because we’re no longer going to be using Sylver long term.
I think that’s broadly a shame, and I know there are arguments against it, but I think we should stick with he European ecosystem. There are some many great European complex weapons that we have market share in, it seems madness to go with a US system where we’re pretty  much guaranteed to get no industrial benefits.

valeoak

I understand your argument, but I’m not sure I’m entirely convinced. Let me say right now that I’m pleased to see an increased loadout on the T45 (in a decade’s time…) and I fully agree that their present loadout is insufficient (even more so when you consider their number and role).

However, it would be quite possible to get to that 72 number without losing a whole lot of Asters: only eight cells would be need. 40 Aster missiles + 8×4 Sea Ceptor missiles. And if, as many of us suspect, existing Aster missile stocks are insufficient in number, such an arrangement might actually be better.

Of course, the ideal (i.e., free of budgetary considerations) option would have been to fit Sylver A70 cells as was provisioned and increase the loadout of both Aster missiles and quad-packed Sea Ceptor. This would also allow the T45 to use the cells to carry FCASW and even Aster 30 Block 2.

I agree that the apparent move away from the Sylver VLS to Mk41/57 is a great shame.

Humpty Dumpty

I’ve read that CAMM can be used against surface targets, but its short range means that T45s would have to get dangerously close to enemy ships to use CAMM in this way, so really CAMM isn’t much use in this role.

SM-6 on the other hand, with an estimated max range of 460km, would not only keep enemy aircraft at arm’s length, but it can also be used as an anti-ballistic missile and as an anti-ship missile.

As for Phalanx, it’s absolute garbage. There are far better alternatives.

And T45s need a long-range anti-ship missile. The only one I’m aware of that outranges Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18 is Tomahawk Block Va.

Last edited 4 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Joe16

It depends what you mean by short range- I think they are effectively just over the horizon weapons. As I pointed out in my post, I consider them very much a “middle layer” in the surface warfare system- I wouldn’t expect the T45 to be trying to use Sea Ceptor against a Russian or Chinese destroyer with heavyweight ASMs. That’s why I noted Harpoon, interim AShM and FC/ASW as the “outer layer” of the surface warfare package.
Yes, SM-6 is quite special, but so’s its price tag! I’d rather get a dedicated AShM and upgrade to Aster 30 1NT (or whatever they call their ABM version) if we’re going to insist on BMD. I honestly don’t think it’s going to be a major threat before T45 is out of service, but I’ve not got a high level security clearance..!
I’d be most happy to consider moving away from Phalanx if it isn’t any good, but I understood that the newer models have performed pretty well in C-Ram configuration? Either way, I don’t see them being retrofitted before T45 retires. Give T83 40 mm or 57 mm guns like T31!
Someone who knows more will have to comment on AShM ranges, but aren’t the Russian ones long ranged like that because they have to launch from the edge of the CAP area of a carrier battle group? We don’t really have that issue yet, although I suppose China may be a consideration at some point. We’ll have to see what FC/ASW brings, but it may be a long range hitter. We’d probably do better finding an AShM for our F-35B that can be launched just on the edge of air defence range of a Russian/Chinese destroyer. 

Humpty Dumpty

“It depends what you mean by short range”

CAMM has a range of 25+ km according to Wikipedia, although the article states: “CAMM has a minimum operational range of less than 1 km and a maximum range greater than 25 km, although IHS Jane’s reports that trials have a shown a capability of up to 60 km.”

Either way, that’s short ranged by anti-ship missile standards and especially compared to Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18 (and Zircon when it comes into service). The only anti-ship missile I’m aware of that outranges the first 3 missiles is Tomahawk Block Va, but another missile will need to be developed to outrange Zircon. The fact that T45s don’t have an anti-ship missile that outranges the longest ranged enemy missiles is idiotic. There are also shorter ranged anti-ship missiles that still outrange CAMM that smaller enemy ships can carry. Or rather POTENTIAL enemy.

“As I pointed out in my post, I consider them very much a “middle layer” in the surface warfare system”

What’s the point of fitting CAMMs to T45s? I don’t get it. AFAIK it’s only been tested against subsonic Mirach drones. Is it capable of taking out anything faster? Or a manoeuvrable missile?

T45s could do with more Sylver cells and more Aster 30s and ideally Aster 30 Block 1NT as well. I don’t see the point of fitting CAMMs. And if you ARE going to fit CAMMs, at least fit Mk41 VLS so you can quad-pack CAMMs for 4 times as many missiles as well as being able to fit VL-ASROC and TLAM. T45s could also do with anti-torpedo torpedoes and Kingfisher: https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/innovating-to-enable-our-customers-to-stay-ahead

Also, an Oerlikon Millennium Gun firing AHEAD ammo and/or a BAE 57mm firing 3P and MAD-FIRES could take out the slower anti-ship missiles much more cheaply than CAMM. The 57mm also has good magazine depth, so would be useful against saturation attacks of the slower missiles. I don’t know the fastest missiles it’s been tested against though.

“I wouldn’t expect the T45 to be trying to use Sea Ceptor against a Russian or Chinese destroyer with heavyweight ASMs.”

Well obviously not, that would be suicide.

“That’s why I noted Harpoon, interim AShM and FC/ASW as the “outer layer” of the surface warfare package.”

Harpoon is garbage. It lacks range, isn’t stealthy and it’s slow.

As for an interim anti-ship missile, I’d suggest the Tomahawk Block Va with a range of 1,600km. That said though, it could do with being stealthy or faster. Or ideally both.

And the Astutes could do with anti-ship missiles as well, although why a sub-launched variant of LRASM hasn’t been developed boggles my mind. I’d also fit them with Torbuster to provide self-defence against torpedoes. I don’t know if IDAS (or an equivalent) can be fired from torpedo tubes, but that would provide a useful layer of defence against ASW helicopters. The Astute replacements will need a VLS.

F-35s can’t carry LRASM (or JASSM) internally, which totally defeats the purpose of having a stealth aircraft. If we could launch Growlers from the QE and PoW then that would make the F-35s carrying ordnance externally harder to detect, but we obviously can’t because of the lack of cats & traps. Not a lot of joined-up thinking went into the development of the F-35 and the missiles it can carry internally.

As for FC/ASW, I thought that was Perseus? As a ship-launched missile it lacks range (approx 300km according to Wikipedia), so even before it comes into service it’s obsolete as a ship-launched weapon when it comes to Kalibr, Oniks, YJ-18 and Zircon. As a sub-launched missile though it will probably be an effective missile, especially since it will be stealthy, carry two mini-missiles internally and be hypersonic, all of which will maximise the likelihood of a successful hit. And again I doubt F-35s will be able to carry Perseus internally since it’ll be 5m long and 4m seems to be the cut-off point as far as I can tell for internal carry on F-35s.

“Yes, SM-6 is quite special, but so’s its price tag!”

It’s not cheap, but it’s a lot cheaper than having to replace a sunk ship. Plus it can be used to take out ballistic missiles, it can keep enemy aircraft at arm’s length with a max estimated range of 460km (vs 100+ km for Aster 30) and it can be used as an anti-ship missile against ships that don’t have top-end anti-ship missiles. It’s a very versatile missile and worth every penny imo.

“I’d rather get a dedicated AShM”

Which is why I suggested Tomahawk Block Va.

“and upgrade to Aster 30 1NT (or whatever they call their ABM version)”

Aster 30 Block 1NT is designed to take out ballistic anti-ship missiles, but like SM-6 not at the sort of altitudes that SM-3 does. SM-3 should be the first layer of defence. Ideally T45s would have SM-3 and SM-6 imo, since that gives you two chances to take out ballistic anti-ship missiles and SM-6 is a versatile weapon as I outlined above, more versatile than Aster 30 Block 1NT, but 1NT would certainly be better than nothing. 1+ megawatt chemical lasers and microwave weapons may also be able to take out ballistic missiles. As might HVPs fired from a 5 inch gun, but the T45 only has a 4.5 inch gun.

“if we’re going to insist on BMD.”

Why wouldn’t we? A dedicated AAW ship that can’t take out ballistic missiles is utterly idiotic. The T45 has got next to no offensive capability (Harpoon barely counts) and can’t even perform the AAW role properly. Once TWISTER is available (probably in a decade’s time), then Royal Navy ships will be much better defended than at present: https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/twister-missile-european-approval/

“I honestly don’t think it’s going to be a major threat before T45 is out of service”

How do you know? My infallible crystal ball is in the repair shop at the moment.

“but I’ve not got a high level security clearance..!”

Security clearances don’t give people prescience.

“I’d be most happy to consider moving away from Phalanx if it isn’t any good, but I understood that the newer models have performed pretty well in C-Ram configuration?”

Phalanx only has an effective range of 1.5km. A missile flying at Mach 3 could cover that distance in about 1.5 seconds. I highly doubt Phalanx could shoot down a missile in that timeframe. Plus Phalanx has never shot down a missile in a real situation. In fact it seems to be more of a liability than anything.

T45s (and their replacement) need a CIWS with a greater effective range than Phalanx like the Oerlikon Millennium Gun firing AHEAD ammo or the Thales RAPIDSeaGuardian firing A3B ammo. As well as another gun-based solution like the OTO Melara 76mm firing PFF and DART ammo or the BAE 57mm firing 3P and MAD-FIRES ammo. Ideally all these guns would be deck-penetrating with auto-reloaders.

“Either way, I don’t see them being retrofitted before T45 retires.”

Neither do I, but why they were fitted with Phalanx from the get-go is mind-boggling.

“Give T83 40 mm or 57 mm guns like T31!”

Well that would make sense, as well as a couple of Oerlikon Millennium Guns (or whatever the best option happens to be when they’re being built). Far better than Phalanx. Also fit electric and chemical lasers, microwave weapons and 5-inch guns firing HVPs. Hopefully railguns will be feasible on ships by the time the T83s are being built.

“Someone who knows more will have to comment on AShM ranges, but aren’t the Russian ones long ranged like that because they have to launch from the edge of the CAP area of a carrier battle group?”

I’m not sure what you’re asking, can you clarify?

“We don’t really have that issue yet”

Again I’m not sure what you mean.

“although I suppose China may be a consideration at some point.”

Whether it is or isn’t, our ships should be equipped to deal with the worst threats out there, regardless of whether we end up in a war with China (or Russia) or not. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

“We’d probably do better finding an AShM for our F-35B that can be launched just on the edge of air defence range of a Russian/Chinese destroyer.”

The new Chinese carriers under construction will have cats & traps and so the aircraft on board will be longer ranged and able to carry more ordnance than is the case with their current STOBAR carriers. So it’s not just the range of ship-based SAMs that we have to consider, but also the range of fighters taking off from CATOBAR carriers, especially since F-35s can’t carry LRASM internally and since we can’t launch Growlers.

But all that said, carrier groups are absolutely idiotic in this day and age. If a carrier group is staying out of range of DF-26 or Kinzhal, then the aircraft on the carriers don’t have the range to reach land.

Approach closer to land and you’re now at risk from missiles that are very hard to shoot down. The enemy only has to succeed once, whereas defensive systems have to be successful 100% of the time, which no defensive system is. So it’s not a matter of IF ships will get hit, but WHEN and especially in the case of the T45 that doesn’t have SM-3, SM-6, Aster 30 Block 1NT or upward facing radar.

Even non-ballistic missiles fired from aircraft, ships and subs would be a serious threat for T45s because they carry so few missiles and only have the useless Phalanx as a second layer of defence. AIUI the existing Aster 15s will be converted to Aster 30s and then the CAMMs will be added. I suppose it’s better than nothing, but there are far better alternatives to CAMM as I covered above.

Torpedoes are also another serious threat and no Western ships have anti-torpedo torpedoes, whereas Russian ships have the Paket system.

It would make far more sense to develop and/or buy extremely long-ranged aircraft carrying long-range anti-ship missiles and long-range land attack missiles. That way ships and land targets can be taken out from beyond the range of enemy defences. Far cheaper than a carrier group, far more effective and far less risky.

Last edited 4 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Jon Doe

re. TWISTER; press-release suggests that’s an EU-centred programme. (Sadly), the U.K. is no longer part of that organisation – recall what happened to U.K. after major contribution to GPS-constellation alternative, Galileo… don’t hold your breath for pan-EUropean solutions…

Humpty Dumpty

Just because TWISTER is an EU programme doesn’t mean they won’t sell it if the UK wants it. We’re out of the EU but we’re not going to stop trading with them.

Tim Hirst

The time line could be faster but only if it’s acceptable to have less ships available for sea. It sounds like once the development has been done the modifications will be done as part of bigger planned maintenance events.
The RN has been instructed by the SoS to get a larger proportion of its ships on task and not in refit.

John S C Lewis

An excellent and long overdue upgrade.

Cam

Upgrade? When we have aster 15s in already? What advantages does sea ceptor have over aster 15s? Its range is poorer isn’t it.

Sonik

Shorter minimum engagement range, anti surface capability?

Plus it’s a big increase in loadout. The existing Aster 15 stock can be converted to Aster 30 by adding the booster, so potentially increases the pool of these too.

Cam

The 45s always did have Crap missiles load out for their size…now cruising about with no anti ship missiles too… any word in their Anti ship missiles. acuasition?

Sonik

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/interim-surface-to-surface-missile-negotiations-to-begin-soon/

FC/ASW not due until 2030s, to align UK & France development cycle.

Humpty Dumpty

Perseus is ALREADY outdated as a ship-launched missile since it lacks range compared to Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18. Being hypersonic and carrying two mini-missiles (aka effectors) means it’s more likely to hit a target compared to other missiles, but its range as a ship-launched missile needs to be drastically increased. And why does it take so damn long to build a missile. A decade? That’s absolutely ludicrous. I’d fit T45s with Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles for now.

Meirion X

The ASM’s fired in the Falklands War at our ships, were launched from fighterbombers or onshore battery.
Just saying!

valeoak

I don’t think anyone really expects the RN to use ship-launched AShMs to sink a modern warship: particularly our old stock of Harpoon missiles.

Pete Murdoch

Next gen AShM for RN should be dual role AShM and land strike to provide flexibility and optionality.

Don’t think China or Russia with their own strong submarine fleets would be shy at pushing their surface fleets forward if there wasn’t a long arm threat. AShM provides redundancy and wide area overlap adding to detterance provided by Astute which, in such limited numbers, can’t be everywhere.

If Merlin’s or F35b had a heavy AShM then CSG could maybe do without ship bourne….but they don’t. Vessels operating remotely/alone should have AShM capability even if that’s in form of multiple Spear 3 to provide arms length defence capability without risking a helo going within 12 miles of a capable adversary.

Sunmack

Excellent post. I agree with every point you’ve made.

I’m fed up of reading that our SSN’s do ASuW when we only have seven of them. That typically means two on operations. One will be deployed east of Suez as a cruise misdile taxi and the other attached to the CBG where it’s primary role should be ASW operations.

It should be remembered that warships have been sunk by ship fired SSN’s more recently than by a submarine (Operation Praying Mantis vs the Falklands conflict).

Last edited 4 months ago by Sunmack
valeoak

I agree that our SSN fleet is insufficient in number to be our only means of sinking warships. I never said anything to the contrary.

Humpty Dumpty

We’ve got 5 Astutes, 2 are being built.

valeoak

I didn’t say that AShMs are redundant or even that I don’t think RN warships should be fitted with AShMs (I think it’s important that they do carry ship-launched AShMs). I simply said that I don’t think the RN will be capable (in typical conditions, of course) of sinking a modern warship with ship-launched AShMs. The issue isn’t even primarily one of RN doctrine anymore but simply budget constraints.

RN warships aren’t sufficiently equipped with AShMs to overcome the air-defence capabilities of modern warships in normal situations. The 2×4 cannister option is insufficient for it to be successfully used offensively. Even something rather out of scope of our likely or intended opponents like the Finnish Hamina-class FAC has a high liklihood of surviving an attack by 8 AShMs. AShM attacks need to saturate the opponent’s air defence capabilities and, whilst that saturation point will vary by ship and capability, modern, capable warships are likely to require 24+ missiles engaging simultaenously to have any reasonable chance of scoring a hit. And this is to hit one ship.

Whereas Russia and China are building warships with the capability to launch these saturation attacks, the only RN warship that looks likely to even have the capability to do that is the T26 – and it’s at the lower end of that ability, only eight are being produced and they will have important non-ASuW roles. And this completely ignores whether the RN will have the stocks of weapons to use them for such attacks.

The RN needs AShMs on its ships, but more for defensive purposes: to dissuade an opposing ship from trying to close the range to more easily saturate the RN ship’s air defences and, in the event that it is fired upon, to try and force the opposing ship to go on the defensive. That’s not to say it’s likely to sink anything.

The thing that makes FCASW exciting is that it will either be capable of being air-launched or will come in an air-launch version and is hoped to be able to be launched by the F-35. This will give the RN and RAF the (offensive) benefits of an air-launched AShM and, as it will also be used to replace Storm Shadow, means there’s a chance that the UK will purchase sufficient stocks of them to enable them to be used for saturation attacks. This also makes reloading and replenishing at sea a possibility.

Humpty Dumpty

I mainly agree, but SPEAR 3 only has a range of 130km. I’d fit T45s with Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles with a range of 1,600km, which outrange Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18.

Also F-35s can’t carry LRASM internally, which totally defeats the point of having a “stealth” fighter (it’s not stealthy from all angles). F-35s also can’t carry standard HARM, AIM-9X or JASSM internally. What an absolute balls-up.

DaSaint

I think that ship-launched anti-ship missiles have a major role to play. Look at the USNs planned deployment of NSM. Can’t have a major surface combatants without them.

valeoak

I’m not entirely sure what you mean. The LCS classes carry NSM but only a token number, presumably for self defence and/or co-ordinated land strikes. The Constellation-class “frigates” are presumed to be equipped with 16 container-launched NSMs, but it’s unlikely that any single ship is going to sink another modern warship with this loadout: two or more ships will likely need to co-ordinate an attack against a single target (and I suspect that, again, the USN thinks it’s more likely that these ships will co-ordinate strikes against land targets).

The most interesting thing that the US has done with NSM is request a modified, air-launched version: the Joint Strike Missile.

The above, combined with the fact that the all Flight IIA+ ABs and the Zumwalt design had no integrated AShM seems to suggest that USN doctrine has not really changed from the idea that it’s prime means of ASuW are air-launched AShMs and submarines, not ship-launched AShMs. LRASM and a potential vertically-launched JSM will allow that to change, but there’s been nothing to suggest that the USN is properly moving in that direction.

I agree that all major surface combatants should carry AShMs, but I’m simply saying that there’s a big gap between that and being able (in typical conditions) to sink another modern, capable warship.

Pmichael

It only takes one hit to absolutely mission kill a frigate/destroyer sized surface ship. And if you are lucky something like the Sheffield can always happen when just the missile fuel can lead to catastrophic damage.

valeoak

Again, I don’t disagree. My point was that is the effort required to be likely of scoring a hit on an opposing modern warship.

D J

Any warship without AShM & a gun under 76mm has no way of keeping the opposition at a distance & if the distance is closed, the 57mm is highly unlikely to do much damage (other than a lucky hit). Something like a T31 is defensive only & a single frigate with 16 AShM can run it out of AAW missiles in one go. After that it’s gun defence only. Against AShM, guns can of course work. Not so good at stopping gunfire or even something like ASROC becomes possible.

valeoak

I’ve explicitly said that warships should carry AShMs for defensive purposes. Why are you making my own point back to me?

Humpty Dumpty

Yep, totally agree. T45s need Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles that outrange ship-launched Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18. That said, a longer ranged variant will be required to outrange ship-launched Zircon when it comes into service.

Paul T

If you compare Aster 15 with Sea Ceptor on a purely 1 vs 1 basis you have to admit the Aster is the more Superior Missile,but what SC wins on is Cost – although we can only speculate on here what those costs are,SC has been in service for a couple of years now, it has been tested and trialled and it looks like a Winner.With a large order book for both Ships and Land use it may be the case that the sheer volume of Rounds to be produced brings it’s price way below that of the Aster 15,which as has been said will likely be recycled into Aster 30’s.

Sonik

I think you are right, CAMM is definitely a lot cheaper.

ASRAAM is known to be around £200k mark; while CAMM probably costs a fair bit more due to soft launch cannister etc. it’s probably safe to say that it’s no more than 1/3 the £1.3m cost of ASTER 15. And of course the mushrooms are much cheaper than hot launch VLS.

Like you said the big win from adding Ceptor to T45 is the ability to increase A30 load-out at marginal cost; because this reuses expensive hot-launch VLS and (converted) A15 that are already paid for.

Humpty Dumpty

Yep CAMM is a downgrade compared to Aster 15. It’s slower and has less range, plus AFAIK no PIF-PAF. This decision to fit CAMMs to T45s is utterly idiotic. And it’s going to take 11 years to complete. The mind boggles. TWISTER should be ready by then.

It would make far more sense to fit more Sylver cells for more Aster 30 Block 0 and ideally Aster 30 Block 1NT as well. As well as Mk41 VLS for SM-3, SM-6, TLAM and VL-ASROC. The T45s have good radars and don’t have the missiles to make the most of them.

Teves

Nice upgrade but could have done with another 12-24 seaceptor fitted mid ship and change out the 30mm cannons for 2 40mm Bofors for better local area protection. The 30mm cannons could then go on the carriers like they were supposed to be.

Cam

Who knows why we never put the 30mm on the carriers.. money was allocated for them im sure in the build cost, and we do have spare sets in the RN just like we do with Phalanx.

Supportive Bloke

Brand new sets were ordered for the carriers.

That is public domain information from MOD and from the manufacturers.

It *might* just be that something more interesting is in the works with all the modernisation budget that is now available?

Don

Agree
Could it be 57mm?

James Fennell

I suspect the requirement to fit catapults for UAS might affect the deck shape. Wlidcat with Martlet are a much better option for stopping swarming speedboats – we really should not let them get anywhere close to the carriers. 12.7 HMG and Miniguns are enough for force protection in harbour. Much better to fit Sea Ceptor.

Last edited 4 months ago by James Fennell
Cam

How many 50cals did HMS QE get?

Andy A

its not a lack of guns that has stopped them putting on carrier, MOD has quite a few from decommissioned ships and loads of 40mm. It was a decision by RN

Cam

Can’t be money saving operational costs… must be a bigger reason the carriers won’t get the 4 30mm. Even Italian carriers have niger guns, and indias new carrier willl have 4 medium guns.

Sonik

Put a couple of T31 in the CSG as CV close protection, problem solved.

T31 has Gatekeeper EO, NS110, 2x 40mm and 57mm/3P, so it’s ideal for this role. It’s basically a floating CIWS and quite a seriously potent one.

I think this may be the thinking.

Last edited 4 months ago by Ben Robins
Paul.P

I think you’ve read it right there Sonik.

AlexS

No radar DT no good CIWS.

Sonik

I thought that too.

But others on here, far more knowledgeable than me, said that off-mount FCS, using main radar and CMS, is both doable and standard practice. So doesn’t appear to be a problem.

And the Gatekeeper EO will be very effective for FIACs etc.

Glass Half Full

Not to overlook 12x CAMM for CIWS that might be relatively straightforward to expand on T31 vs. adding to the carriers.

Sonik

Very good points.

By putting the weapons on a separate vessel (i.e. not on the CV itself) T31’s capability as a ‘super CIWS’ can be attached to any TSG e.g. CSG, LSG, Amphib or minehunting group.

It seems to me therefore, the overall intention is to create a range of different layered defensive capabilities, spread between T45, T26, T31.

These platforms can then be mixed and matched into various task groups and positioned around the HVUs according to the threat environment where deployed.

IMO this approach is both more flexible, and much more potent against each threat, than having a smaller number of more heavily armed general purpose escorts like e.g. AB, CSC or Hunter.

Last edited 4 months ago by Ben Robins
Glass Half Full

In a CSG a T31 might operate out beyond the T26 as picket ship, or as the close-to-carrier defence ship you’ve outlined.

If T32 ends up being an intermediate frigate, along the lines of the FTI or PPA Full/Light+ then there’s significant flexibility in the fleet. Especially if the RN follows other navies and implements a modern Co-operative Engagement Capability, perhaps supporting not only a shared air picture but also surface and sub-surface information.

Humpty Dumpty

T31s at best are for defending commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf. 57mm guns firing 3P and MAD-FIRES may be useful against slower anti-ship missiles, but what T45s really need is SM-3, SM-6, Aster 30 Block 1NT, VL-ASROC, TLAM, Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles, anti-torpedo torpedoes, Dragonfire, 1+ megawatt chemical lasers, microwave weapons, 5-inch guns firing HVPs and a better CIWS than Phalanx. If 57mm guns can be fitted as well then all the better. But I don’t really see the sense of having T31s operate as part of a carrier group.

And missiles and/or drones need to be developed that can take out mobile anti-ship missile launchers and/or the locations where they’re rearmed, refuelled, get maintained and get repaired. Better to take out the archers than the arrows.

Last edited 4 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
AlexS

Per wiki 64 Barak-8 sam , 4 Oto 76, 4 AK 630

Anthony

Mk 41’s could still replace some or all of the Sylver 50 cells, say for SM3 and/or Tomahawk Mk5 or a new missile that can intercept hypersonic glide missiles.

This is the cheapest installation of Sea Ceptor. The Aster 30 block 1NT, was mention in the review.

Tim Hirst

Given that the ships are currently mid life I don’t see that big a mod happening after the Sea Ceptor addition.

Rob N

It is a air defence platform it does not need Tomahawk! ASTER 30 Block 1NT will almost certainly be bought for T45 and it will fit the existing VLS. 1NT is an ABM missile like SM3. I am sure the T83 will be built with strike length VLS capable of adding ASTER 30 Block 2.

Meirion X

Yes agreed, Defence News mentions bulk of the new money is for existing missle upgrades.

Last edited 4 months ago by Meirion X
Humpty Dumpty

The T45 is mainly a defensive ship and it’s not a particularly good one at that. It doesn’t have anywhere near enough launch cells, Aster 30 Block 0 lacks range and it has no way to shoot down ballistic anti-ship missiles. The only offensive capability the T45 has is Harpoon and that lacks range vs Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18. So basically the T45 seriously lacks teeth.

The T45 would be far more effective if it had long-range anti-ship missiles/land-attack missiles/anti-sub missiles and a way to shoot down ballistic missiles.

Aster 30 Block 1NT will be an improvement over the current Aster 30 Block 0, but T45s would be better off if they also had SM-3.

James Fennell

There job is to defend the carriers from air and missile attack. The Type 26s and F-35s can do strike.

Last edited 4 months ago by James Fennell
Jim

Not to mention the Astutes… Somehow everyone always forgets the silent service.

Like when people lament the lack of anti-ship capability of the RN, they seem to forget that the RN is one of a small group that’s actually sunk an enemy warship in combat since WW2, and that was with a submarine.

Sunmack

That was a time when we had a dozen SSN’s and quite a few SS’s. We now have only7 SSN’s which typically means 2 at sea. With on escorting the CBG and one east of Suez as a cruise missile truck that’s the deployed fleet committed. We don’t have enough SSN’s to leave thr ASuW role to them

Jim

We don’t tend to sail around in peace time sinking other people’s ships. I think in times of crisis (eg the Falklands war) more could be made ready and concentrated to where the enemy shipping is.

Humpty Dumpty

How are we going to make more Astutes available when we only currently have 5 with 2 being built? Talk sense.

Humpty Dumpty

Firstly we don’t have enough Astutes and secondly they’d be far more effective and survivable if they carried anti-ship missiles, Torbuster to provide self-defence against torpedoes and IDAS to shoot down ASW helicopters.

Humpty Dumpty

The T45s currently have no way of taking out ballistic anti-ship missiles (and no upward facing radar for that matter). Fitting TLAM to T26s, which are meant to be quiet sub-hunting vessels, is absolutely idiotic. The T45s should have TLAM, not the T26s. The Type 26s also require VL-ASROC and anti-torpedo torpedoes. And what strike are the F-35s going to do? They can’t carry LRASM, standard HARM or JASSM internally, which totally defeats the purpose of having stealth aircraft. Plus if a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-26 or Kinzhal, then F-35Bs couldn’t even reach land anyway.

Sunmack

It’s a welcome addition to the ships anti-aircraft and anti-missile capabilities. However in no way could it be described as fulfilling these very large ships full potential.

In their AAW role, fulfilling their full potential requires a TBMD capability and the installation of the Co-operative Engagement Capability.

They also fall well short of the ASW amd ASuW capabilities of every other NATO nations air defence escorts, many of which are smaller and much cheaper ships. Given T45’s are frequently deployed independently of task groups in full threat spectrum situations (for example when Defender was sent to the Gulf in 2019 during the confrontation with Iran) , their limited ASuW capability and almost non-existent ASW capability is an issue.

The final change that would be needed for these ships to reach their full potential would be for them to carry a helicopter with a data link for real time over the horizon intelligence gathering capability.

Tim Hirst

Now the carrier task group is non standby I don’t see the T45 doing much independent long distance patrolling in the future. To have 2 worked up ships on short notice for carrier protection will use up most of the 6 ships time when you allow for refits and training.

Gavin Gordon

We ought be able to rely on Ras & Xi to encourage yet more upgrade cash as time goes by. ☺That’s if Xi doesn’t own all our IT/microchip industry by then…..🙃

Cam

China’s trying to buy up everything… god knows why we are letting them do it.., oh yeah moneys more important apparently

X

At the moment they can be detached but in war they would sit at the centre of a task group within the ASW screen. As much as I would have liked to see T45 to have had a full ASW fit out I think that will never happen. Never mind the noise issue. Something which those I talk with won’t be drawn to comment upon. I can’t believe we built an IEP ship with that issue seeing as one of the drivers for a warship design adopting electric propulsion is that is inherently quiet supposedly! In situations like the Gulf the torpedo warning sonar would be enough. Supposedly it can prosecute targets which would be enough for Iran’s very primitive boats. Security in such dangerous areas is the only reason I can see T45 carrying helicopters. There is no need for a data link as the human voice would be enough. A more pressing issue in those situations is the lack of modern cannon on T45 such as the Bofors 40mm headed for T31 to defend against fast boats. But they won’t be fitted as the T45 as the risk is low of Iran (or other actors in similar scenarios) actually firing on them . It could happen. But sabre rattling and silly games are par for the course. Anything that is actually a threat to the ship like a missile T45 has the systems to deal with it.

TBMD is now a must have as China seems to be investing in more ICBM’s and other actors like Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

Last edited 4 months ago by X
Jon

It’s the Wildcats that don’t have the datalink, not the Type 45s. It affects them no matter what ship they operate from and it’s a serious lack that can’t be covered by saying human voice will be enough. It won’t. All platforms need to contribute to the infospace.

Agree on the noise issue, but far too late to do anything about that.

X

If neither end doesn’t have it then neither end has it.

A lot is done by voice.

The voice transmits information.

Cam

X do u know how many torpedoes or missiles the 45s carry for the choppers? And where they are stored?

Meirion X

That’s info the RN rarely disclosed, most likely stored underneath the hanger.

Cam

For wildcats to not have data link isn’t a small thing… it’s embarrassing…

Cam

How many torpedoes do the 45s routinely carry anyways? Anyone know,

Humpty Dumpty

Totally agree. Let’s face it, the T45s are garbage. Under-armed, under-defended, next to no offensive capability and we don’t have enough of them. If we’re not going to build proper warships then we should stop trying and just focus on home waters defence instead. We don’t have an empire any more.

Andrew Barnes

This has to be a wind up surely? Additional missiles being fitted to a Royal Navy ship? I am truly and very pleasantly surprised!

Duker

And its not just adding them to previous ‘for but not with’

Teves

Just realised why the slow pace, bet they are re using the the sea ceptor equipment from the type 23 as they decomission, so the only cost are demo and install/ setup. The remainder will end up on the type 31s.

CIZUK

No, the Type 23’s Sea Ceptors are being fitted to the Type 26s and 31s, plus some.
13 Type 23s x 32 cells = 416 cells
8 Type 26s x 48 cells = 384 cells
5 Type 31s x 12 cells = 60 cells
6 Type 45s x 24 cells = 144 cells
Before = 416, after = 588.

Teves

I agree with your numbers but the type 31 and 6 type 45 only need 5 type 23s we only have 3 type 26s on order the remaining five wonly be along till the late 30’s there bye putting off the need to purchase any more till at least 2034.

Meirion X

Don’t forget, only 12 T23’s have been fitted with Sea Ceptor. One not getting it, HMS Monmouth is to be retired early.

Last edited 4 months ago by Meirion X
Jack65

I don’t believe they are . Type 45 will be fitted with the flush fitting units ordered for Type 26 and 31. The ‘Mushrooms ‘ came about purely because Sea Ceptor is too long to fit flush in the old Sea Wolf silos.

Don

T26 all new stock
10 T31 24 camm = 240
6 T45 24 camm =144
Total 384 from the 12 upgraded T23.

Last edited 4 months ago by Don
Meirion X

Actually, the Sea Ceptor systems from
most of the T23s, are for the T26’s, apart from the first 3 T26’s are to have new ones fitted.

Cam

Why would they use the 23s silos? They are just the old overhauled sea wolf cells arent they…

donald_of_tokyo

I understand “silos” will not be re-used. Looking around, CAMM launcher is made of

1: a canister including the missile = this is the “round” RN has, covered by complex weapon budget, and shared among many ships. There are no such thing as “reusing the canister”. Canister is always rotating among the ships.

2: a mount with shock absorber

3: a cover with bellows, connecting the top of the canister and the hull openings (in case of T23, the “hull opening” is the re-use of SeaWolf tube)

4: a mushroom cover, only mounted on transit and taken off when used.
In addition, there is a Launch Management System (LMS) = a box that can control 8-12 CAMM launchers. T23 has 4 of them.

5: 2-way datalink. AESA arrays in two domes.

So, what to be re-used is: the shock absorber, the LMSs, and datalinks. The bellow cover and the mushroom head are just plastic/rubbers. Reusing may happen, but I understand it will also rather rotate or consumed.

It is costy? Not sure. I guess, reusing LMS and datalinks might be reasonable, but not sure about the shock absorber.

Cam

Thanks for that

Meirion X

Those Sea Wolf tubes are welded into the hull fixed to resist high pressure. They contain the CAMM canisters. Or overwise you have the front of hull full of gases after a launch. That’s why you don’t see missing ‘mushrooms!

Last edited 4 months ago by Meirion X
James Fennell

CAMM soft launches – no gasses. Also Sea Ceptor silos have to be angled seawards – in case a soft launched missile fails to fire – it then falls into the sea not on deck – so the Sea Wolf silos are not used, only the deck openings.

Meirion X

So all those under deck metal tubes were removed in the T23 refits, and replaced with a framework of guides of sort, so that the CAMM canisters are angled outward?

Last edited 4 months ago by Meirion X
Meirion X

From the speculative mockup image of the extended silo with the additional CAMM cells, has the turning circle of the main gun within the silo a bit. You can see the turning circle clearly!

Last edited 4 months ago by Meirion X
donald_of_tokyo

Yeh. But, it is still more spacy than the 4.5 inch gun of T23. So, there is not problem, I think.

Duker

Thats turning circle of barrel while level , unless you want to fire into your superstructure you dont need it pointing horizontal that direction.

Meirion X

Let’ hope then, no one forgets to raise the barrel while testing etc!

James Fennell

Some new fangled gizmo called a computer stops that happening.

Cam

If aster 15s are done away with what other missiles are compatible in their space? Apart for 30s..

X

Nothing of any use to us just some French short range AA missiles.

For SCALP-N we would need T45 to have A70. That’s the same missile as Storm Shadow.

Paul T

AFAIK Not many, MICA springs to mind, basically any Missile that is Qualified for the Sylver VLS.

Cam

Ah right, cheers.

Tim Hirst

I doubt any A15’s will be scrapped. It’s very possible that some or all of them may, through the addition of a booster, become A30 units.
The total number of Aster units won’t change, but the split between A15 and A30 may change.

Cam

Yeah I supose a full fit out if 30s is better and gives more long range defence, but this isn’t happening for another 5 years minimum…

Samuel

Mica VL can be added for an IR homing Option and there is a Radar homing version too…they are MBDA and fit the S50 launchers allready

Tim Hirst

Given the RN already uses the Sea Ceptor I think I’ve got more chance of winning Miss World than the RN has of operating Mica VL.

Cam

Have you applied for miss world 😂

Meirion X

Some A15s could be retained to top up the short range capability, if needed. It would depend on the mission how many to top up. So a mission with 12 A15’s would give a T45 a total of 36 short range missiles with the built-in 24 CAMM.

Last edited 4 months ago by Meirion X
Glass Half Full

It doesn’t look like any A15s will be kept. According to MDBA, “The existing 48 Sylver cells on the Type 45 will now be solely for the longer-range Aster 30 missile”

https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/mbdas-camm-to-strengthen-air-defence-capability-of-royal-navy-type-45-destroyers/

Andrew Deacon

Can someone explain why ballistic anti ship missiles can’t be intercepted in the dive phase , after all unless they are nuclear armed they have to actually hit the ship to damage it. I get there may be good reasons to want to take them out as early as possible but even so ?
On a side note does/ could aster have an anti ship role like the SM6 ?

Bloke down the pub

A quarter of a ton of metal and explosives, headed straight down at your ship at high mach, has a lot of momentum. Even if you hit it in the later stages of flight, likelihood is that you’re still going to be hit by the resulting shrapnel and severely damaged.

Trevor Holcroft

Yes, fair comment. However just how big are such missiles? I mean a Ford Focus is about 1500kg. 1.5tons.
That is 6 time the size/weight of the missile suggested. Clearly shrapnel is an issue, but some of such a missile might be expected to be vaporized.

Netking

By dive phase I asume you are taking about the terminal phase. This has been done by the THAAD and the SM-6 before on multiple occasion during testing.

DaveyB

Ballistic missiles can be intercepted in the dive (terminal) phase. Western missiles that have are the SM3, SM6, Patriot, THAAD, Aster 30 and the Israeli Stunner missile that’s part of the David’s Sling system.

The anti-ship ballistic missile may be slightly harder to hit as it will maneuver to intercept the ship, whereas a land attack ballistic missile/MIRV aims for a static target. At some point the ballistic missile/MIRV will need to slow down to below Mach 7 to dissipate the plasma that surrounds it. This is so it can either activate its search radar or use it IR sensor.

Only the SM3 is capable of both in-atmosphere and exoatmosphere interceptions. It also has the highest success rate. THAAD was specifically built for the terminal phase interception. There hasn’t been anything recently published on the progress of the Aster BMD missile.

The Aster 30 Block 1 NT is the equivalent to the SM6. The SM6 uses a derivative of the AMRAAM active radar, where the flat panel antenna has a larger cross sectional area for improved range.

As part of the NT upgrade MBDA have changed the active radar. It’s still not an AESA but they have changed the operating band. This new band gives even better target resolution. In theory the radar will be able to pick out a specific point on a ship. So the radar is more than capable, it’s the software that would need upgrading. Will MBDA do this? I personally think they will at some point to compete with the SM6. The US Navy are calling SM6 a multi-role missile as it can be used against all types of air threat, shipping but also land targets. The warhead is relatively small but the missile will be carrying a lot of kinetic energy.

MBDA quote the standard Aster 30 velocity as Mach 4.5. The Block 1 NT supersedes this by quite a large margin to enable it to reach very high altitude targets plus the additional range SAMP/T requires. It is mostly probably traveling at hypersonic speeds much like the SM6, Again it has a small warhead, but carries a lot of kinetic energy when hitting a surface target.

Netking

@DaveyB

Not sure if you saw this new video in the link below from the US missile defense agency on their plans to counter hypersonic weapons using the SM-6 missile. It also shows why hypersonic missiles are so difficult to defeat as they can fly under or around radar coverage that traditional ballistic missiles can’t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q-ieXZgrhY

Humpty Dumpty

“Ballistic missiles can be intercepted in the dive (terminal) phase. Western missiles that have are the SM3, SM6, Patriot, THAAD, Aster 30 and the Israeli Stunner missile that’s part of the David’s Sling system.”

Can you give me a link confirming that Aster 30 Block 0 is capable of taking out ballistic missiles in their terminal phase? Or are you referring to Aster 30 Block 1NT? And at what altitude are you talking about?

Rob N

Great news. It also means that the T45 can control Sea Ceptor fired from other ships…

donald_of_tokyo

Great news. Apart from many “can do” proposals, I think RN has selected one of the cheapest but meaningful one = the best choice.

It is also a practical choice.

It is known that SeaCeptor has good software commonality with SeaViper = easy to integrate. CAMM mushroom silo is very light weight and cheap (the reason Italian navy selected mushroom, not Sylver). So, as a cheap and efficient addition, the contract is very good move.

Adding 16-cell Mk.41 VLS to T45 has been a “dream” for long. But, TLAM ? Improving AAW capability will be of much higher priority for T45. BMD with SM-3? Really going with that high-cost option? Such dreams have been killed. Not bad. Not making decision in favor of “future (dreamy) budget increase” is exactly the reason RN has so many “FFBNW” systems elsewhere. Decision is important, practical decisions.

Another thing I can propose will be, replacing the 4.5 inch gun with 57mm gun (as already proposed up there). With 3P ammo there, and guided rounds under development, it will be a very nice “close in weapon systems” for ASuW and AAW (especially against fast-boat swarm and drone swarm = cheap but numerous attacks), complementing Aster and CAMM. It cost a little, but we shall compare it with the support cost of the 4.5 inch guns until the last T45 be replaced with the last T83. Considering the “continuous escort building” until the fist T26 decommission, I am not surprised if it be 2055 or so.

Also, 57 mm guns is significantly light weight (from 27t to 8t). If possible, how about adding another 12 or 24 CAMM using the weight margins released?

Geoffrey Hicking

All those people telling us that more missiles for the T45 was “fantasy fleet”. All those people telling us that more frigates was “armchair admiral talk”.

Some of us apologised for thinking we needed more missiles and more ships. Can we now have an apology from those people that told us oh-so-confidently that the RN didn’t need anything more?

Pacman27

My only real concern with this proposal and that of the T26 is why we don’t build a VLS system that can quad pack these.

surely we can build a VLS that can fit in the slot earmarked for 16 Mk41 and build a 16-24 tube VLS that can be Quad packed.

given the tubes are pretty basic relative to its competitors – I do think we are missing a trick in not specifying quad packed tubes.

realistically the need for these missiles is only going to increase in future, we should be getting ahead of it at what is surely quite a low cost upgrade.

donald_of_tokyo

Partly agree. But, even though there are ExLS in Mk41 and ExLS stand-alone, and Canadian navy adopting it for their T26, RN and Italian navy is adopting the mushrooms. So clearly, mushroom has it own merit.

If the merit is “being significantly cheap”, adopting quad-pack system for Mk.41 or Sylver (in practice, its development/integration cost) might have killed all the “24 more CAMM on T45” program.

If there be “a little more” money, I shall also move the “quad-pack development cost” into adding 12 more CAMM to all T31, increasing the I-SSGW units, or else, than developing quad-pack system.

Only if there are “much more” money and “adding 96 more CAMM and 19 units of I-SSGW (and three more P-8 and 3 more P-7)” can be foreseen, surely I will support going for quad-pack option. In other words, I guess if this £500M contract included quad-packing CAMM, I’m afraid T45 will only get 12 more CAMM each, not 24.

All guess, but possible, I think.

Last edited 4 months ago by donald_of_tokyo
Cam

I would rather 12 camm on a type 45 and 24 minimum on 31s…

Pacman27

not suggesting we quad pack it into a really expensive Mk41 or Sylver VLS, what I am suggesting is we either increase the density of the Seaceptor tubes to the same space or create a quad pack VLS specifically for Seaceptor.

Its good news, but 24 is not enough, future ships will need a lot more and whilst 72 VLS is great, its what is in them that counts, and being able to quad pack Sea Ceptor (or martlett if we wanted to) is a major uptick in capability for very little additional cost.

think this needs to happen on T26 as well as 72 missiles will not be enough in the near future.

Teves

Don’t we have something like that on the army version they have 2 banks of six on back of a wagon can we not fit them with a weather wrapper To keep the sea out.

Pacman27

they do and I was looking at it – we should easily be able to put 64 tubes in this space and probably more with some thought.

For T31 and T26 I do wonder wether we put a load of these into a container that can then be loaded in one and swapped out easily (a bit like stanflex)

Surely we can get at least 48 CAMM onto T45 even if that means quad packing into 12 VLS.

DaveyB

The Royal Artillery have said that they will be upgrading to the CAMM-ER, but haven’t give a timeframe.

Teves

Think whole host of containerised weapons are being looked at saw a schematic showing versions for Missiles gun mounts, asw, aaw, UAV, etc

Cam

And the 31s are only getting 12 camm….

Sunmack

Totally agree. While this is welcome, I’d have rather spent the £500m on 12 extra CAMM and a sonar for the T31

Sonik

I agree that T31 could do with more CAMM, but not instead of adding them to T45.

Adding Ceptor to T45 significantly increases magazine depth, and stockpile, for A30, with potential for ABM with block 1NT. All cued from SAMPSON.

A few more CAMM on T31 doesn’t add anything significant, to overall fleet AAW capability. Fair point about Sonar though.

Last edited 4 months ago by Ben Robins
Ron5

All “quad pack” means in a CAMM context is to have one cover for four missile containers instead of one cover for each. A mushroom is one cover.

It would imply placing four CAMM launcher/storage containers close to one another as in the Army’s CAMM launcher on a truck. As well as having a larger cover.

Given that the Navy wants to be able to inspect all 4 sides of each container while in the launcher framework, that design approach has not been chosen.

Last edited 4 months ago by Ron5
donald_of_tokyo

”Given that the Navy wants to be able to inspect all 4 sides of each container”.
Is this really mandated? Then, CAMM in ExLS loses what? I personally think this aspect must be cured. If properly designed and packaged, inspection on only one side (quad pack) or inspection-free (in Mk41/Sylver VLS or alike) shall be achieved…

HGT

For the benefit of a non-naval person, are the ships’ missile capacities limited to the number of cells or can they be reloaded from extra stocks held on board?

Tim Hirst

The cells can’t be reloaded at sea. There have been attempts in the US to find a practical way to fit a long and heavy missile container into the cells. These attempts have not yet succeeded.

HGT

Thank you.

Humpty Dumpty

The ADL launcher can be replenished at sea: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/improving-the-type-45-destroyer/

But what would be a game changer would be an auto-reloader that reloads missile launch cells with new missiles once a missile has been fired.

Jon Doe

Sea Dart on Type 42… “old school” revolver under the deck!

Humpty Dumpty

Have you got a link so I can read up on this?

Connor

Am I right in thinking that there is space for 16 VLS Mk41 behind the current Sylver A50 Silo?

Tim Hirst

No, the space reserved for an additional VLS is in front of the Sylver. It’s the same space as the Sea Ceptor is shown in the mock up image.

Connor

Appreciate the reply, thanks.

Moonstone

I suppose everyone will welcome this news and I’m no exception. It’s is a bit of a shame however that this additional missile capability will be fitted into very much the same location (if the illustration provided is accurate) that the existing main armament occupies. So one can imagine that a single hit forward might potentially disable all the ship’s principle AAW armament. the 4.5in gun, any SSM system occupying the old Harpoon location and for good measure the outboard countermeasure systems too. Indeed with so much propellent and explosive concentrated forward it would seem rather unlikely that a Type 45 could even survive a significant hit in this area.

A (much) quicker and simpler way to increase the ship’s missile armament might be to upgrade the two existing 20mm CIWS mounts to ‘Sea Ram’ standard as other Phalanx operators have done – this would also result in some defensive capability remaining operational perhaps if the ship received damage forward.

Warships should ideally be designed to take punishment as well as dish it out shouldn’t they?

Last edited 4 months ago by Moonstone
donald_of_tokyo

Replacing ALL Phalanx with SeaRAM may make sense (because of logistic commonality), but, I’m afraid RAM has too much an overlap with CAMM in its capability. RAM Blk2 has a good range, not much shorter than CAMM, and even VLS capable. It weights the same. The only difference is, RAM has IR seeker while CAMM has active radar. (But, developing an IR-seeker version of CAMM will be “easy” = SeaASRAMM?)

Anyway, I am “a bit” reluctant to introduce RAM in addition to Aster and CAMM. Personally, I think RAM is a good rival of CAMM. “CAMM can replace BOTH ESSM and RAM with a single system”, isn’t this a good seller for CAMM?

I understand the nicely packed SeaRAM is an attractive choice. But, for that, I rather think “how can UK develop a CAMM-based nicely-packed missile CIWS system”? It could be good for export, as well?

Arjun

CAMM cannot be compared with ESSM, CAMM maximum speed mach 3 and range 25km while ESSM maximum speed mach 4+ and range 50km.

Sonik

CAMM and CAMM-ER combined are somewhat comparable to RAM + ESSM. The advantage with CAMM is it’s a single integrated system, and cheaper.

Moonstone

Fitting CAAM also requires significant structural modification to the missile silo “box” and all the expense/time implications that go along with that. I will remind you that the article we are discussing here also informs us that this work package is not expected to be concluded until the early 2030’s – ie just a few years before the Type 45 class destroyers are themselves expected to reach their programmed out of service dates. So it seems reasonable to question whether this investment is really a wise use of limited resources?

Converting existing 20mm CIWS mounts to SEA RAM on the other hand – while not free of any workload or financial implications of course – would seemingly require little modification to the ship structure and might well be achievable relatively rapidly once funding has been secured and the contract signing process been negotiated.

Last edited 4 months ago by Moonstone
Sonik

The bulk of the cost, for the T45 upgrade, is for refreshing and increasing the A30 capability.

Steelwork costs peanuts; it’s the systems integration and support that costs most. Ceptor has software commonality with PAAMS and CAMM will be common across the whole escort fleet and stockpile shared with the Army.

Would adding RAM to T45, as a standalone one off capability, really be any cheaper or simpler?

Last edited 4 months ago by Ben Robins
D J

As the Canadians have decided, CAMM can do the job of RAM with the added bonus of a degree of area defence. The main advantage to SeaRAM is fitting it to just about anything that floats (or not), as it comes complete with its own sensor suite. CAMM still needs a reasonable ships radar, CMS & a data link.

Sonik

True, interesting too that the Canadians are using CAMM with ESSM.

To look at RAM another way, you could say CAMM doesn’t need integral targeting because it’s sensor agnostic, potentially even cued by EO as a fallback. And 3D radar is getting cheaper (e.g. NS50) and starting to be seen on OPV etc.

Integral targeting does provide sensor redundancy, but IMO regardless RAM makes no sense at all for RN, given the MOD wide commitment to CAMM.

Last edited 4 months ago by Ben Robins
Samuel

FINALLY….Type 45 gets a needed Firepower increase. Not only adding more missiles for Air defence but also some Surface Warfare capability :D. With 24 Sea Ceptor Missiles the Type 45 could rain them down on an enemy warship if needed. Sea Ceptor might not do much damage but all 24 of them could cripple similar sized warships. Whilst I would have preferred the MK41 VLS due to ASROC and Tomahawk, the fact the Type 45 is getting anything this major is outstanding. Sea Ceptor will give the Type 45 teeth until the MOD gets the new Anti Ship Missile sorted 😉

Cam

Not for half a decade yet though…

Humpty Dumpty

What firepower increase? What teeth? CAMM is inferior to Aster 15 that Type 45s already have. What T45s really need is a way to take out ballistic anti-ship missiles. And what surface warfare capability? A T45 would need to get ridiculously and dangerously close to an enemy ship to use CAMM against it.

Trevor Holcroft

Thank you for that, it shows where the missiles fit and where the new ones might go. Helpful.

If the T83 has to be wider to accommodate a taller radar mast (my assumption) then given the correct hull form and to maintain identical speed, then the length must be commensurately longer and larger displacement.
This presumably would allow more missiles forward and additional ones amidships. This (?) allowing for anti ballistic missiles and/or of course other types as well.

But AA and anti missile armament ought to be the reason d’etera of these ships (??).

Thanks for the blog.

Arjun

Even after upgrade, with 72 vertical launchers on T45 is still just average.

Arleigh Burke class has 96 VL
Atago class has 96 VL
Sejong class has 128 VL
Type 52D class has 64 VL

The days of being attacked by just 2 Super Etendard with one Exocet each are long gone.

Now the opening salvo will be a couple of dozens of various supersonic AShM, cruise missile and ballistic missile.

And follow on with more salvos.
200 AShM at a million pounds each will not even be enough cost to buy a new frigate but enough to sink a task force.

X

The Royal Navy would hope that EW would blunt the attack. But I think they are putting too much faith into it.

Rentaghost

It should be noted that not all those cells carry AAW missiles though. Your average Arleigh Burke still needs room for Tomahawk and ASROC.

X

The days of being attacked by just 2 Super Etendard with one Exocet each are long gone.

THIS. We forget that T42’s job was to take pot shots at Soviet MPA and not face regiments of bombers firing salvos of missiles. Different times now.

Rentaghost

Surely in that scenario, at least in the short term you are constrained more by how many missiles you can guide onto target simultaneously for a given engagement time, than the raw number of VLS cells available?

X

Yes.

Duker

” not face regiments of bombers firing salvos of missiles.”
The Naval Tu22 were still a threat in that era, thats why they had 2 fire control radars , a single one as originally designed would have handled the odd MPA
https://www.navylookout.com/reflecting-on-the-life-and-times-of-the-type-42-destroyers/

Last edited 4 months ago by Duker
X

A regiment was a wing of 15 cab squadrons. I would contend even with 2 fire control radars you would be in some difficulty. And knowing the equipment this is an example of 2 is 1.

I don’t understand your point.

Sonik

The number of VLS is pretty meaningless on its own IMO.

What is the rate of fire and PK? T45 scores very highly on both factors so has a very good chance of defeating saturation attempts.

And what (non nuclear) country actually has 200 £1m+ AShM to lob around? That’s more than the entire arsenal of most countries.

Last edited 4 months ago by Ben Robins
X

China has the industrial base to produce those missiles. It isn’t constrained as we are in the West.

Tim Hirst

The RN isn’t going to fight China on its own. RN ships will be part of large mutually supporting task groups.

Arjun

Another great idea for HM Treasury to cut some budget from RN and cancel this CAMM upgrade.

X

The comment said…….

And what (non nuclear) country actually has 200 £1m+ AShM to lob around? That’s more than the entire arsenal of most countries.

I admit to misreading and not seeing ‘non nuclear’ but what I said is true. And I never said who the RN would be fighting with or against. And it wouldn’t matter if they could easily produce AShN in numbers.

You either mistyped and meant to reply Sonik or yet again just felt a need to niggle.

Arjun

The number of VLS is pretty meaningless on its own IMO.

Excellent idea for HM Treasury to stop this T45 upgrade with CAMM.

Meirion X

Highly unlikely to be a change of UK Gov. before 2024! And at that point, cancellation fees be very high indeed.

Last edited 4 months ago by Meirion X
Sonik

I think maybe I didn’t explain that well.

It doesn’t matter how many missiles you have, if you can’t fire them quickly enough, and accurately enough, to intercept the incoming threat.

T45/Viper is already world leading for both simultaneous engagements and PK. Adding Ceptor makes it better still.

Humpty Dumpty

The T45 is meant to be a dedicated AAW ship but it currently has no way of shooting down ballistic anti-ship missiles (and has no upward facing radar). That is absolutely ludicrous.

AFAIK Aster 30 has only been tested against a sea-skimming Coyote missile flying at Mach 2.6 and AFAIK CAMM has only been tested against a subsonic Mirach drone. And I have no idea how stringent, or not, the tests were.

That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence. How would either missile perform against faster missiles and manoeuvrable missiles?

Arjun

And what (non nuclear) country actually has 200 £1m+ AShM to lob around?

Taiwan is buying 400 Harpoon Block II AShM from Boeing for USD2.4B, just saying.

Last edited 4 months ago by Arjun
Meirion X

Most of those AShM aimed across a strait of just 154km wide. And a warpon made in the USA provided to an ally.

Last edited 4 months ago by Meirion X
Arjun

What is your point?
Only allies could have AShM?

And who is not ally?

OkamsRazor

Your analysis is flawed because the T45 have a “one shot one hit” system whereas the other s have a two missiles per target system.
Secondly, with two T45s per CSG then 140 odd missiles is enough to counter any air wing on the planet.
The T45s will therefore be unrivalled.

Arjun

Excellent argument, T45 is already unrivalled.
CAMM upgrade should be cancelled.

“one shot one hit” – is only for war games in the mind
no system is 100% perfect

Last edited 4 months ago by Arjun
Pete

Threats change, technology evolves. Time-scales to upgrade are extended and the need to return to port to re arm means a larger load out makes operations more sustainable, a greater level of protection can be provided to a wide area and adding CAMM allows for a wider range of threats to be dealt with using UK IP at relatively low cost and project risk. Great decision.

Humpty Dumpty

One shot one hit? You sure about that? Got any sources to back up that claim?
No missile is 100% effective 100% of the time. Leakers can, and will, get through.

Teves

Does anyone know if the RN are trying to fit martlett missiles to phalanx to extend there usefull range. I know they have a solution for the 30mm cannon but phalanx appears to have had it’s day now the in coming missiles are getting faster and need to be taken out 10 km out.

Tim Hirst

10km out is what the Sea Ceptor is for. If Phalanx takes out a new fast missile at 750m it won’t be good, but it will be a whole lot less bad than the warhead detonating in the hart of the ship.
If Wikipedia is to be believed the minimum rage of Sea Ceptor is less than 1km. Phalanx is now a backup against missiles but still very good against swarm boats.

Humpty Dumpty

Phalanx is absolute garbage. An effective range of just 1.5km.

It should be replaced with the Oerlikon Millennium Gun firing AHEAD ammo or the Thales RAPIDSeaGuardian firing A3B ammo.

And back up those CIWSes with the OTO Melara 76mm firing DART and PFF ammo and/or the BAE Mk110 57mm firing 3P and MAD-FIRES.

And to deal with fast attack craft all the above weapons can deal with those too. The 76mm can fire VULCANO rounds and the 57mm can fire ORKA rounds.

DaveyB

They’d be better off trying to develop a fire and forget version of Starstreak. With a published speed over Mach 4 it will reach a target much sooner and further away than Martlet which travels at only Mach 1.5.

Teves

I was only thinking about using automation side and quick reaction side to protect the ship. Sea ceptor and astra rely on human to press the launch button, phalanx launches automatically when the ship is in danger of being hit. I heard the latest test of phalanx hit the missile but the debris and unspent fuel of the missile hit the ship causing fires and taking out some ships systems. It’s all about the layered approach.

Duker

Sea Ceptor is like the final versions of Sea Wolf before it , fully automated

Tim Hirst

Starstreak only goes so fast because it’s so light, add a more complex guidance system and a warhead in place of darts and you slow down and get renamed Martlet. Fast, complex guidance, lightweight, choose any 2 out of 3.

Paul.P

Short of all out war is a terrorist attack along the lines of 9/11 a threat to the carriers when they are in port or in a channel where its not possible to manoeuvre?https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/07/middleeast/dubai-fire-port-jebel-ali-intl/index.html

Sebastian

Could Sea Ceptor be fired by BAE Adaptable Deck Launcher (ADL)? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of ASuW-Missiles. But in their role as AAW-Destroyers in a carrier trike group I ask myself if it would be a good idea to fit ADL-Systems instead of Harpoon-Launchers. This would give them a bigger AAW-punch. And yes, I know, the RN hast Tomahawk on the Astutes. But if there would be some of them in front of the existing VLS, these subs could be used in their primary hunter roll.

Edit: I hat some major problems to write this post with my smartphone. I’m sorry!

Last edited 4 months ago by Sebastian
D J

I think the main problem would be the angle. CAMM gets ejected up about 30m & then gets turned in the required direction & angle before the engine fires. At 45 degrees, you would only be 15m high & possibly pointing in the wrong direction, needing more power to flip you over the other way. There would also be potential to hit your own or others superstructure due to the decreased height when the engine does fire. A hot launch missile like ESSM will be gaining height while turning.

Jon Doe

2 x BAe ADL on hangar roof = 👍

John

Still no long range strike capacity. Great ships…dreadfully underarmed.

Tim Hirst

Or even or dedicate as AAW ships. With 6 in the fleet they won’t see much time outside Europe except as part of the carrier group.

Humpty Dumpty

Good radars, terrible defensive and offensive capability. The T45s are a complete joke imo.

Jim

Why are they going for the old Sea Wolf style GWS-26/35 VLS rather than a more compact multi-cell launcher with multiple missiles per cell?

In 2018 the UK hosted MBDA & Lockheed Martin’s qualification tests for “quad-packed” CAMMs, firing from an ExLS (low-cost & compact 3-cell launcher based on the Mk 41 & 57 VLS).

The only reason I can think of is financial, but considering a single Sylver 8-cell launcher is around $3.2m and the slightly larger 8-cell Mk 41 is around $4.3m, a guess would put the 3-cell ExLS at around $2-2.5m. But each one can carry 12 CAMM missiles (32 in the case of an 8-cell VLS module), meaning that’s only around $167,000 to $208,000 per missile (for the launcher). I can’t imagine the individual GWS-35 system tubes are much cheaper than that.

Otherwise, it seems like they could have gone with 2x ExLS and saved some space (not encroaching on the traverse of the 4.5″ gun), or 1 full 8-cell Mk 41 (or Sylver if it’s possible to make it work for 4 missiles per cell), and got more cells for adding missiles if they decide to in the future.

If this work is planned to continue into the 2030s, then I wonder if they’re planning on also adding either strike length Mk 41s or Sylver A70s for the Harpoon replacement missile? Would make sense to do the work at the same time.

Tim Hirst

I think they are going with the mushroom cell as it provides commonality with the rest of the fleet and the Army.
As to the main gun it has no impact as the missiles are contained in the footprint of the existing deck house.
I would be surprised if the T45 ever seas Mk41/A70, its ever more clear that the RN seas them as pure AAW ships.
There replacement in the mid/late 30’s may well be a more multi roll ship. But any other improvements to the T4* will likely centre on is Radar and Aster missiles.

Jim

If the photo & caption from this tweet ( https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/908739689372319744 ) is accurate, then the army’s Land Ceptor launchers don’t use the cylindrical mushroom-style cell either. Actually, they look a lot closer to the individual quadrants from a 4-missile VLS canister.

Unfortunately, so would I, which I find baffling as while fine, and probably the best use of the resources, at least in the context of a unified task force, the navy still frequently uses these ships on their own, where the deficiencies in ASuW and ASW are not made up for by other units.

I know and will be the first to say we can’t afford Arleigh Burke style jack-of-all-trades, master of some ships, but I really hope they do try to find a little bit (relatively) of money to put the successor anti-ship missile onto the current vessels, and make sure the helicopters they carry can do an adequate job at ASW with dipping sonar and ariel torpedoes.

Craig

sad they didn’t add more syler or add Mk41 or even the light weigt exdl launchers that could quad pack camm in that space – could have easily had 32 or more camm in that space. (8 cell = 32 camm 16 = 64 camm and 24 cell would be 96 much better than type 23 silo which is space inefficient. Any of those versatile launchers would also have given option of accommodating other weapons in the future

Humpty Dumpty

“This means the project must be paced relatively slowly, the first Sea Ceptor-enhanced Type 45 should be delivered by the summer of 2026, with all 6 ships completed by winter 2032.”

So 11 years to fit all 6 ships with CAMMs. What on earth is the RN thinking?
What use are CAMMs, which AFAIK have only been tested against subsonic Mirach drones? They’re next to useless now, they’ll be even more useless come 2032.

Plus BAE Mk110 57mm guns firing 3P and MAD-FIRES ammo could shoot down subsonic anti-ship missiles far cheaper than CAMMs and these guns have good magazine depth. This decision to fit CAMMs to the T45s is absolutely bonkers.

The T45s need SM-3 and SM-6. Or SM-3 and Aster 30 Block 1NT. Or ideally all 3 missiles.
Although by 2032 TWISTER should be ready so the T45s and their replacements should be fitted with that instead.

That said, we need a way to take out mobile anti-ship missile launchers as well as where they rearm, refuel, get repaired and get maintained. Better to take out the archers rather than the arrows.

The T45s also need laser weapons, microwave weapons and anti-torpedo torpedoes, as do all RN ships.

Plus Mk41 VLS would enable other missiles to be fitted like TLAM and VL-ASROC (although really longer ranged variants of both missiles need to be developed). Can Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles be fitted in Mk41 cells? If so, that would be a vast improvement over Harpoon.

Last edited 4 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
OkamsRazor

You forgot Phasers and Photon Torpedos

Humpty Dumpty

Idiotic reply. I mentioned tech that already exists or could be developed, not fictional tech.

Last edited 4 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Ron

Ok so here is my take on the Sea Ceptor upgrade for the T45, about time. So lets start with some detail that if I had the money I would do with the T45. First I would remove the Mk8 4.5 inch gun, the T45 will not go on the gun line so get rid of it and install the 57mm instead. Second thing would be to install the Mk57vls cells between the two rows of Sylver A50s giving 12 Mk57 cells. Third install the 24 Sea Ceptors, forth equip the 30mm with the LMM and finally upgrade SAMPSON to a three plane array.

Much of this upgrade could then be used in the followon T83 class.