Heads up HMS Daring Programme

Agreed, but all the other warships on the export market are frigates in the 4000-6000 ton category. I find it curious that aside from the Chinese Sovremennys there has not been a destroyer purchase in recent naval history.

Frankly its academic now, whilst BAE Systems could relaunch production of Type 45 for an export customer it would be at a significant cost. Production of long lead items would have to be restarted and in the end other countries can undercut the UK when it comes to high end warship production. The Type 45 is pretty much unique to UK requirements and has plenty of gold plating.

£750m was floated about on another thread for a new Type 45, development having been paid for – no idea what the export mark-up would be, or whether the ship would be nerfed (so cheaper) for export.

I’d imagine that Saudi Arabia would save a lot of integration costs, and there would be more commonality, if they went for the Type 45 over the alternatives, given what their Al Riyadhs are already equipped with.

[Disclosure: I am the world’s biggest Type 45 fanboy.:)]

No idea, I suppose you can cut out development cost.

The problem is there are certainly some cheaper options out there. Certainly the Spanish F-100 class is very attractive as born out by export sales.

Certainly is or was! They tried to sell eight and nine to Saudi Arabia who didn’t bite. They then pulled the plug on it and settled on six.

I get a vibe that if the Saudis had gone for a couple of Type 45 the UK might well of got two extra themselves after satisfying the export order.

How much would an export variant have cost?

Certainly is or was! They tried to sell eight and nine to Saudi Arabia who didn’t bite. They then pulled the plug on it and settled on six.

I get a vibe that if the Saudis had gone for a couple of Type 45 the UK might well of got two extra themselves after satisfying the export order.

Sorry for reviving this old thread, but I have a question which I think best belongs here. Is the Daring class allowed for export, and if it is are systems like the SAMPSON radar and PAAMS exportable?

plus, no one really knows just how long those ‘final moments’ of illumination are. and they probably differ in various situations against various incoming missiles. It is a huge difference between, say, 4 seconds of illumination or half a second of illumination.

AEGIS is able to track/engage hundreds of targets (more than 100 per SPY-1), illumination is only required for the final moments prior to missile impact with threat. SM-6 (modified AMRAAM seeker fitted to SM-2) is meant to suppliment, not replace the SM-2.

They can track many, but they can’t engage anywhere near as many simultaneously. Same for T45.

However, the illuminator is still probably the limiting factor in Aegis.

AEGIS is able to track/engage hundreds of targets (more than 100 per SPY-1), illumination is only required for the final moments prior to missile impact with threat. SM-6 (modified AMRAAM seeker fitted to SM-2) is meant to suppliment, not replace the SM-2.

Having to illuminate with AN/SPG-62 is still a shortcoming in anybodys book.

Not to mention the fact that an Arleigh Burke derivative would have all but certainly have been fitted with the Mk 41 VLS and armed with SM-2s, ESSMs and maybe SM-3s. Assuming our Burke variant would have had the same 3 AN/SPG-62s mounted on it as the US’s does then this would give us the capability of engaging 3 targets at once, only a 50% improvement on the Type 42 they were supposed to be replacing. Compare that to the Sea Viper system which, theoretically due to the Aster missile’s active radar, could engage as many targets as the ship holds missiles all at the same time with up to 36 (not sure on this number, this program did say 36 but I’ve heard others saying only 12, more than 3 either way though) of those missile being directly controlled by Sampson.

AEGIS is able to track/engage hundreds of targets (more than 100 per SPY-1), illumination is only required for the final moments prior to missile impact with threat. SM-6 (modified AMRAAM seeker fitted to SM-2) is meant to suppliment, not replace the SM-2.

I think it’ll have been reduced somewhat as well, the only think to really disguise is the control towers and radar masts, the hull is already shaped to deflect waves. So it might look more like a fleet of fishing boats around a larger boat, or if the enemy has sense, some minor war vessels and a frigate – that’d be a nasty surprise in the making at least.

But keep in mind the CVF would be a lot further away with pickets some distance between the enemy and it, so it might be hard for them to pick it up, because land based radar would be too far away and aircraft would stumble on the “fishing boat” picket with Sea Viper instead of nets.

Whaling fleet? 😉

Honestly though, Whatever AEW is being used, it would hopefully be far enough out along the threat axis to detect any incoming aircraft before they could get a definate fix on the Carriers location.

What sort RCS will the QE have? If the RCS still on the scale of an aircraft carrier then surely the enemy attack planes are going to guess the flotilla of small ships around the carrier are the escorting Type-45 and Type-26 destroyers (I assume the Type 26 will have a massively reduced radar cross section)

I think it’ll have been reduced somewhat as well, the only think to really disguise is the control towers and radar masts, the hull is already shaped to deflect waves. So it might look more like a fleet of fishing boats around a larger boat, or if the enemy has sense, some minor war vessels and a frigate – that’d be a nasty surprise in the making at least.

But keep in mind the CVF would be a lot further away with pickets some distance between the enemy and it, so it might be hard for them to pick it up, because land based radar would be too far away and aircraft would stumble on the “fishing boat” picket with Sea Viper instead of nets.

Have a look at the radar tower and look at it’s angle, no shipbourne radar I can think of would be able to get a significant return on that due to the deflection, an aircraft would have a chance of spotting it but sending an aircraft to look for a Type 45 is like sending a very unattentive mouse to look for a very hungry cat.

Taking the whole ship and not just the radar tower though and as swerve said you get enough waves back to fool the radar into thinking it’s picked up a small coastal vessel as opposed to a large warship. These ships aren’t meant to be invisible (making a 150m long ship completely invisible would be almost impossible and very expensive), they’re meant to be sneaky and cunning.

What sort RCS will the QE have? If the RCS still on the scale of an aircraft carrier then surely the enemy attack planes are going to guess the flotilla of small ships around the carrier are the escorting Type-45 and Type-26 destroyers (I assume the Type 26 will have a massively reduced radar cross section)

Regarding the Daring class, it’s not as ‘stealthy’ looking as I thought it would be and, I know this may sound daft, but doesn’t that great big mast for the Sampson system generate a heck of a radar signature? Kinda moot point regarding stealth features then?

Have a look at the radar tower and look at it’s angle, no shipbourne radar I can think of would be able to get a significant return on that due to the deflection, an aircraft would have a chance of spotting it but sending an aircraft to look for a Type 45 is like sending a very unattentive mouse to look for a very hungry cat.

Taking the whole ship and not just the radar tower though and as swerve said you get enough waves back to fool the radar into thinking it’s picked up a small coastal vessel as opposed to a large warship. These ships aren’t meant to be invisible (making a 150m long ship completely invisible would be almost impossible and very expensive), they’re meant to be sneaky and cunning.

Regarding the Daring class, it’s not as ‘stealthy’ looking as I thought it would be and, I know this may sound daft, but doesn’t that great big mast for the Sampson system generate a heck of a radar signature? Kinda moot point regarding stealth features then?

Far less radar signature than a lattice mask would.

With a ship like this, we’re not talking about golf ball sized radar signatures, but maybe like a fishing boat, rather than a destroyer.

Watching the program right now, they are conducting war games against the armed forces of Ginger!

Anyone notice that aside from the Perry class the simulated enemy is basically India…Talwar class frigate and Jaguar armed with Sea Eagle.

This was a great programme. I noticed those ships on the screen in the briefing room before the exercise too. Am I correct in seeing a Type-21 Amazon/Tariq class frigate too? I think they could have been simulating some form of India/Pak scenario, especially with the Jaguar Sea Eagle combo.

Regarding the Daring class, it’s not as ‘stealthy’ looking as I thought it would be and, I know this may sound daft, but doesn’t that great big mast for the Sampson system generate a heck of a radar signature? Kinda moot point regarding stealth features then?

my point was rather simple: saturation is not dependent on if a phased array is rotating or not.
but in fact it is. in a setup with the same type of array and the same weapon system the more phased arrays you use the harder the system can be saturated. e.g. a setup with 4 fixed sampson arrays are harder to saturate than 2 rotating faces. as you mentioned saturating a system with an active seeker sam is a function of processing power and uplinks. the uplinks are provided by the phased array and there is another factor which is limited by the phased arrays: number of pencil beams/power output per time and sector.
imho one of the difficult tasks in developing modern radars is to manage the usage of this pencil beams/power budget to get the best overall results for volume search, high priority tracking, etc.
btw. there is no or only little information on sampson so we don’t know how long sampson needs for a full volume scan for example. we also do not know the radar range for sampson.

one of the main tasks of an x-band mfr is for sure icwi for essm/sm-2 but x-band also has other advantages especially in horizon search. the instrumental range of the mfr is not that interessting if you use a second system as volume search radar. so 150 km for apar e.g. is more than enough. everything else can be picked up by the slow rotating smart-l. there is a good reason the type-45 also has a additional vsr. it’s hard to use a single rotating radar at the same time as long range volume search system and as mfr for high update tracking etc. of course using a second radar system in a different frequency-band is always a good idea.

for your saturation calculation there are other additional factors like time duration of the terminal illumination. for example if the essm needs icwi for the last 2 sec before impact and if apar can handle 4 icwi’s on a single face you have to launch more than 2 essm per second if apar should be the limiting element. i made some calculations in this thread which shows that saturating a single apar array is more a theoretical issue than a real world scenario.

sorry but single panel saturation has absolutly nothing to do with rotating systems vs. fixed panel systems. it’s simply a matter of sarh vs. active seeker sams.

Not sure I follow your point there Radar?. APAR is allegedly capable, with ICWI, of providing terminal illumination to four missiles on four seperate targets per face. Obviously if you embark an active missile then you only need dwell sufficient to plot position and angular velocity until seeker capture. Fire channel limitations therefore become a function of the back end processing and link update-rate to the missiles.

If you are going to embark an active missile though an X-band set makes no sense. The reason to go X-band is for the resolution required for Semi-active missile shots. You pay a price for that resolution in range. If you dont need the resolution why take the range hit?.

A fixed panel with a semi-active missile, even with ICWI, has a distinct and fixed limit on simultaneous engagements because of the need for beam dwell….especially on a heavily manoevering ‘dancer’ inbound. That is a limitation that can be exploited in an attack scenario.

IF I knew, for example, that the simultaneous engagement limit of APAR, per panel, was ‘x’ targets and that APAR’s installed height above sea level gave a radar horizon of ‘y’ 000yds. All I need to know then is the minimum engagement range of the inner layer missile carried (ESSM here) and how fast my missile will traverse the distance between radar horizon and ESSM min range. Then I know how many missiles and/or decoys I need to shoot, down one threat bearing, to oversaturate that single panel.

It may still be a large number of missiles required to breach that ‘virtual attrition’ equation, but, the fact that the threat reduction exercise, against APAR/SM-2, is so much simpler than against a rotator/active missile makes a significant difference.

Thats it in a nut shell, different philosophy and different navy. In the end America can afford huge Carrier battle groups with multiple Arleigh Burke, Tico’s and E2 all talking with each other over Link-16 and networked with CEC. With 56 Arleigh Burke (70 planned) and 22 Tico active the American navy operates under different circumstances.

I do take issue with the quiet dropping of CEC for the Royal Navy as it would of done some to make up for the loss of six planned Type 45 in AAW. CAAM on the Type 23 and future Type 26 networked via CEC with the Type 45 and its superior radar would of been very handy.

Is the National Audit Office report incorrect then – they state that:

” It was always planned that several other equipments that contribute to providing the full capability envisaged for the Type 45 destroyers would be installed incrementally after Daring enters service. These equipments include communications and the United States’ developed Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) which can provide a clearer picture of the battle space and improve the ability of a task force to undertake anti-air warfare operations, particularly in coalition with the United States. The current target date to install CEC is 2014 – five years after Daring enters service but before the new Carriers, which Type 45 destroyer will protect, are planned to be ready.”

Has CEC been ruled out?

For information the link is:

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/the_type_45_destroyer.aspx