UK shortage of Frigates and Destroyers

I think the only real problem with the Type 45 is there are only 6 of them. When the new carriers come on line the Navy will need at least 1 if not 2 of them to escort the a carrier every where the days of letting Lusty and Ocean wonder around on there own will be over. and if the Navy let the new carriers out with out an escort oh dear

There’s no contention that six are too few, but, we do need to recall that not every tasking a uk group deploys to will face an evolved air threat or will be one that we deploy on alone. Op Palliser off Sierra Leone wouldn’t have demanded an AAW escort. The coalition ops off Libya saw the navies of France, Spain and the U.S. deploy no fewer than seven area AAW capable escorts all told. In either case the absolute necessity to incorporate a Daring in the tailored task group is questionable. If you consider the new capability that Ceptor is supposed to be bringing as well the point must be made that the frigate force will shortly be able to do much more in air defence terms than has been the reality for the last few generations.

So is the point that the Type 45 cannot defeat a sustained saturation attack? Or at least it will run out of missiles sooner than other types even if its a massive jump in capability for the RN?

Seems a little nit-picky?

That’s only Russia or China as potential adversaries if we are talking about hundreds of ASM fired at a battlegroup.

Am I wrong?

I think the only real problem with the Type 45 is there are only 6 of them. When the new carriers come on line the Navy will need at least 1 if not 2 of them to escort the a carrier every where the days of letting Lusty and Ocean wonder around on there own will be over. and if the Navy let the new carriers out with out an escort oh dear

So is the point that the Type 45 cannot defeat a sustained saturation attack? Or at least it will run out of missiles sooner than other types even if its a massive jump in capability for the RN?

Seems a little nit-picky?

That’s only Russia or China as potential adversaries if we are talking about hundreds of ASM fired at a battlegroup.

Am I wrong?

ESSM isn’t 15-16 km. I think you’re thinking of the original Sea Sparrow. Despite the name, ESSM is a completely new missile, much heavier & (despite what Wikipedia says) longer range. The USN says the range is ‘classified’ on its data sheet. but 50 km is widely bandied about. The motor manufacturer calls it ‘medium range’, & Raytheon says that one of the benefits of switching from the Sea Sparrow (10 nautical miles/18.5km) is ‘extended range’.

i’m being thick but what does the quad pack add to aster15? multiple launch capability from a VL tube?

The other thing to note is Aster15 gives you 30km+ range when ESSM is 15-16km Aster 15 is not really a short range missile, all the stuff you can quad pack is

After a quick look at War is Boring, is this the article that you were talking about?
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/all-the-things-the-british-military-cant-do-anymore-9560939f3d5

The bit about Aster doesn’t make any sense:…

It also mentions that the Type 22 was the primary anti-submarine ship in the RN, that is just outright wrong, the upgraded type 23 with 2087 sonar had that accolade and still do.

War is boring isn’t a very good website.

Indeed. Type 45 can only carry 20 Aster 15 but the Sachsen class can carry 32 missiles – WTF? Type 45 has 48 VLS cells & F124 has 32 – so T45 carries 48 Aster 30 & 15 while F124 usually carries 56 – 24 SM-2 & 32 ESSM. Only one Nimrod MRA4 built – er no, there were three development aircraft & two production aircraft had been completed when it was scrapped.

And so on. Bad article, no fact-checking by the site.

Quad pack means you can carry more missiles in the same space.

VLS silos built for big, long-range missiles such as SM-2 or Aster 30 are bigger than is needed for small, short-range missiles. If you can only put one small missile in a big silo, it’s a waste of space. But if you fit specialist small launchers for small missiles, some people will say you’re wasting the inherent flexibility of the VLS*. So . . . . if you build a small missile that you can fit more than one of in a big silo, you shut up the purists on both sides. Hence ESSM, which was designed specifically to fit four into a Mk 41 cell.

Aster 15 can’t be quad-packed without a slimmer booster (the booster is full-width, just like the Aster 30 booster but shorter) & some very fancy wing folding. The top end is the same as Aster 30, & was designed without thought of fitting in a small space.

*Even if the specialist small launchers are pretty much the same as the canisters that you slot four of into the big VLS, & the VLS is being used just as a box to hold them, with its venting & so on being redundant, as with CAMM & Mk 41 or Sylver.

i’m being thick but what does the quad pack add to aster15? multiple launch capability from a VL tube?

The T45 has a 48 cell vls which carry a mix of Aster 15 or 30s, so all of that information quoted above is just nonsense, it sounds like it’s a poorly written piece having a dig about not being able to quad packk Aster 15. For what it’s worth the lack of quad pack option on Aster 15 I do find a little difficult to understand but there you go.

Aster 15 is the same size as Aster 30 the booster is a little shorter thats all, there 50cm in it, your going to need a launch silo @ 17m long to fit them in end to end or one 4 times the area of a regular silo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_%28missile_family%29

I’m aware of this, it’s a design limitation over ESSM though.

The T45 has a 48 cell vls which carry a mix of Aster 15 or 30s, so all of that information quoted above is just nonsense, it sounds like it’s a poorly written piece having a dig about not being able to quad packk Aster 15. For what it’s worth the lack of quad pack option on Aster 15 I do find a little difficult to understand but there you go.

Aster 15 is the same size as Aster 30 the booster is a little shorter thats all, there 50cm in it, your going to need a launch silo @ 17m long to fit them in end to end or one 4 times the area of a regular silo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_%28missile_family%29

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

War is Boring is a bad website which has now gone further down in my estimations. In this case it’s almost as if they are trying to make their readers feel better about US defence cuts.

Whilst I realise this thread does not have Destroyer in the title, it seemed like a good place to start.

I recently read an article on “war is boring” which alleged that amongst other things the Aster missiles on the Type 45 can only be carried and fired in small numbers. It also alleged that the Astute (OT I know) was too slow.

Is there anything to this?

After a quick look at War is Boring, is this the article that you were talking about?
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/all-the-things-the-british-military-cant-do-anymore-9560939f3d5

The bit about Aster doesn’t make any sense:

And there’s a problem with the missiles. The Aster 15s are fine for a lone incoming anti-ship missile — the Aster 15 is highly maneuverable and functions as a both short- and medium-range defense weapon. But the missiles take up a lot of space and can’t be “quad-packed” into a missile tube.

This reduces the number of available Aster 15s to a mere 20 missiles compared to the 96 missiles carried by the U.S. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The number is even fewer than the advanced (but much smaller) Sachsen-class frigates of the German navy, which carry 32 missiles — and that was already on the low-end. In the event of an enemy saturation attack — like a blitz but with anti-ship missiles instead of linebackers — the air-defense-focused Daring class could be in serious trouble.

The T45 has a 48 cell vls which carry a mix of Aster 15 or 30s, so all of that information quoted above is just nonsense, it sounds like it’s a poorly written piece having a dig about not being able to quad packk Aster 15. For what it’s worth the lack of quad pack option on Aster 15 I do find a little difficult to understand but there you go.

It has been reported that Astute and Ambush won’t reach their design speed, I believe it was something to do with the gear box not being up to scratch, it’s being rectified in latter boats of the A class, it’s probably not a big deal.

It also mentions that the Type 22 was the primary anti-submarine ship in the RN, that is just outright wrong, the upgraded type 23 with 2087 sonar had that accolade and still do.

War is boring isn’t a very good website.

Whilst I realise this thread does not have Destroyer in the title, it seemed like a good place to start.

I recently read an article on “war is boring” which alleged that amongst other things the Aster missiles on the Type 45 can only be carried and fired in small numbers. It also alleged that the Astute (OT I know) was too slow.

Is there anything to this?

Yep maybe but I do think a radar upgrade to Scanter 4100 and fitting of a 30mm cannon would be a good move and maybe fitting a scaneagle system to give an eyes over the horizon capability

Can’t disagree with you there.

Yep maybe but I do think a radar upgrade to Scanter 4100 and fitting of a 30mm cannon would be a good move and maybe fitting a scaneagle system to give an eyes over the horizon capability

If the Navy are going to start using the River class in this way should they be upgraded with Scanter 4100 radars 30mm cannon and a flight deck. With the Tyne- Severn and Mersey still having 10 to 15 years service left that would bring all 7 ships of the class up to one standard in sensors weapons and helicopter support all be it the new 90m ships will be that bit more capable

I’m not sure if it’s possible to give the Rivers a flight deck, I would imagine if it was it would require quite a substantial rebuild.

HMS Severn set sail for her deployment on APN for 8 months on Friday the 28th Nov. As said what use she will be there will remain to be seen all that said good luck to her crew

If the Navy are going to start using the River class in this way should they be upgraded with Scanter 4100 radars 30mm cannon and a flight deck. With the Tyne- Severn and Mersey still having 10 to 15 years service left that would bring all 7 ships of the class up to one standard in sensors weapons and helicopter support all be it the new 90m ships will be that bit more capable

Really? I guessed you missed that this deployment is to be in the Caribbean!

You know – Bermuda, Jamaica, Tortuga, et all.

What a perfectly horrid place to spend a winter. Such harsh punishment.

Granted, when you get there, it may be quite pleasant…not really a case of Operation Deny Christmas. Getting there though will be anything but a pleasure cruise. Looks on the ocean forecast that there is some nastiness coming down from Newfoundland. 15ft mean wave height might be acceptable if you’re sat in a nice big aircraft carrier. Its a very different story in a small vessel…especially one thats ships company is modest from the start. If you’ve only got 10 in your watch and lose 2 or 3 to seasickness everyone else is working harder despite the conditions. I’ve done this…its not fun…though admittedly there wasnt the promise of a run ashore in Bermuda at the end of it where I was.

with HMS Seven about to leave UK waters for the first time on operations and head for the Caribbean for an Atlantic Patrol North mission over the winter, taking over from HMS Argyll. is this a sign of how few ship the Navy have or is it a testing of the water

This is a return to an earlier form of disciplinary deployment that has been allowed to lapse in recent decades. Essentially those showing inadequate performance or poor discipline are threatened with, and then condemned to, a winter northlant deployment in an 80m patrol hull!. Be interesting to check Navy News and see how many swap drafts there were for this deployment!.

Really? I guessed you missed that this deployment is to be in the Caribbean!

You know – Bermuda, Jamaica, Tortuga, et all.

What a perfectly horrid place to spend a winter. Such harsh punishment.