New destroyers enhance European navies
In recent years, many European navies have undergone quiet but nonetheless impressive enhancements. A number of imposing new aircraft carriers, landing platforms, warships and submarines have been introduced, particularly in the Royal Navy, the French Marine Nationale, Italy’s Marina Militare, the Deutsche Marine, the Armada Española, and the Koninklijke Marine of the Netherlands. These vessels of war hold some of the most lethal and advanced naval weaponry and radar equipment in the world—on par or exceeding that of even the United States Navy; some ships have even left American observers ‘shaken and shocked’. In fact, so many new classes have been recently completed, laid down, and ordered, that it would be inappropriate to deal with all of them all at once. In this entry, therefore, we shall deal with what are perhaps the most stunning two classes of warship, the Type 45 ‘Daring’ class and the Horizon class—both potent destroyers—which will enter service with the British, French and Italian navies in the next few years.Destroyers are one of the most important types of warship in any modern fleet, particularly those equipped with far larger vessels whose role is to project force over extensive distances. As a class of vessel in its own right, the first destroyer was developed by Fernando Villaamil, a Spanish naval officer and engineer, as a defence against the newly emerging threat from torpedo boats to pre-Dreadnought battleships in the early 1880s. His design was laid down in 1886, and commissioned into the Spanish fleet a year later. Called Destructor, the new gunboat had a displacement of a mere 315 tonnes, was armed with a just a handful of cannon and five torpedo tubes, but had a speed of approximately twenty-two knots, which gave it sufficient thrust to hunt down the new torpedo boats. Built in British shipyards, the vessel’s design was studied closely by the Admiralty in London, and later influenced the first generations of British destroyers—like HMS Havock, entering service in 1894. Against the role of these early destroyers, the modern destroyer’s role is to provide an aerial umbrella to defend larger ships against enemy attack by warplanes and anti-ship missiles. The Falklands War, the first naval conflict of the missile age, showed just how advanced anti-ship missiles had become by the early 1980s, and the French-designed Exocet missile proved to be a lethal threat to even the most advanced British vessels. HMS Sheffield, then a modern Type 42 destroyer, was struck by such a warhead with a considerable loss of life. Some of the lessons learned were implemented in the second half of the 1980s, although many countries already had large fleets of destroyers designed and built in the 1970s.
The Type 45 and Horizon destroyers were conceived in the late 1980s under the pretext of the NFR-90 (New Frigate for the 1990s) programme. This project included seven countries, and aimed to develop a new generation of air-defence warship; however, differing needs led the United States and United Kingdom to pull out of the programme, which subsequently faltered. Britain, France and Italy then went ahead to begin the Horizon Common Generation Frigate project in 1992, but London eventually withdrew—again citing different requirements—and went its own way. While Britain wanted ‘go-anywhere’ vessels, capable of producing a defensive ‘bubble’ over entire fleets, France did not need such a requirement due to the projected capacity of its new aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. Further, Italy’s navy, still operating primarily under air cover provided by the Italian airforce in the Mediterranean Sea, did not want such expensive and powerful ships either. Britain went ahead on its own, and began developing the Type 45 in 1999.
Both classes of ship, however, would eventually come to use similar or identical radar and weapons systems, centred around the ‘phenomenal’ Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS), which utilises SAMPSON radar in the Type 45’s case, and EMPAR in the case of the Horizon. PAAMS also uses the ASTER surface-to-air missiles, which when combined with SAMPSON or EMPAR, provides an almost impervious aerial defence system, capable of protecting large fleets of vessels. Indeed, so advanced is PAAMS that it can detect and track almost every single flying object the size of a grapefruit over a radius of several-hundred kilometres. At any moment, it can fire multiple salvoes of missiles to knock numerous targets out of the sky within a radius of one hundred kilometres from the ship. So capable will the new ships be that just one of the new vessels will be more powerful than the entire current fleet of the Royal Navy’s Type 42 destroyers. Revealingly, as one of the Royal Navy’s Lieutenant-Commanders, Phil Harper, says, referring to each ship’s forty-eight ASTER missiles: ‘It doesn't sound much, but by the time you have used them up most air forces are dead.’
Type 45 ‘Daring’ class: The Type 45 has a displacement of 7,350 tonnes, which makes it heavier than some types of World War II cruiser. Each vessel is 154.4 metres long, 21.2 metres wide and has a draught of 5 metres. Yet its stealth shielding means that its radar signature is comparable to a fishing boat. Powered by Integrated Electric Propulsion—the first system of its kind in the world—the vessels can ‘comfortably’ reach speeds of over thirty knots, and have a range of 13,000 kilometres. With PAAMS and armed with forty-eight ASTER missiles, a 114 millimetre long-range naval gun, and Phalanx close-in weapons systems, the ‘Daring class’, according to the former First Sea Lord, Sir Alan West, will ‘be the Royal Navy’s most capable destroyer ever, and will enter service later this decade as the best air defence ship in the world.’ Indeed, these weapons systems will be further enhanced with heavy machine-guns, decoys, and a Lynx attack helicopter or Merlin support helicopter. While primarily designed to defend the two massive new British aircraft carriers, due to come into service in 2014 and 2016 respectively, the Type 45s are also capable of multi-purpose use and are deployable anywhere in the world. Eight Type 45s are planned for construction, with the first, HMS Daring, already under sea trials. The other five vessels of the first batch—costing £6 billion (€8.8 billion)—are to be named HMS Dauntless, HMS Diamond, HMS Dragon, HMS Defender and HMS Duncan.As BAe Systems puts it, which designed and is building the vessels:
The Type 45 anti-air warfare destroyers will provide the backbone of the Royal Navy’s air defences for much of the first half of the twenty-first century. They will be able to engage a large number of targets simultaneously and defend aircraft carriers or groups of ships, such as an amphibious landing force, against the strongest future threats from the air. A versatile warship, the Type 45 will provide unprecedented detection and defensive capability and vastly improved living standards when the first of class, [HMS] Daring, enters service in 2009. They will be capable of contributing to worldwide maritime and joint operations in multi-threat environments, providing a specialist air-warfare capability.
Horizon class: Like the Type 45, the Horizon class of destroyer will also be a state-of-the-art naval platform. While its EMPAR radar system will have lesser range than SAMPSON, its effect within the covered area will be comparably lethal for any aerial object attempting hostile penetration of the warship’s defensive perimeter. Four ships—costing €3 billion (£2.3 billion)—of the Horizon class are due to be completed: France has named its two vessels Forbin and Chevalier Paul, while Italy’s are to be called Andrea Doria and Caio Duilio. Three ships have so far been launched, and are undergoing sea trials. Each ship will displace 5,600 tonnes; each has a length of 152.8 metres, a width of 20.3 metres and a draught of 5.4 metres. Equipped with two gas turbines, the Horizons will be able to cruise at a maximum speed of twenty-nine knots, while having a range of 13,000 kilometres if cruising at eighteen knots. French ships will be equipped with two 76 millimetre general purpose naval guns and eight Exocet missile launchers, while their Italian counterparts will be have one more naval gun and TESEO missile launchers. As with the Type 45s, the Italian and French variants will have decoys, close-in weapons systems and torpedo launchers. The Horizon class will also carry either a NH90 or EH101 attack helicopter for surface-to-air and anti-submarine warfare.What is clear is that these two formidable new warship classes are a step-change in European naval capabilities. With a combined total of twelve destroyers, they provide more than sufficient and future-proof air defence for any European naval expeditionary force. Only the United States Navy’s future Zumwalt class of heavy destroyer will match them but these projected vessels are primed for land attack rather than aerial defence. This is one area where the European destroyers are less capable. The Type 45s may need to be re-calibrated if necessary so that they can fire cruise missiles, thereby enhancing their land attack capacity. This should not, however, be a problem, for their vertical missile launchers are capable of this task with some adaptations. The Horizon class may also need similar adaptation, although the Marine Nationale is rumoured to have planned to equip its ships with modified Storm Shadow cruise missiles.
What, however, can be learnt from the Type 45 and Horizon projects? More than might at first be thought. First, instead of several projects, it would be more cost effective and efficient if European navies collaborated more closely in designing integrated naval platforms. The potential economies of scale and technological expertise obtainable may in some cases dramatically enhance the development times and costs of large naval programmes. Second, as European navies operate progressively more closely under the European Security and Defence Policy, it is essential that interoperability be enhanced. Standardised naval and military equipment, that is to say the same warships, fighter-bombers and missiles being used by all European Union Member States, instead of numerous national projects, is clearly the way forward. Third, the larger the project—and naval programmes are often the most extensive in terms of research and development—the more effective and potent the European defence-industrial base will be. Finally, the lower the cost and the greater the efficiency means, at least potentially, that more warships can be acquired and maintained. With Russia, China and many other Asian navies arming themselves quite rapidly with growing fleets of frigates and corvettes, strong European naval forces are necessary to sustain the West’s aura of power, while also keeping the sealanes open and our trade routes secure.

9 comments:
Illuminating post. As an American, I had no idea that European navies were developing so rapidly. I'd be interested to read further posts by you on naval issues.
Keep up the good work!
Oh dear. Where to begin?
"PAAMS also uses the ASTER surface-to-air missiles, which when combined with SAMPSON or EMPAR, provides an almost impervious aerial defence system"
What's your evidence for this? They said the same thing about Pariot, and yet when it actually went into combat it turned out not to be so easy. PAAMS has only even been tested successfully against Exocet - a small, slow and ageing missile that presents nothing like the same capabilities as a Russian or Chinese (ie. Russian) missile - which is the likely threat.
"So capable will the new ships be that just one of the new vessels will be more powerful than the entire current fleet of the Royal Navy’s Type 42 destroyers."
This is a lie that the Ministry of Defence is putting about the try to justify the fact that it's cancelled 6 of the Type 45 hulls and may not even equip more than 3, leaving the Royal Navy with a wholly inadequate air defence system. Let's compare the facts:
Type 45 carries 48 Aster missiles. Type 42 carries 40 Sea Dart missiles, so the whole 8-ship fleet carries 320 missiles. Sea Dart is slower and less manoeuverable than Aster, but has a longer range. Sea Dart is combat proven, Aster is not.
48 Aster missiles, of which 16 are merely point-defence missiles, are not superior to 320 Sea Dart missiles. Not only would the 48 round Type 45 run out of missiles before the end of a deployment, but it's advantages - speed and manoeuverability - are designed for use against planned Soviet missiles and planes that were never even designed, whilst Sea Dart's advantage - engagement range - is still very important.
"according to the former First Sea Lord, Sir Alan West, will ‘be the Royal Navy’s most capable destroyer ever, and will enter service later this decade as the best air defence ship in the world.’"
This is another dubious claim that is not critiqued. The US Arleigh Burke class and the Japanese Kongo class carry comprable radar systems (actually they're better because the UK scrapped half the transceivers to save money but in principle they are about the same) but twice as many missiles, which are also comparable (like Sea Dart, they have longer range but worse manoeuverability, although the US missile moves at the same speed and the manoveurvability gap is small). While Type 45 may be better than these ships, it seems far from certain. Sir Alan West is not a political impartial figure - in fact he is a Cabinet Minister in the Government that ordered Type 45 in the first place.
"Indeed, these weapons systems will be further enhanced with heavy machine-guns, decoys, and a Lynx attack helicopter or Merlin support helicopter."
That's an interesting way of putting it. All of these things were meant to be in the initial build, but were deleted to save money. As a result, vessels costing around a billion pounds each (more than any other British warship in history) are capable of performing only one of their three intended tasks - air defence. The others being anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare. That's right - the anti-ship missiles were deleted to save money, as was the helicopter.
Why this should be is not immediately obvious - Britain does not currently need the ability to deploy hyper-manoeuverable SAMs against mythical Soviet fighters, whereas it does need to be able to fight cheap submarines in a littoral theatre and clear small combatants from the Persian Gulf. But is any of this highlighted? It is not.
"Eight Type 45s are planned for construction"
Another dubious statement. Only three have been ordered in their entiriety. Three more hulls have been ordered, with no equipment. There is no indication that the government intends to order the last two, and they have exceeded their planned construction start dates by years.
"What is clear is that these two formidable new warship classes are a step-change in European naval capabilities. With a combined total of twelve destroyers, they provide more than sufficient and future-proof air defence for any European naval expeditionary force."
Again, this statement simply does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. "Europe" (which is not a country and does not even have a common naval command) has twleve of these things - the US has 50, with another 13 to enter service in the next few years, along with 22 cruisers and 30 frigates of similar capability. Even Russia has 13 destroyers and eight cruisers. I could understand if you simply didnt know much about navies and werent aware of this weakness, but you have made a number of long posts on the subject and even highlighted the fact yourself - instead of analysing the evidence truthfully you simply flagged it up and ignored it, giving the impression to a casual reader than twelve destroyers is extraordinarily good.
"The Type 45s may need to be re-calibrated if necessary so that they can fire cruise missiles, thereby enhancing their land attack capacity."
This isn't true. SYLVER cannot currently fire any land attack missile. The French want to make it fire Storm Shadow, but they havent even made a test-firing yet.
"What, however, can be learnt from the Type 45 and Horizon projects? More than might at first be thought. First, instead of several projects, it would be more cost effective and efficient if European navies collaborated more closely in designing integrated naval platforms. The potential economies of scale and technological expertise obtainable may in some cases dramatically enhance the development times and costs of large naval programmes."
What? As someone who has read up on these projects quite closely, I say again: WHAT?! Up until this point I could convince myself that you were mostly just suckered in by press releases and the like intended to delude you into exaggerating the capabilities in existance. Now I can no longer do so. Horizon was a project that lasted half a decade until the British withdrawl, that was percipitated by spiralling costs and a design that no longer offered the UK what it wanted. Only 4 vessels will be built, with both Italy and France now pursuing much larger nationalist projects. How can you look at this and conclude that more European consortia on defence will save money and increase performance? You could believe that when it all started in 1992 (when it all started), maybe, but now that the project has run its course and proved the exact opposite, how can you stand there and blatantly defy reality?
Your myoptic nationalist world view would have been a better place to start all this, really. Unfortunately though all of them seem to be the result of your willingness to believe anything good said about "Europe" regardless of it's actual accuracy of relevance. Ok Europe is not a nation but whatever.
I am a pariotic Brit, and although your more general Euro-Imperialist beliefs frighten me, our interests do overlap when it comes to providing the country with the best possible defence. If this is to be done through European consortia then fine. But the evidence just doesnt support this view. You need to seperate what you would like to believe from what is actually true. Maybe then you would start reaching some sensible conclusions.
MDC: Thank you for your comments. Please see my replies in bold to your statements (in quote marks) below:
‘What's your evidence for this? They said the same thing about Pariot, and yet when it actually went into combat it turned out not to be so easy. PAAMS has only even been tested successfully against Exocet - a small, slow and ageing missile that presents nothing like the same capabilities as a Russian or Chinese (ie. Russian) missile - which is the likely threat.’
The ASTER missiles certainly will be able to counter these kinds of threats. The system is designed to shoot down any object the size of a grapefruit flying three times at the speed of sound. There have also been a number of other PAAMS tests since 1997 when the first successful test against the first generation of Exocet missile took place. All—particularly extensive testing as part of the PAAMS/ASTER qualification exercise in 2005—proved the missile system to be exemplary.
‘This is a lie that the Ministry of Defence is putting about the try to justify the fact that it's cancelled 6 of the Type 45 hulls and may not even equip more than 3, leaving the Royal Navy with a wholly inadequate air defence system. Let's compare the facts:’
I’d hope you’re aware that the construction of the sixth ship began in January 2007, so there will clearly be more than three Type 45s, even if there are no longer to be twelve. Do you have any proof that the Ministry of Defence plan to suddenly scrap three warships under construction or sell them to Saudi Arabia, as suggested by The Independent in March?
‘Type 45 carries 48 Aster missiles. Type 42 carries 40 Sea Dart missiles, so the whole 8-ship fleet carries 320 missiles. Sea Dart is slower and less manoeuverable than Aster, but has a longer range. Sea Dart is combat proven, Aster is not.’
Sea Dart does not appear to have a longer range than ASTER. A Sea Dart missile has a range of 3kms-80kms. When used together, the ASTER 15 and 30 can produce a range between 1.7km-120kms. Your comment on ASTER not being combat proven is plain silly; presumably every successful weapons system in history was at one point ‘not combat proven’.
‘48 Aster missiles, of which 16 are merely point-defence missiles, are not superior to 320 Sea Dart missiles. Not only would the 48 round Type 45 run out of missiles before the end of a deployment, but it's advantages - speed and manoeuvrability - are designed for use against planned Soviet missiles and planes that were never even designed, whilst Sea Dart's advantage - engagement range - is still very important.’
The Sea Dart system can only engage up to two hostile targets at any one time, whereas PAAMS can track and engage numerous targets simultaneously, and at higher speeds, shorter ranges, longer ranges and higher altitudes. And whereas it takes time to reload Sea Dart (each launcher holds only two missiles), SYLVER does not suffer from such problems. In that time, several ships within a British, French or Italian fleet could be dead. A single Type 45 therefore has great capacity in real time situations than all of the Type 42s put together.
‘This is another dubious claim that is not critiqued. The US Arleigh Burke class and the Japanese Kongo class carry comprable radar systems (actually they're better because the UK scrapped half the transceivers to save money but in principle they are about the same) but twice as many missiles, which are also comparable (like Sea Dart, they have longer range but worse manoeuverability, although the US missile moves at the same speed and the manoveurvability gap is small). While Type 45 may be better than these ships, it seems far from certain. Sir Alan West is not a political impartial figure - in fact he is a Cabinet Minister in the Government that ordered Type 45 in the first place.’
Those are the comments of the First Sea Lord, arguably Britain’s leading authority on all naval matters. The Arleigh Burkes and Kongos may indeed have comparable weapons systems, but in a whole other number of areas they are inferior: Neither use integrated electric propulsion (which does away with gear boxes and excess noise); neither has comparable levels of stealthiness; and neither has the same level of comfort for the sailors. Taken together as an integrated naval platform, the Type 45 is a more powerful ship. And Sir Alan West made those comments before he was appointed by Gordon Brown as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Security, when he was still the First Sea Lord—and if anything disparaging of the Labour government’s naval cost-cutting.
‘That's an interesting way of putting it. All of these things were meant to be in the initial build, but were deleted to save money. As a result, vessels costing around a billion pounds each (more than any other British warship in history) are capable of performing only one of their three intended tasks - air defence. The others being anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare. That's right - the anti-ship missiles were deleted to save money, as was the helicopter.’
The system has been designed dynamically, and can be re-calibrated to deploy different weapons systems when and if needed. A flotilla of air-defence destroyers is needed to protect the new British aircraft carriers, which are the most important ships in any ‘blue-water’ fleet, like the Royal Navy. To my knowledge, and the sources I have consulted, each ship will be equipped with a Lynx—some at a later date may be equipped with a Merlin. Helicopters have not been removed.
‘Why this should be is not immediately obvious - Britain does not currently need the ability to deploy hyper-manoeuverable SAMs against mythical Soviet fighters, whereas it does need to be able to fight cheap submarines in a littoral theatre and clear small combatants from the Persian Gulf. But is any of this highlighted? It is not.’
It certainly does need state-of-the-art air-defence destroyers: Are you really suggesting that we risk having a future large British carrier—costing £2 billion—in hostile environments with no or inadequate aerial defence? Don’t be silly! Second, the reason I have not highlighted the issues regarding ‘cheap submarines’ and ‘small surface combatants’ is because—if you had read the introduction—this is only the first of a series of articles I plan to write on naval matters. I shall deal with issues like these when I write about European submarines, frigates, corvettes and assault ships at some future date.
‘Another dubious statement. Only three have been ordered in their entiriety. Three more hulls have been ordered, with no equipment. There is no indication that the government intends to order the last two, and they have exceeded their planned construction start dates by years.’
Wrong again. The steel of the final of the first batch of vessels has already been cut, and construction is now underway—as of January 2007. Given that the government has now ordered the Queen Elizabeth class of aircraft carrier, the final two ships are essential, and the Defence Secretary said that they will likely be ordered at a later date. Given that there is no other evidence to the contrary at the moment (to my knowledge), we should project that they will be built.
‘Again, this statement simply does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. "Europe" (which is not a country and does not even have a common naval command) has twleve of these things - the US has 50, with another 13 to enter service in the next few years, along with 22 cruisers and 30 frigates of similar capability. Even Russia has 13 destroyers and eight cruisers. I could understand if you simply didnt know much about navies and werent aware of this weakness, but you have made a number of long posts on the subject and even highlighted the fact yourself - instead of analysing the evidence truthfully you simply flagged it up and ignored it, giving the impression to a casual reader than twelve destroyers is extraordinarily good.’
Where to start? Right: Of course I’m aware that Europe has not got a naval command, but it may well have something comparable in the future, particularly when the Reform Treaty is implemented. There are provisions within the Headline Goal 2010 for the European Union to have access to an aircraft carrier and some one-hundred warships, drawn from the Member States’ navies, and capable of serving European Security and Defence Operations. In any case, that does not matter for the moment. What matters is that European states increase their armed capabilities. Let me state again that this is only the first of a number of pieces I intend to write. Further, Europe has far more than twelve modern destroyers: I have not dealt with the German, Spanish or Dutch contingents, which I will in future. I do not think either that I have given the impression that twelve destroyers is ‘extraordinarily good’. But if I have, I shall willingly be more careful in the future.
‘This isn't true. SYLVER cannot currently fire any land attack missile. The French want to make it fire Storm Shadow, but they havent even made a test-firing yet.’
Um, that is what I said. In order to be able to fire cruise missiles, the launchers will have to be re-calibrated which, according to my knowledge of the English language, means changed or adapted in some way to become suitable. And your comments about the French and Storm Shadow were also made by myself, so I’m not sure why you needed to re-iterate that.
‘What? As someone who has read up on these projects quite closely, I say again: WHAT?! Up until this point I could convince myself that you were mostly just suckered in by press releases and the like intended to delude you into exaggerating the capabilities in existance. Now I can no longer do so. Horizon was a project that lasted half a decade until the British withdrawl, that was percipitated by spiralling costs and a design that no longer offered the UK what it wanted. Only 4 vessels will be built, with both Italy and France now pursuing much larger nationalist projects. How can you look at this and conclude that more European consortia on defence will save money and increase performance? You could believe that when it all started in 1992 (when it all started), maybe, but now that the project has run its course and proved the exact opposite, how can you stand there and blatantly defy reality?’
Again, you are—perhaps deliberately—taking my article out of context. The reason the Horizon project failed was because European military capabilities were so heterogeneous in the first place. The French pressed ahead with their nuclear aircraft carrier in the early 1990s; Spain and Italy each have their own ‘strategic projection’ vessel and aircraft carrier underway today. Nearly every major country has a few frigates and destroyers under construction. This is wasteful, inefficient and damages the European defence-industrial base. If there was one or two pan-European aircraft carrier projects (or even if one state buys another’s designs, as with the Anglo-French collaboration over the Queen Elizabeth class), one destroyer project, and two frigate projects, and so on, into which each country could contribute, we would have much more for less. But this means European armed forces also have to be re-ordered, away from Cold War defence forces, and towards post-9/11 expeditionary forces. I think this is slowly happening, but far too slowly. In some ways it also depends on a shared threat assessment, which is being gradually fostered through the European Security Strategy.
Britain and France have a hard time sustaining their armaments production, let alone Spain and the Netherlands. If we amalgamate, we may be able to achieve levels of efficiency akin to the United States. This is a long way off, but we have to start somewhere; I hope my articles, in whatever small way, will contribute to the debate.
‘Your myopic nationalist world view would have been a better place to start all this, really. Unfortunately though all of them seem to be the result of your willingness to believe anything good said about "Europe" regardless of it's actual accuracy of relevance. Ok Europe is not a nation but whatever.’
I do not have a ‘myopic nationalist world view’, but I do care very much about what happens to both Britain and the European Union. The myopic nationalists are the Euro-separatists, whom deliberately ignore the fact that Britain’s destiny is one-hundred percent entwined with the rest of the European Union’s.
‘I am a patriotic Brit, and although your more general Euro-Imperialist beliefs frighten me, our interests do overlap when it comes to providing the country with the best possible defence. If this is to be done through European consortia then fine. But the evidence just doesn't support this view. You need to separate what you would like to believe from what is actually true. Maybe then you would start reaching some sensible conclusions.’
Equally, I do not have ‘Euro-imperialist beliefs’, whatever they might be. Given that I've just refuted just about everything you have said, I maintain that my conclusions are both well-researched, sensible, and prudent.
This briefing from the Ministry of Defence also states that the Type 45’s PAAMS can track and destroy a target the size of a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound...
A well written article, although I must admit I have noticed a few errors by both yourself and the added comments by MDC.
So let’s address a few of them, and before I begin I should say I work for a company that designs and builds the air-ground service systems for BAE and others and that is found on the current carriers, HMS Ocean, Bulwark and Albion and the present type 42 Destroyers as well as the Frigate fleet. Our system is fitted / will be fitted to the Type 45’s and the next generation carriers.
Firstly – SAMPSON, PAAMS and Aster
Firstly the Arleigh Burke and Kongo class ships AEGIS system is in no way comparable to that of PAAMS (S) The SAMPSON radar, the central component of PAAMS (S) is the first of the next generation systems to enter service. At the main test site in Portsmouth SAMPSON managed to locate, track and obtain a firing solution on EVERY aircraft arriving or leaving from every European airport within a 250 mile radius. The system is capable of tracking over 2000 objects from cricket ball size up over a (so far) tested distance of 320 miles. The AEGIS system used on the Arleigh Burke and Kongo class ships however is able to track only 120 targets over a 150 mile (maximum) range. Even the latest incarnation of AEGIS fitted on the South Korean King Sejong the Great class ships will only be able to track 900 targets over 150 miles.
The Type 45 is fitted with a 48 silo Sylver Vertical Launch System (VLS) capable of deploying any combination of the Aster 15 (for self-defence and Local Area Defence Threats) and the Aster 30 (for self-defence, Local Area Defence and Area Defence). However the number 48 is important, it has been mentioned that the Type 42’s carried 40 missiles and the Arleigh Burke and Kongo carry 90 missiles, this is where much confusion lies, the Type 45 will carry 48 missiles magazined, with another 48 in storage on board. Giving a total of 96 missiles, the Type 42 carries 40 missiles ONLY and the Arleigh Burke and Kongo classes only carry their magazine load of 90 missiles.
More confusion comes with the testing of Aster missiles, all 3 types have been tested since 2000 against supersonic missiles and drones in various states, and next year Daring will test Aster in over 200 launches against a variety of targets, both close and long range and travelling at a variety of speeds up to mach 4.
The Aster missile’s official stats are as follows (these stats have all been tested, though recent French tests indicate the missiles are capable of surpassing these).
Aster 15 – Range 30km – Speed Mach 3.5 – Max Altitude 10,000m
Aster 30 – Range 145km – Speed Mach 4.5 – Max Altitude 20,000m
8 Asters can be launched every 10 seconds and 16 can be guided on target at any one time or can be controlled by their own internal radar or switched between self guidance back to PAAMS control.
Secondly – Other Equipment
GUNS
The Type 45 has been fitted with a 4.5inch Gun for shore bombardment, 2x30mm Heavy Cannons for close support and defence and 2xPhalanx close in weapons.
ANTI-SHIP
The Type 45 is fitted for, but not with, 2x quadruple Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers. However recent announcements (as of 22/08/07) have indicated that these will now be fitted.
ANTI_SUBMARINE
The Type 45 is fitted with the MFS 7000 Sonar, and is fitted for, but not with 2x triple STWS torpedo launchers, again however recent announcements (as of 22/08/07) have indicated these will now be fitted.
LAND ATTACK
The Type 45 will initially have no land attack capability other than that provided by its main gun. However it’s likely that the ship version of Stormshadow will be carried at a later date and will be able to launch from the Sylver VLS with no adaption. The Type 45’s have also been designed to be able to adapt to fire Tomahawk block IV at a later date.
Thirdly – Helicopters
The Type 45’s have been fitted with a hangar and flight deck and has a full avionics support system. The Hangar is able to take, maintain and store both Lynx and Merlin helicopters, the flight deck meanwhile will be able to hold and maintain Lynx, Merlin, Chinook and Apache Longbow helicopters.
The ships can take 2 helicopters at any one time, one in the hangar and one on the flight deck, the Arleigh Burke and Kongo class ships however have flight deck facilities only, no hangar or maintenance facilities.
Fourthly – Number of Ships
It’s often said that only 3 complete ships have been ordered and the others on order are only “hulls”. However this is not quite the case, the MOD only ever places full orders for the hulls and final equipment for the ships in the final stages of construction. Indeed with the aircraft carrier announcement it is inevitable that all 8 of the planned ships will be built. However several hints from the First Sea Lord, the Defence minister and the Prime Minister making it look increasingly likely that all 12 of the initial ships may be built. Also the long planned announcement for the replacements for the Frigates is now due by the end of the year. This is likely to agree with the MOD’s / Navies recent study calling for the ships to be replaced by up to 3 classes of ships. 8-12 ships based on a stretched version of the Type 45’s, 8-12 Long Range Corvettes and 8-12 Littoral Combat Ships similar to those being planned / built by the US
Dear Wren: Thank you kindly for your comments, which go a long way in clearing matters up. I’m pleased to see that other than a few places related to statistics, the general thrust of my article was both correct and accurate. The trouble I find when researching these issues is that so many different and equally reputable source—from the Royal Navy, the Ministry of Defence, and the arms manufacturers themselves—cite different capabilities, especially, for example, on the Aster missiles. I’d be very grateful to be able to contact you in future should I need clarification on such matters. Perhaps you might send me your email address, using the contact form available from the Main Menu? Many thanks. James.
Hi James,
Great article, great debate, fantastic to see to see such informed comments and opinions from all the contributors particularly from Wren Mandragon.
Any chance you could write about the combat capabilities of the German F124 Saschen AAW frigate and a comparison to the type 45 and Horizon frigates?
As well as comment on the new F125 - which seems to be getting larger and more powerful as the Germans finalise design. When I first read about the F125 a few years ago it was 5000 tons now its up to 6'800 tons I wonder if its going end being the Meko X.
Also your thoughts on the new FREMM frigates being built by the French and Italian navies would be nice, 27 ships are projected and a number of the French FREMMS will have land attack abilities via cruise missiles and the Otomelara 127mm with vulcano projectiles.
cheers
Just another wee post to express admiration for a decent article.
Also to point out one recurring factual anomoly in the comments. As a former Royal Navy Weapons Engineer Artificer I can promise you that the GWS30 Sea Dart magazine capacity of a 42, of any batch, was not and is not 40 missiles.
One other fact, which I am reluctant to bring up not knowing the personality involved, but the information on stored Aster rounds on T45 may be worth verifying. I have never seen or heard of any mechanism embarked on Daring that would allow for self reloading of the Sylver VLS at sea.
With no crane installed on Daring to allow for vertical replenishment any reload would have to be undertaken from underneath and I doubt that the structure of Sylver and the hull depth of the Daring would allow for that possibility.
The fact that a 'mere' 48 Asters comprise the ships main AAW battery is hardly something to be concerened about however. The number of countries out there, potentially hostile to the UK, that have the ability to deploy more than a dozen antiship missiles simultaneously is very small. In fact the number of countries that possess more than 50 advanced antiship missiles is also much smaller than would be readily believable!.
Many thanks for your comments, Steve. I believe you to be correct over the Aster missiles. There will not, it seems, be a second store of missiles for reloading on board the ships, and I did not originally claim that there were. But in any case, as you point out, and as I have shown with the comments from one of the Daring’s officers: ‘It doesn't sound much, but by the time you have used them up most air forces are dead.’
Post a Comment