CHRISBA777ER
Topic Author
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

Type 45 Destroyers

Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:52 pm

Anyone know how capable they are versus the French La Fayette and US Arleigh-Burke?
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Type 45 Destroyers

Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
Anyone know how capable they are versus the French La Fayette and US Arleigh-Burke?

Based on a comparison of the vessels, it would appear that the Type 45 compares quite nicely with the Arleigh Burkes - the only shortcoming being that the 45's as delivered will not have a SSM capability, while the Burkes have a robust SSM suite.

The French La Fayette class isn't really comparable to either, since it is really a frigate, not a destroyer.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Type 45 Destroyers

Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:24 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):

Based on a comparison of the vessels, it would appear that the Type 45 compares quite nicely with the Arleigh Burkes - the only shortcoming being that the 45's as delivered will not have a SSM capability, while the Burkes have a robust SSM suite.

The French La Fayette class isn't really comparable to either, since it is really a frigate, not a destroyer.

Halls, you're a former squid (albeit Coast Guard, correct?) What do you think about the decision to remove the RGM-84 Harpoons from the Burkes?

And couple that with the fact they no longer carrier TASM anti-ship cruise missiles, what do they have for offensive capabilities? The 5incher and the MK50 torpedo!? WOW... that's a bad ass mo-fo.  Yeah sure

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
Anyone know how capable they are versus the French La Fayette and US Arleigh-Burke?

It will be a fantastic ship. Giving the Royal Navy a sophisticated defense against enemy anti-shipping missiles and aircraft - which is a threat that is increasing not decreasing. Basically that's all the destroyer is going to be... an air defense platform with moderate anti-sub hunting ability. With no cruise missiles, and a modest gun, it won't be a large land-attack asset. A draw back might be number in service - with less than a dozen, they're effect on the battlefield is limited.

The Burkes are good destroyers. Strong electronics suite, good anti-missile/anti-air capability, fantastic land attack ability with the VLS tomahawks, modest gun, descent anti-ship abilities (when/if the navy stopped being cheap and refitted them with the Harpoons), outstanding anti-sub ability. And the number of Burkes in service is impressive...

And Halls was correct: the La Fayette is a frigate, so it's not a fair comparison. Although it does have modest anti-air, modest anti-ship, and modest anti-sub abilities. A larger, more powerful version would definitely put it along side these two ships.

--------------------

But if you really want to compare the Type 45 and an American ship, the best example would probably be the DD-1000 USS Zumwalt, which will enter service a little bit later than the Type 45.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Type 45 Destroyers

Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:18 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 2):
But if you really want to compare the Type 45 and an American ship, the best example would probably be the DD-1000 USS Zumwalt, which will enter service a little bit later than the Type 45.

Do you think the DDG-1000 will actually enter service? With so many cost escalations in the program I am not sure what we see planned today will ever see the light of day.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
Anyone know how capable they are versus the French La Fayette and US Arleigh-Burke?

An interesting way to compare the two designs (the French one as stated should be excluded) is their potential for BMD. The Burkes will have the SM3 missile will be a credible BMD platform but I am not sure the Type 45 will have the same capability; the aster missile will not have the engagement envelope of the SM3.

The advantage the Type 45 will have though is in systems integration. Although US ships are often well armed and sensor equipped often their system integration is not at the level of other allied vessels (I spoke at length with a Canadian Naval Commander who was quite adamant on this point regarding his frigate, does anyone have any opinions to the contrary?).

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 2):
What do you think about the decision to remove the RGM-84 Harpoons from the Burkes?

If you don't mind me putting my 2 cents in here, I think with the arrival in the next few years of the LCS the Burkes will be stationed further from the line of fire and with no other navy potentially a hazard currently the removal of the Harpoon is no great loss. I imagine they can be rapidly re-attached. Why they were removed is the right question to ask, surely their weight is not an issue and sitting in their shipping containers they are not doing anyone harm?

On a side note, how effective would a harpoon be today? With so many Navies acquiring CIWS systems including PD missiles will a sub-sonic harpoon be able to penetrate the PD defenses? I know they have a pop-up maneuver but how many will need to be fired to ensure a critical hit?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Type 45 Destroyers

Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:31 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 2):
Halls, you're a former squid (albeit Coast Guard, correct?) What do you think about the decision to remove the RGM-84 Harpoons from the Burkes?

Understandable. The Block IIa ships were heavier, so something had to go, and the Harpoons are not as state of the art as they used to be.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
The advantage the Type 45 will have though is in systems integration. Although US ships are often well armed and sensor equipped often their system integration is not at the level of other allied vessels (I spoke at length with a Canadian Naval Commander who was quite adamant on this point regarding his frigate, does anyone have any opinions to the contrary?

British sensors are outstanding. The Nimrod patrol plane sensor suite is kick ass. While US AWACS controls the airspace, there is nothing better for surface search capability from the air than a Nimrod.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
On a side note, how effective would a harpoon be today? With so many Navies acquiring CIWS systems including PD missiles will a sub-sonic harpoon be able to penetrate the PD defenses? I know they have a pop-up maneuver but how many will need to be fired to ensure a critical hit?

Probably the reason the Harpoons were left on the dock.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Type 45 Destroyers

Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:57 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
Do you think the DDG-1000 will actually enter service? With so many cost escalations in the program I am not sure what we see planned today will ever see the light of day.

I don't think it's a question any longer... they WILL go into service. The plans are already drawn up, two naval yards are gearing up to start production... it's going to happen.

The real question is: how successful will the program be? Will this be like the Arleigh Burkes, and have a fantastic production run? Or will this be like the Seawolf subs, and only produce a few hulls before the program is crushed under its own costs?

Time will only tell. But we will at least see a minimum of two ships built.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
The advantage the Type 45 will have though is in systems integration. Although US ships are often well armed and sensor equipped often their system integration is not at the level of other allied vessels (I spoke at length with a Canadian Naval Commander who was quite adamant on this point regarding his frigate, does anyone have any opinions to the contrary?).

The US military might be hard up for fresh personnel... but at the same time it still clings to a lot of manual labor jobs. In other words, we don't make our equipment as automated as it could possibly be... instead choosing to still have a human being do the job.

It's something that's going to need to change. They say the next carrier (CVN 21) will be more automated... but we'll see. Certainly there is no longer a need for 5,000 sailors on a single carrier.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
If you don't mind me putting my 2 cents in here, I think with the arrival in the next few years of the LCS the Burkes will be stationed further from the line of fire and with no other navy potentially a hazard currently the removal of the Harpoon is no great loss.

Interesting point... but by doing so, are we not neglecting the primary role of these ships? Fleet escort? What happens if we suddenly need to sail a carrier through the Taiwan Straight, like we did in the late 90s? And what if things get hot?

See, the argument has changed to this: If the battle group is threatened by enemy ships, we have the ability to attack using F-18s. Good point... but the whole point was 1.) each ship could conduct operations individually without support from carrier born aircraft. 2.) What if an enemy ship is able to penetrate the lines while the majority of the aircraft are tasked on a strike mission?

And it's not an unthinkable situation. Heck, take the Persian Gulf. What is your defense against a fast moving Iranian missile boat? WHAT do you use to sink that ship before it gets close enough to fire its missiles? The Navy's current answer is: We don't need to sink it, because we'll shoot the missiles down. Damn, that's a risky position you're working with. Personally, I'd rather sink the damn thing before it could even be in the position to fire at me.

And carrier aircraft are not always on station in the Gulf, let alone an aircraft armed to take out a ship.

So there you have it - two very possible scenarios where it would be extremely important for our Burkes to be armed with Harpoons.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
Why they were removed is the right question to ask, surely their weight is not an issue and sitting in their shipping containers they are not doing anyone harm?

Easy: cost. It was an easy thing to get rid of and justify. "Oh we won't be fighting a blue water navy. And if a ship gets close enough to fire at us - we'll just shoot the missiles down."

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
On a side note, how effective would a harpoon be today?

Good question. Perhaps it deserves an update.

But how effective does it really have to be, when we're talking about engaging an Iranian missile boat?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Type 45 Destroyers

Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:44 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
If you don't mind me putting my 2 cents in here, I think with the arrival in the next few years of the LCS the Burkes will be stationed further from the line of fire and with no other navy potentially a hazard currently the removal of the Harpoon is no great loss. I imagine they can be rapidly re-attached. Why they were removed is the right question to ask, surely their weight is not an issue and sitting in their shipping containers they are not doing anyone harm?

You are assuming the LCS will be deployed in large numbers. Don't forget that on 12 January 2007, the Navy issued a stop work order to Lockheed Martin for the construction of the third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). "The stop work order was issued because of significant cost increases currently being experienced with the construction of LCS-1 and LCS-3, under construction by Lockheed Martin."

The entire LCS idea may go he way of the Seawolf class submarine....

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
The US military might be hard up for fresh personnel... but at the same time it still clings to a lot of manual labor jobs. In other words, we don't make our equipment as automated as it could possibly be... instead choosing to still have a human being do the job.

It's something that's going to need to change. They say the next carrier (CVN 21) will be more automated... but we'll see. Certainly there is no longer a need for 5,000 sailors on a single carrier.

While you can automate watchstanding and combat ops, you can't automate damage control. You cut crew size too much, and the Navy's exemplary record in saving ships that should have gone down will be history.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Ozair
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Type 45 Destroyers

Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:46 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):

Time will only tell. But we will at least see a minimum of two ships built.

That was probably the point I was trying to make, whether we will see a successful class or a small sub-class that leaves the service early. What they will be armed with will also be of interest. I am not sure the 8inch OTH gun will ever mature to the point required for deployment. It will disappear the way the FCS will.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
See, the argument has changed to this: If the battle group is threatened by enemy ships, we have the ability to attack using F-18s. Good point... but the whole point was 1.) each ship could conduct operations individually without support from carrier born aircraft. 2.) What if an enemy ship is able to penetrate the lines while the majority of the aircraft are tasked on a strike mission?

And it's not an unthinkable situation. Heck, take the Persian Gulf. What is your defense against a fast moving Iranian missile boat? WHAT do you use to sink that ship before it gets close enough to fire its missiles? The Navy's current answer is: We don't need to sink it, because we'll shoot the missiles down. Damn, that's a risky position you're working with. Personally, I'd rather sink the damn thing before it could even be in the position to fire at me.

I agree completely, the reliance on aircraft for CBG protection is getting scary, there are only so many things 60 F-18s can do.

Are your SH-60s equipped with the penguin ASM similar to the RAN Seahawks? If so maybe this is the answer to missile boat deterrence. Didn't the RN sink an Argentinean vessel during the Falklands war with Sea Skua missiles? I imagine the penguin is cheaper as well with a large enough warhead to take out anything that would threaten a CBG.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
Easy: cost. It was an easy thing to get rid of and justify. "Oh we won't be fighting a blue water navy. And if a ship gets close enough to fire at us - we'll just shoot the missiles down."

I have never understood this, especially with Navy procurement. If the equipment was there already why take it away, it's paid for and sitting in storage it might as well be on the shop compared to in the warehouse.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 6):
You are assuming the LCS will be deployed in large numbers. Don't forget that on 12 January 2007, the Navy issued a stop work order to Lockheed Martin for the construction of the third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). "The stop work order was issued because of significant cost increases currently being experienced with the construction of LCS-1 and LCS-3, under construction by Lockheed Martin."

The entire LCS idea may go he way of the Seawolf class submarine....

I think this program has a bit more momentum than the Seawolf class. The fact is there is a real need for this type of platform compared to the Seawolf which was a submarine a few years too late!

The cost issues will be worked out. It may see the buy of just one class instead of the projected two but I see at least a 40 ship strong fleet of these in the next 15 years.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: saket and 6 guests