So why was the Type 45 built only 48 VLS? Can any of the Aster series of missiles be dual or quad packed like the ESSM?
I read that the new ships in the class are supposed to get another 24 tubes, but does that mean they're adding a section of hull or was the space already there and they're something that can be added in during a refit?
>Can any of the Aster series of missiles be dual or quad packed like the ESSM?
CAMM can be quad packed
I completely forgot about CAMM.
>no strike length cells for TLAMs
Well that seems like a terrible design choice considering that TLAMs are the most efficient way to project power inland currently. Do they have the ability to mount the old box style launcher for Tomahawks? I thought it took the same mount that's used for the Harpoon/NSM box launcher
>So why was the Type 45 built only 48 VLS?
MOD costcutting and reluctance to go with Mk41 like everyone else with a brain - same reason SAMPSON is only a single face PESA radar rather than a multiface.
>Can any of the Aster series of missiles be dual or quad packed like the ESSM?
Nope (at least currently). Plus they're all Sylver A50 cells so they can only take Aster A30s at most, no strike length cells for TLAMs or SM2/3/6. As such outside of the Mk45 you have no long range land strike capability on the T45.
>I read that the new ships in the class are supposed to get another 24 tubes
CAMM cells, so for short to mid range AAMs only.
Like most 2000-2010s eurodestroyers, they're pretty undergunned in terms of VLS capability compared to US or East Asian destroyers. In terms of sensors and ASW they have good capability though.
>MK41
Its an Air Defence Destroyer
>Sampson radar
Best current AAW radar
>PESA
Sampson is AESA dual face, the T45 has 5 other Radars.
>Land strike capability
Its an Air Defence Destroyer
Tl:dr almost everything you said was wrong or retarded
>Air Defence Destroyer
>No real ABM capability (600km scud defence doesn't count)
>150km max range out of 48 cells
Yeh no, also no excuse for no TLAM capability when you nearly have the same displacement as an early flight Burke.
>Best current AAW radar
Later AN-SPY1Ds would like to have a word. Probably inferior to modern chink AESAs too.
>the T45 has 5 other Radars
So does every other destroyer, nothing special.
Box-launched TLAMs haven't been a think for a while I expect Block III and IV aren't compatible. Plus NSM could probabaly be used in land attack more effectively anyway (when it eventually gets it)
>Plus NSM could probabaly be used in land attack more effectively anyway (when it eventually gets it)
I extremely doubt that a NSM variant could be as effective as a TLAM considering the massive range the payload the Tomahawk series has.
Lmao look at the cope on this cunt after he got btfod about why an AAW doesnt have tlams and that the Sampson is dual faced AESA.
How about those T45 ASW Sensors too my guy? you are fucking clueless kek
Aster 30NT can deal with IRBM's up to 1,500 so that covers China's main ASBM's in DF 12, 16 and 17 and most of DF 21's range.
royal navy doctrine is that currently subs are for land attack. so that's the astutes (tomahawk) and the ssbns (trident).
perseus is meant to be a 'naval strike' missile (dual role anti-shipping and land attack) and that's going on t26, which makes me think their doctrine was a cost-cope, but we'll see if that ever happens. politically the uk is in even bigger mess the than us, probably worse than most of europe actually so i wouldn't place any bets on shit happening.
>Its an Air Defence Destroyer
Just because it's specialized in one area doesn't mean it's not meant for other duties. If it was purely air defense then it wouldn't need a sonar system, let alone a pair of sub hunting helos. The Burke class is specialized in AAW as well but it also is able to fulfill more generalized missions.
It seems strange to use a VLS that wouldn't allow you to put BGM-109s on surface ships as well as what's already under water so you can have more flexibility. That's what Japan is doing by getting both the VLS and tube launched Tomahawks.
>Why does it have sonar and helicopters
Self defence?
>The b-b-burke is
A multi mission destroyer. The T45s radar mogs it in Air Defence aside from the latest ABM upgrades.
>but mk41
See new T26 and T31 the gp and asw frigates. Subs launch RN tlams.
>Self defence?
Never heard of sub hunting being described as 'self defense', but okay.
>The b-b-burke is
god damn you seethed fucking fast. The scariest thing is that you think I'm the same the dude you first lost your shit with. You didn't even bother to address anything else I said and you showed me you didn't even read it. This is your final reply, I'll let you have the final word since it looks like it'd be the only thing that would keep you from deleting yourself.
>Never heard of sub hunting being described as 'self defense', but okay.
>Hey, we just got shot at by a sub! What do we do?
>I unno, let it shoot at us some more I guess
Derp
Thanks for the concession better luck next time champ.
>Never heard of sub hunting being described as 'self defense', but okay.
when your entire country was next door to the soviet submarine fleet then yeah sub hunting is self defense.
its pretty much exclusively for AA. That's all it does. It costs about 60% of a Burke, so I guess in terms of bang for buck it's aaight. 72 AA missiles in it's later spec plus CIWS and all that jazz.
Luv me carriers, protect me carriers, 'ate the argies, simple as
>and ASW they have good capability though.
Its a AAW with no focus for ASW you literal spastic. Your whole post reads like someone who is trying so hard to be right but is just SO wrong. I feel bad for you.
>Sampson PESA
Nta but An/Spy-1Ds are PESA, Sampson is AESA. You should probably do some research before posting.
nbeat
uh oh, brits shitting up the thread again I see
>So why was the Type 45 built only 48 VLS?
Long story short, the low VLS count is related to the use of PAAMS, which was retained even after the bongs broke off the original Horizon project. The RN needed something with longer legs and better sensors to serve with their planned CBG, but beyond that there wasn't much call to change the armament. It was a bit of a sunk cost by that point.
>Can any of the Aster series of missiles be dual or quad packed like the ESSM?
No. Aster is a big boy.
>I read that the new ships in the class are supposed to get another 24 tubes, but does that mean they're adding a section of hull or was the space already there and they're something that can be added in during a refit?
There was space already. It was included with the idea of future proofing. IIRC it was originally intended for TLAM at some point when/if ever the RN could afford to fit it, but it makes more sense to go with CAMM cells given the ship's role. They're a very capable short-mid range missile, and it frees up the Sylver cells for more Aster 30, which itself is a very capable long rang missile. Also opens the door to a land-attack option whenever LPS becomes a thing.
>IIRC it was originally intended for TLAM at some point when/if ever the RN could afford to fit it
So there's no room for any further upgrade like the really big VLS cells for hypersonics like the US is going after?