Type 45 could easily be adapted to use a Mk41 VLS and American Standard missiles, it was the platform itself I was referring to. Canada's options are
narrowing considerably at the moment because they have bbeen procrastinating for too long. The option to extend the current ships and helos is evaporating fast
and talk of extending the Sea King fleet isn't really realistic anymore. The Merlin/Cormorant may have had teething problems but what new aircraft type
doesn't? It is currently a very capable type and if it was as bad as you suggest then why have the Yanks chosen it to replace the President's VIP Sea
Kings? Must have something going for it. The type 45 costs seem high at the moment because the R&D fro the class was supposed to be spread over 12 ships
and this has been cut back to six. Those six are bearing the whole of those costs and any additional units either foreign or domestic will come in noticeably
cheaper. The T45s are designed to keep the running cost down and require less crew than a Burke class ship. Don't be so quick to rule them out.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 221 (15-May-2008 12:07:32) |
|
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 63 (15-May-2008 13:01:30) |
Obi Wan Russell wrote: Good points. You could carry over the De Zeven Provincien sensors, combat systems & weapons to the Type 45
platform fairly easily. APAR/SMART-L would more or less plug straight in where Sampson/S1850M fit, perhaps having to lower the mast slightly for top weight
(isn't APAR heavier than Sampson?), though the larger, wider T45 hull should still permit higher mounting than on the LCFs. All you really have to worry
about is the relatively minor problem of physical integration of the new hardware (including wiring) into the hull. The Mk41s could present the biggest
difficulty, being bigger & heavier than Sylver, but IIRC that's been allowed for, & there's room.
|
||
 drunknsubmrnr |
|||
|
Posts: 1343 (15-May-2008 13:27:41) |
Err...no. At best you'd have to start by razing the Type 45 to the hull and redesigning everything above that to work with APAR. Then you'd have to rip
apart the hull the fit in the Mk 41.
It's just not realistic. |
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 64 (15-May-2008 14:25:19) |
drunknsubmrnr wrote: Razing to the hull? Please explain. Can you support that by any data on the volume & weight of APAR (& not just the antennae, but the processors,
power supply, etc) compared to Sampson? At worst, I'd expect a new mast (which is somewhat less dramatic than "razing ... to the hull"), & at
best, the current one shortened.
And rip apart the hull for Mk.41? I find that hard to believe. Surely, at worst you get fewer launchers, & a slightly higher deckhouse, in the space
currently occupied by Sylver, & since there's supposed to be room for more Sylver launchers . . .
|
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 917 (15-May-2008 14:41:11) |
What I can't work out, is why if Canada were set on APAR (and rightly so, all things considered) they wouldn't just opt for one of the perfectly good
APAR designs on offer already (F124 or LCF, good design either way). Alternately a bespoke design is a perfectly reasonable choice, although of course it comes
at a premium. Converting Type 45 would be possible, but I just can't understand the motivation.
|
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 65 (15-May-2008 15:09:57) |
Good point, Jim. Either should come in a lot cheaper than a T45. Converting Type 45 only makes sense if the Canucks want something larger, & as an
alternative to a bespoke design.
|
||
|
drunknsubmrnr |
|||
|
Posts: 1344 (15-May-2008 15:17:44) |
AAW ships are built around the radars and launchers. There are a LOT of calculations put into the design to find the optimum tradeoff between sensor position
and ship requirements.
Everything from the deck up is based on those calculations. You'd need to redo the whole lot of them to fit in a completely new radar. For the hull, you're talking about a couple of large empty spaces in the middle that have a very large effect on how the rest of the ship is designed and built. All of those calculations would need to be redone, and you're looking at a significant redesign to account for the Mk 41 and whatever gun is chosen. Even cosmetically small changes can have very large impacts in ship design. Just swapping out the radar for a new one doesn't work in practice, and the same with the launchers. That especially holds for AAW ships. A gree with Jim WH. If we were to buy an off the shelf design, we're looking at the Dutch or German ships. I think we'd go for an early SCSC though. |
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 66 (15-May-2008 15:41:01) |
But somehow, ships (e.g. the Danish so-called "patrol ships") have reached an advanced stage of design without a final decision having been made on
radars. You're saying that the designers of those ships didn't know what they were doing. Hmm. And what about all the other ships which have had one
weapon or sensor removed, and another installed, or an additional weapon type installed, part-way through their service lives? You suggest that these are such
major tasks that they're impractical even in new-built ships. But if so, how is it that it's actually done?
You seem to be approaching this from a theoretical viewpoint, and saying "calculations show it can't be done", while ignoring the fact that it has been done. This reminds me of Sir Richard van der Riet Woolley, the Astronomer Royal who couldn't accept that his meticulous calculations proving the impossibility of spaceflight were wrong even when assorted objects had been put into orbit.
Last Edited By: Bledlow
15-May-2008 15:45:45.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
drunknsubmrnr |
|||
|
Posts: 1345 (15-May-2008 16:46:32) |
"But somehow, ships (e.g. the Danish so-called "patrol ships") have reached an advanced stage of design without a final decision having been
made on radars. "
They're not AAW ships. "And what about all the other ships which have had one weapon or sensor removed, and another installed, or an additional weapon type installed, part-way through their service lives?" That depends on what's being done to them. For AAW ships, major conversion efforts usually involve significant rebuilds. These rebuilds are usually so expensive that they aren't worth the money. "You suggest that these are such major tasks that they're impractical even in new-built ships. But if so, how is it that it's actually done?" Badly. Sometimes very badly. "You seem to be approaching this from a theoretical viewpoint, and saying "calculations show it can't be done", while ignoring the fact that it has been done. " I've actually done this. Have you? |
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 67 (15-May-2008 18:06:28) |
Your definition of AAW ships is very narrow. Are there any European ships apart from Type 45 which you think meet the definition? What is your definition? Clearly, it doesn't depend on the sensors & missile launchers, as the Danish patrol ships are being
built with APAR, SMART-L & Mk.41, & will be able to fire SM-2.
And no, I haven't done it. But the number of times I've heard it said that something couldn't be done, when I knew our competitors were doing it, would probably astonish you. I've also come across people who've told me that certain things couldn't be done, or were too difficult to be worthwhile, when I'd worked on systems that did them, without fuss. Therefore, when someone, however highly skilled, tells me something can't be done, I always want a second opinion. Of course, if that opinion is contrary I like the first person to criticise it, & sometimes he can prove that it's unworkable & he was right all along. But quite often, he has to admit that he's overestimated the difficulty. And I've been guilty of it myself, & been proved wrong, which has made me more cautious in dismissing anything. So I hope you will forgive me for being skeptical. After all, combat aircraft, which are more closely tailored to particular systems, & have far less margin to play with, often change sensors, engines etc., & in most (but not all, of course) cases this is successful. What's so uniquely difficult about changing (& remember, this is in a new build, not ripping anything out of an already-built ship) weapons & sensors in an AAW ship? How does it differ from the other cases?
Last Edited By: Bledlow
15-May-2008 18:10:30.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
