UK Defence Forum

Posting here as I believe this is relevant to the upgrade path and replacement for Type 45...



Italy's planned replacement for the Durand de la Penne-class Class. Source in Italian: https://www.rid.it/shownews/5519

- 96 full-width cells, with a mixture of Sylver A-50/A-70

- SCALP Naval as an interim weapon is a very interesting choice. Considering how despite the commonality with Storm Shadow we've never considered it.

- Italy to acquire FC/ASW, which is a promising sign for the programme.

- 13,500 tons at full load.

FYI, neither sources are to my knowledge verified on this but are otherwise credible for rumours and conjecture.

UK, France and Italy all have carriers to protect and all have PAAMS it makes complete sense to develop ABM together.

Jensy wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 15:38 Posting here as I believe this is relevant to the upgrade path and replacement for Type 45...



Italy's planned replacement for the Orrizonte Class. Source in Italian: https://www.rid.it/shownews/5519

- 96 full-width cells, with a mixture of Sylver A-50/A-70

- SCALP Naval as an interim weapon is a very interesting choice. Considering how despite the commonality with Storm Shadow we've never considered it.

- Italy to acquire FC/ASW, which is a promising sign for the programme.

- 13,500 tons at full load.

FYI, neither sources are to my knowledge verified on this but are otherwise credible for rumours and conjecture.

13,500 tons seems overlay ambitious and out of the ball bark expensive!

Is Italy radically increasing it's defence budget, as it seems to be going full steam ahead on extremely expensive equipment.

It tells us the travel of thinking both the US and Italy are looking at 13,000+ ton destroyers with 96 to 122 VLS cells

IIRC, I did post something to this effect MANY MONTHS (if not over a year) ago!

Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 16:50 It tells us the travel of thinking both the US and Italy are looking at 13,000+ ton destroyers with 96 to 122 VLS cells

What change in thinking in the US? The Burkes and Ticos already have in that order of VLS. The Constellations will have 32.

The Italian fremm frigates had planned to have many more than the 16 cells installed….

Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 16:50 It tells us the travel of thinking both the US and Italy are looking at 13,000+ ton destroyers with 96 to 122 VLS cells

Going from the graphic provided the beam looks to be around 24m. That’s puts the LOA around 220m. It’s massive.

Regardless of the displacement RN need a minimum of 6 destroyers ideally 10 plus.

Much better to aim for 10 destroyers with 48 strike cells plus 48 or 72 CAMM cells whilst maintaining the LOA around 160m.

It’s easy to blame the supersized dimensions of the next-gen destroyers on required energy generation parameters but that has little bearing on VLS cell numbers.

Are two 220m destroyers really better than 3 or 4 150m-160m destroyers if the VLS numbers are equal?

I’m not convinced.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 19:23 Are two 220m destroyers really better than 3 or 4 150m-160m destroyers if the VLS numbers are equal?

I’m not convinced.

As fun as it would be to see the Royal Navy bobbing about in 21st Century battlecruisers. I think numbers are far more crucial and I'd like to see us with at least eight AAW escorts.

However different navies have different requirements. The Marina Militare's primary area of operations is the Med. They might think it's more efficient to concentrate their best sensors and weapons on a couple of 'mega platforms', rather than duplicating and splitting them up. Whether this class replaces the two Italian Horizons in the 2030s will be interesting

What has me curious, is at what point does an escort start to need its own escort. ..?

tomuk wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 18:41

Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 16:50 It tells us the travel of thinking both the US and Italy are looking at 13,000+ ton destroyers with 96 to 122 VLS cells

What change in thinking in the US? The Burkes and Ticos already have in that order of VLS. The Constellations will have 32.

I did not say change in thinking I said travel of thinking the New USN DDGX is set to be 13000 ton+ this would lead us to think this is not about VLS's but power for other types of weapons

In the 2030s the RN can have ssn r or gold plated equivalent to these from scratch but it cannot have both.

This is the Type 45 thread, we are straying away from the topic, which should be in a Type 83 thread.

Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 21:29

tomuk wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 18:41

Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 16:50 It tells us the travel of thinking both the US and Italy are looking at 13,000+ ton destroyers with 96 to 122 VLS cells

What change in thinking in the US? The Burkes and Ticos already have in that order of VLS. The Constellations will have 32.

I did not say change in thinking I said travel of thinking the New USN DDGX is set to be 13000 ton+ this would lead us to think this is not about VLS's but power for other types of weapons

Both the Burkes (Flt III) and Ticos are already getting on for 10,000t just the general inflation in ship size would account for a larger US ship not any cunning plan for lasers etc.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 19:23

Are two 220m destroyers really better than 3 or 4 150m-160m destroyers if the VLS numbers are equal?

For what it’s worth the Italian Navy now appears to be aiming for four of these ships - this may be for budgetary positioning reasons but all of this is OT.

tomuk wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 00:07

Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 21:29

tomuk wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 18:41

Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 16:50 It tells us the travel of thinking both the US and Italy are looking at 13,000+ ton destroyers with 96 to 122 VLS cells

What change in thinking in the US? The Burkes and Ticos already have in that order of VLS. The Constellations will have 32.

I did not say change in thinking I said travel of thinking the New USN DDGX is set to be 13000 ton+ this would lead us to think this is not about VLS's but power for other types of weapons

Both the Burkes (Flt III) and Ticos are already getting on for 10,000t just the general inflation in ship size would account for a larger US ship not any cunning plan for lasers etc.

Once again you are making more out of what I am saying I did not say Change of thinking or cunning plan I said travel of thinking meaning that navies are moving in there thinking to much bigger destroyers the AB's are 9000 ton the new USN DDGX is set to be 13000 a growth of 4000 tons or a fully loaded Meko 200 frigate yet they are not adding many more VLS so this travel thinking must be set somewhere else i.e they are thinking they need more room for more power a lot more power and crew comfort not all of the extra power is for energy weapons it will be for more powerful sensors and off board kit to

the Fact is at some 190 meters and 13000 ton with the sensor and weapons ft these ships are no longer Destroyers but Cruisers

Dobbo wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 07:36

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 19:23

Are two 220m destroyers really better than 3 or 4 150m-160m destroyers if the VLS numbers are equal?

For what it’s worth the Italian Navy now appears to be aiming for four of these ships - this may be for budgetary positioning reasons but all of this is OT.

The Italians have been saying they will build four of the latest generation of destroyer for generations. They were going to build 4 Horizon Class, then 4 Durands before that. At 13,000t we shall see.

Is it practical to build a few number of ships with very large arsenals of missiles when you could potentially build a larger number of ships that could still total the same amount of missiles overall , you don't always need such a large ship ,in considering these as cruisers the range of their missiles are just the same as the destroyers so we should not think of them as 8 inch compared to four inch guns lol

Zeno wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 21:09 Is it practical to build a few number of ships with very large arsenals of missiles when you could potentially build a larger number of ships that could still total the same amount of missiles overall , you don't always need such a large ship ,in considering these as cruisers the range of their missiles are just the same as the destroyers so we should not think of them as 8 inch compared to four inch guns lol

Well at one of the previous defence select committee meetings Vice Admiral Chris Gardner talked about not being able to define what a T83 will be yet and talked of capabilities and it as a air defence system rather a question of platforms.

You could of added c.e.c to the present destroyers and frigates to achieve similar some force magnification and a system

Paint flaking off doesn't exude build quality.

Ron5 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 13:30 Paint flaking off doesn't exude build quality.

That's the old mast the new one has the bulb near the top.

tomuk wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 14:18

Ron5 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 13:30 Paint flaking off doesn't exude build quality.

That's the old mast the new one has the bulb near the top.

So all the pictures show the old mast? Odd.

Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 13:26

tomuk wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 14:18

Ron5 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 13:30 Paint flaking off doesn't exude build quality.

That's the old mast the new one has the bulb near the top.

So all the pictures show the old mast? Odd.

The second picture is the new mast. You can just see the bulb towards the top behind the disc separator before the narrow topmast.
Here is Diamond and Defender showing the difference.

"@HMSDuncan sails from Portsmouth this afternoon.
Has been re-equipped with Harpoon missiles - the first Type 45 to carry SSM for several years."



Am most interested in the 2nd sentance - glad to see RN escorts getting some teeth again, even before NSM start to be fitted.