is the Type-45 a good destroyer?

Which western ship is this a copy of again?

>>31035636
it's Royal Navy

>>31035631

Its a great anti air warship but it really lacks on the ship to ship side.

>that weird RN gun caliber

>>31035636
The Type 45.

>>31035646
iirc they installed some spare Harpoon launchers from type-42s (I think) so it's a bit less lacking in that department

>>31035631

Decent frame, terrible engine. I think more telling is that this ship has massive shoes to fill and I'm not sure if anyone is confident that it's an improvement over what it replaced. How are you supposed to rule the waves with that modest an armament?

>>31035751

>this whole post

just stop.

Victim of cost saving

>>31035631
>I know it gets memed on pretty badly

It really doesn't, it just looks funky.

> for the engine and power system failures but if the RN manage to fix it will it be any good?

The engine issues are completely overblown by the UK media - and therefore your average uninformed /k/ poster. The power issues only arise in a very specific set of circumstances - when only one of the two generators is running and that generator is running in what is essentially 'economy mode'. When in this mode in the hot waters of the Persian gulf then the system will not cool fast enough and shut down to prevent damage. All that is being done is adding a small extra generator that will power the cooling system independently while the ship is on minimal power.

It would never have been an issue during combat as both engines would be running and the certainly wouldn't be running in eco mode.

It is already the best AAW escort in the world especially in regards to dealing with saturation attack. With Aster 30NT and Aster 30 block 2 on the way it will begin taking up BMD duties in the coming years.

It was only ever designed to be an AAW escort, hence having limited ASW and ASuW weapons. RN destroyers are not general purpose ships - that's the job of frigates.

>Sylver VLS with a very limited range of missiles
>not capable of intercepting ballistic missiles
>propulsion problems
>not all of them are fitted with Harpoons
>ancient CIWS
>most expensive ship to come out of the NFR-90 program

It's a shitfest if you look at the cost

File: 1442332028660.jpg (23KB, 396x508px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 396x508px

>>31035797
>It is already the best AAW escort in the world especially in regards to dealing with saturation attack

>48 cells
>CAMM still not in service
>saturation attack
>48 cells

>especially in regards to dealing with saturation attack
>especially in regards to dealing with saturation attack

This is some shit tier bait.

>>31035797
>overblown
>need an engine refit that will cost tens of millions of pounds and will take years

It has a nice radar but it's armament is completely shit tier.

>>31035849
To be fair lots of navies use Phalanx. Burkes only started switching to SeaRAM last year.

File: US_Navy_101019-N-1324F-223_The_aircraft_carrier_USS_Enterprise_(CVN_65)_is_underway_with_the_Royal_Navy_destroyer_HMS_Daring_(D_32).jpg (825KB, 2100x1415px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 2100x1415px

>>31035834
>Sylver VLS with a very limited missile range

It has Aster which is all that matters

>not capable of intercepting ballistic missiles

Because the missile that does it it not in service yet - it can already track objects outside the atmosphere and every aster dart is already capable of exoatmospheric maneuvering.

>propulsion problems

Already addressed, and in a war situation it still has some of the most advanced power and propulsion systems in the world (a system that the US copied and improved to theoretically suit railguns with Zumwalt)

>not all of them are fitted with Harpoons

Your information is about 5 years old. They all have harpoon now that T42 has been withdrawn.

>ancient CIWS

The RN uses the most modern versions of Phalanx with the most up to date software. In the coming years they are to be fitted with lasers to supplement phalanx before 2020.

>most expensive ship to come out of the NFR-90 program

because it is the largest, most advanced and most capable of all of them. what did you expect? Additionally the UK has no problem with paying a premium to maintain domestic defence jobs. We order ships we don't need to keep shipyards active.

Why do I bother replying to these idiots? Their stupidity spreads like the plague.

>>31035899
I would reply to your post, but you're so convinced the Type 45 is "the most advanced" destroyer in the world it's pointless

Keep defending your overpriced memeship when a Zeven Provincien-class blows it out of the water for half the price

>>31035862

Do you understand what a saturation attack is? Multiple missiles on different bearings all arriving at the same time.

not a single file line of missiles until you run out of ammunition.

I'd love to hear you name a better AAW ship. Would it be the burke with its standard load of 48 (where have we hard that number before) Sm-3?

Type 45 and sea viper is capable of similtaneous engaement of 32 targets . Because its firring one active missile at each target. USN policy requires two of its inferior semi active missiles to be launched at each target - this is hilariously bad when you remember that these missiles have to be guided by a mechanically pointed SPG-62 iluminator - of which it has 3.

this means that in ideal situations burke can only have 3 SM3 or ESSM or SM-6 in the air at one time. Just prey it doesnt have to rotate that radr to a new bearing to engage a new target...

Lets also not forget that the burkes sensors are all PESA - making it easy to jam, and the SPY-1 radar has to search AND track , severely limiting the number of tragets it can find and monitor. Oh and its mounted down on the superstucture so its radar horizon is shortened.

So please, let me know what you think the bestr AAW escort is.

>>31035910
oh look, more semi active missiles guided by a single, one faced rotating PESA radar.

The only reason you would consider De Zeven Provinciën in the same league is because you're from Holland.

>>31035864

Tens of millions is not a significant amount of money in defence spedning.

The additional generators are being added when the ships go in for their planned refits anyway, this is why it will take years, the problem is nowehere near serious enough to warrent bringing the ships in and adding the generators ASAP.

>>31035980
>Type 45 and sea viper is capable of similtaneous engaement of 32 targets . Because its firring one active missile at each target.
This is boasting. Against supersonic Russian missiles, no way will a Type 45 risk only one missile per anti-ship missile.

>this means that in ideal situations burke can only have 3 SM3 or ESSM or SM-6 in the air at one time. Just prey it doesnt have to rotate that radr to a new bearing to engage a new target...
Well we're assuming Arleigh Burke DDGs operate in a in group so radar illumination is not a limiting factor with Aegis sharing information. The Type 45 was designed to operate alone, but a Burke is way better at handling saturation attacks due to its superior firepower when in a group.

>>31035980
>>31035899
>>31035797
You Thraxas from SB?

File: 1461337514433.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>31035980
>this means that in ideal situations burke can only have 3 SM3 or ESSM or SM-6 in the air at one time. Just prey it doesnt have to rotate that radr to a new bearing to engage a new target...

This is some awful bait, nigger.

>>31035980
>he thinks the UK intends to doctrinally bet everything on Pk=1.00

Like fuck.

>this means that in ideal situations burke can only have 3 SM3 or ESSM or SM-6 in the air at one time.

You are an ignorant shit and I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you sort of knew what you were talking about until you gave up the game.

>>31036066

Of course this dipshit is from some sci-fi fanfiction forum full of stupid fuckers who think they know more than they do. Why was there ever doubt?

File: 1461775900105.jpg (535KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1280x720px

>>31036064
>Arleigh Burke DDGs operate in a in group so radar illumination is not a limiting factor with Aegis sharing information.

Even if they're not in a group it's not an issue. The old SM-2s and ESSMs are only guided into target at the last moment, and the new ones have IR seekers to do it themselves, SM-6 is active.

It's just a retard that doesn't know shit about anything baiting. Stop replying.

>>31036000
>APAR
>one faced PESA radar

What the fuck are you smoking?

>>31035980
>SM-3
>SM-6
>semi active only

So much wrong with this post.

>>31036091

I love how he shut up real fast after that.

I do have to offer some minor corrections though: 66M-5 and up are the only ones with IR combined seekers. 156B got cancelled because reasons, so it's only 66M-5+ and 156As (and 174As, of course) that are flying.

Not that it's too big of a loss.

>>31036064
>This is boasting. Against supersonic Russian missiles, no way will a Type 45 risk only one missile per anti-ship missile.

Aster has a far higher chance to kill than any semi active missile. The reason for the Americans launching two missiles per target is because 1. the missiles are less accurate and require the second shot. 2. a re engagement of the same target with a new launch takes up valuable seconds on the iluminators that are mechanically slewed onto targets and are in very short supply.

Aster will probably kill its target with its first shot, if not, then there will be time for follow up shots. As sea viper has no need to worry about a shortage of fire control.

>Well we're assuming Arleigh Burke DDGs operate in a in group so radar illumination is not a limiting factor with Aegis sharing information. The Type 45 was designed to operate alone, but a Burke is way better at handling saturation attacks due to its superior firepower when in a group.

So once you get a group of 10 burkes you'll have the same simultaneous engagement ability as a single T45. Providing there is no jamming of course.

>>31036066
No i'm not.

>>31036079
You think i'm joking? you think this is bait? how about you go look up a picture of the ships and count the number of AN/SPG-62 dishes. You better hope burke gets a shot from its side....

>>31036085

>Like fuck.

RN doctrine, is different from USN doctirne. deal with it.

>You are an ignorant shit and I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you sort of knew what you were talking about until you gave up the game.

This was actually an over simplification to russtle jimmies. What i should of said is that you can have as many of those missiles in their air as you want, you just need to be firing them at a target illuminated by one of the fire control radars. Of which in the best case scenario you have 3.

>The old SM-2s and ESSMs are only guided into target at the last moment

This is wrong.

Mid-course guidance is the limited factor of the AEGIS ships.

That's the reason why Europe developed several own solution like APAR and SAMPSON/PAAMS.

>>31036199
>This was actually an over simplification to russtle jimmies.
>I was only pretending to be retarded

No, you actually believed that, and the fact that you're still going on about something that you're still managing to be wrong about is telling.

(You).

>>31035849
>Propulsion problems
[Citation needed]

>>31036091
>SM-6 is active.

yes it is, i had a brain far and wrote SM-6 instead of SM-2

however, no SM-2 or SM-3 has an active radar seeker. IR seekers are a shit stopgap because Raytheon can't do anything about the poor selection of sensors on Burke.

But lets not just take my word on all this,

>Nick Brown the editor-in-chief of Jane’s International Defence Review was quoted by The Huffington Post saying, "It’s [Type 45 destroyer] certainly one of the most advanced air defence ships in the world... The US Aegis system is similar, but Sea Viper (PAAMS) is more advanced."[6]

>Aster 30
>SM-3 equivalent

What the fuck.

>>31036210
>No, you actually believed that, and the fact that you're still going on about something that you're still managing to be wrong about is telling.

Whatever makes you less upset, and my clarification is not wrong in the slightest.

I note that you've yet to actually say whats wrong with it or present your own views, you're just getting upset and shouting NO NO NO NO.

>>31036239
>IR seekers are not active

>>31036237
Google it you lazy fuck

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12128889/Royal-Navys-warships-face-major-engine-refit-amid-reliability-concerns.html

>>31035661

Yeah, but 8 harpoons isnt really that much.

Holy shit, do you think the missile is shining a little IR light and flying towards whatever it lights up? wow.

IR seekers are passive you dumb fuck. they pick up the heat from air friction or engines and guide themselves towards the signature.

>>31036270
It's the same load as carried on Ticos and (some) Burkes.

>>31036270
We put them on because we had spare harpoons. It's an area defence ship, which will protect carriers. There's no need for it to have an ASM.

I also struggle to think of any warship that has more than 8 harpoons, the two quad launchers are pretty standard. Maybe Iowa had an extra mount.

>>31036282
>friction
Compression, not friction. Friction with the air accounts for fuck-all aerodynamic heating. You're welcome.

>>31036303

Iowa had double the usual, actually, so sixteen.

>>31036264
>engine shuts down to avoid damage, but only if only the one is running on 'economy mode's whilst in specific warm waters
>Propulsion problems
Are different things fuckknuckle. As has been said, it's not a problem outside of those very specific peacetime conditions. They'll just being in a generator to run cooling when the ships go in for a routine re-fit. It doesn't amount to 'propulsion problems'.

>>31036327
Don't worry about them.

Americans tend to get worked up because when they copied our integrated electric propulsion they couldn't make it work so they have already had to cut into the hull of Zumwalt to fix genuine propulsion problems.

Here's hoping they won't fuck up our railgun design too.

>>31036327
>I-i-it is really not a problem g-guys
>j-just in specific c-c-conditions
>ships get BTFO and lose power every time they enter warmer waters

my sides

>>31036385

(you)

>>31036199
Aster does not have a 100% probability of kill.

>>31036385
>ships get BTFO and lose power every time they enter warmer waters
[actual citation that supports that statement in its entirety needed]

>>31036239
I see you completely ignored the rest of the post to go on about something else.

Yeah, fuck off with your shit tier bait, fuccboi.

>>31036402
Nothing has 100% POK, but it has a higher POK than anything else in the air. But like I said, the main reason for firing a single shot is because it has time for follow up shots because of its abundance of fire control.

Obviously there will be settings in Sea Viper for multiple missiles launched at a single target in specific situations. Manoeuvring crossing targets and late detection sea skimmers being likely candidates.

>>31036450
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35432341

>I experienced one of the many power outages on board HMS Dauntless, off the coast of Senegal, in 2012.
>In 2014 Dauntless had to abandon a training exercise and, in 2009, HMS Daring lost power in the Atlantic on her first voyage to the US. She suffered more propulsion problems off Kuwait in 2012.

lel

>>31035849
>not capable of intercepting ballistic missiles

name a single ship in the world that can stop an ICBM

>>31036459
>fuccboi.

Are you 15?

The requirement for terminal guidance only does not mean a thing in a simultaneous saturation attack. You still have to illuminate more targets than you have illuminators.

it's almost like you haven't been following the thread.

>its 2016 and there are people justifying semi-active missiles and PESA radars as good systems.

>>31036282
Active meaning they guide themselves without a third party.

File: 1464030640701.gif (3MB, 800x352px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 800x352px

>>31036525
>The requirement for terminal guidance only does not mean a thing in a simultaneous saturation attack.

Wanna know how I know you're actually retarded and don't know a thing about what you're talking about, succboi?

>>31036473
>but it has a higher POK than anything else in the air

[citation needed]

>>31036525
That cognitive dissonance regarding IR seekers.

>>31036199
>Aster has a far higher chance to kill than any semi active missile. The reason for the Americans launching two missiles per target is because 1. the missiles are less accurate and require the second shot. 2. a re engagement of the same target with a new launch takes up valuable seconds on the iluminators that are mechanically slewed onto targets and are in very short supply.
More unverified boasting then. Got ya.

>So once you get a group of 10 burkes you'll have the same simultaneous engagement ability as a single T45.
Three Burkes are enough to match a T45. The SPY-1 can already track 100 targets. The SPG-62 is only relevant in the terminal phase and they have smart scheduling to shoot more than one missile at a time. Combine that with three Burkes and a FCS that shares information, the SPG-62 is not such a big limiting factor because of the spread workload.

>Providing there is no jamming of course.
PESA is naturally difficult to jam but obviously AESA is a bit better.

>>31036570
Maybe you should do some research instead of being spoonfed.

>The level of sea salty armchair admirals ITT
You niggers probably don't even know half of what the RN, RuN or USN is even capable of.

Granted I work for the air force side of things but you'd be fucking astounded at the shit they don't tell you.
So fuck off with this bullshit dick waving competition.

>>31036296

It's still not that many ASMs.

It works for the US that will spam them from their F/A-18s but AFAIK UKs F-35Bs has no ability to launch ASMs.

>>31036303
Most russian ships has more, and their missiles are usually much more powerful and I dont really see that the RN would engage in any large battle with anyone else. Then again, the rest of the russian navy is dogshit.

>>31036603
Not him but it's clear you're just spouting bullshit and have no source to base your claim on

File: PoW LRR.jpg (244KB, 1623x1073px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1623x1073px

>>31036532
No.

Active and passive are references to EMCON.

you seem to be getting confused with fire-and-forget.

>>31036540
I don't really care how you think the way you do. because you're wrong.

Want to know what happens when a Burkle detects 4 missiles coming from 90-degree intervals? It fires two missiles each at a maximum of three targets (assuming the illuminators are in the right position and the ship won't need to turn to unmask). once those missiles have hit and only then, will the free illuminators be able to be rotated to face the fourth missile. Better hope you detected those missiles far enough out that you can sit for a whole OODA loop before starting to engage the final threat.

It gets even more hilarious if the 4 missiles are coming from a 90-degree spread over the front quarter because then you can only illuminate one target at a time until the ship turns to unmask its rear/ side iluminators.

This is not taking into account of late detection caused by low mounted PESA radars that are susceptible to jamming.

Want to know how T45 deals with those situations? It fires 4 missiles with mid-course correction and active seekers./ Waits to see what targets remain and then fires any follow-up shots. And it can do that 8 times over until there are 32 missiles appearing at one time. And it can do it in heavy ECM enviroments. And it's better at doing it without AEW because it has a further radar horizon.

Remind me again who is getting BTFO?

File: concept-visions-cvs401-7-perseus-c2a9-master-image.jpg (556KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 2560x1440px

>>31036615
>F-35Bs has no ability to launch ASM

No F35 can launch any ASM yet because they haven't been integrated software wise. But LRASM and JSM (NSM) are both near-term options. With more exotic weapons planned for the long term, such as Perseus.

File: 1469449598623.jpg (196KB, 432x444px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 432x444px

>>31036655
>I literally do not know how a Burke works, that's why I call it a 'Burkle'
>Saturation and multiple angles of attack are brand new and nobody else has ever thought of this in the history of the world

It's like you're actually a child!

>>31036492
No type 45 has ever had to return to port due to this problem. It's not a propulsion problem (as has been said COUNTLESS times before), it's a problem with the generator shutting down under VERY specific circumstances.

File: 1337613599623.png (219KB, 450x288px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 450x288px

>>31036759
>I literally do not know how a Burke works, that's why I call it a 'Burkle'

I have a friend called Burkle so that's why it keeps correcting. But WOW you sure got me with those facts, guess I lost this time because of that extra 'l'. Silly me

>and I'm the child

>Saturation and multiple angles of attack are brand new and nobody else has ever thought of this in the history of the world

you seem to be sperging out because I'm staying on the same topic started here >>31035862

I also once again note with glee that you can't stay on the subject or provide any real counter argument, I'll chalk another one up for me. Keep up.

>>31036682
Oh, well, thank you.

File: 1e9.png (24KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 625x626px

>>31036794
>I have a friend called Burkle

Sure you do, cuntboi.

>or provide any real counter argument

You still haven't shown any kind of knowledge of how targeting works on a Burke or anything else and instead keep clinging to patently wrong notions while putting covering your eyes and ignoring any contrary evidence to your claims.

You're not even worthy of scorn, fuccboi.

>>31036765
Yes they have. Dauntless had to be repaired in Canada, Daring in Bahrain.

And IEP literally stands for Integrated Electric Propulsion. Call it all you want, the problem lies there.

>>31036655
You could do some basic research and provide sources y'know.

http://www.maritime.org/doc/pdf/fc2.pdf

>A drawback of this system is that the shipboard illumination is not free to engage another target while the missile is in flight. STANDARD SM-1 and SEA- SPARROW all use semi-active homing as their primary guidance; they do not use midcourse guidance. The STANDARD SM-2 uses midcourse guidance, and then semi-active homing only for terminal guidance. As a result, the SM-2 needs illumination from the ship only for the last few seconds of flight.

>The AEGIS system was designed as a total weapon system, from “detection” to “kill”. The heart of the AEGIS system is an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-functional phased-array radar, the AN/SPY-1. This high-powered (four-megawatt) radar can perform search, track, and missile guidance functions simultaneously, with a capability of over 100 targets. The first system was installed on the test ship, USS Norton Sound (AVM-1) in 1973. Figure 2-6
shows the weapons and sensors on an AEGIS class cruiser.

Unless the Navy's own training manual is lying to it's students I guess.

>>31036831
>You still haven't shown any kind of knowledge of how targeting works on a Burke or anything else and instead keep clinging to patently wrong notions while putting covering your eyes and ignoring any contrary evidence to your claims.

He says while failing yet again to explain how he thinks anything is wrong. You're literally stamping your feet and saying NO NO NO NO.

Go on, enlighten us. Explain the OODA loop for a burke in that situation.

>>31036655
>Want to know what happens when a Burkle detects 4 missiles coming from 90-degree intervals?

It fires SM-2 at three missiles and SM-6 at the fourth.

>>31036939
>The STANDARD SM-2 uses midcourse guidance, and then semi-active homing only for terminal guidance. As a result, the SM-2 needs illumination from the ship only for the last few seconds of flight.

> The STANDARD SM-2 uses midcourse guidance, and then semi-active homing only for terminal guidance. As a result, the SM-2 needs illumination from the ship only for the last few seconds of flight.

Which is useless in simultaneous engagement, because 1 you have to mechanically slew the radar onto each target 2 you are unable to deal with a time on target attack because only 3 targets can be engaged at one time.

You defiantly overestimate AN/SPG-62 if you think its spinning around the sky time to guide each missile to its target in the nick of time.

Three separate kill chains may have been advanced for the 70's but it certainly isn't anymore, especially in direct comparison to Sea Viper.

>The AEGIS system was designed as a total weapon system, from “detection” to “kill”. The heart of the AEGIS system is an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-functional phased-array radar, the AN/SPY-1. This high-powered (four-megawatt) radar can perform search, track, and missile guidance functions simultaneously, with a capability of over 100 targets. The first system was installed on the test ship, USS Norton Sound (AVM-1) in 1973

You're quoting this like any of that was being debated? Although much of it is manufacturer fluff.

>>31036866
No, the problem lies in a very specific set of circumstances, under which the generator turns off to prevent damage to itself. It would NEVER occur during any kind of combat or possible combat situation.

>>31037033
>Burkes can only deal with 3 targets at a time

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

>>31036973

>thinks you can launch a missile with a solid rocket motor designed for exoatmospheric boosting at a sea skimming target.

I guess when the first motor burns out at 40k feet you can turn around and come back. But good luck finding a captain that will waste his limited supply of BMD weapons on a target that his other weapons should be able to deal with.

>>31037090
Do you even know what an SM-6 is?

>>31036682
You know that's a fake missile right?
Regarding F35, only JSM (NSM) and Turkish SOM are stated to be integrated in the weapon bay.

>>31037033
>manufacturer fluff
>it's in the fucking USN issued manual

repeating lies doesn't make them any less false.

>>31037033
If you could cite some sources that'd be nice. You've literally just been talking out of your ass. Time-sharing the illuminators is an established process.

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Semaphore_2009_7.pdf

If you can show me any particular proof that the illuminator can't swiftly change targets that'd be nice. You're also disparaging IR sensors, but you've done nothing to back up that claim. Every post you've made in this thread has been nothing but your own claims about how these systems work, but we have no obligation to accept anything you say as gospel.

>>31036948
>He says while failing yet again to explain how he thinks anything is wrong.

It's been pointed out numerous times in this thread already. I'm not going to regurgitate things you don't like just so you can ignore them some more.

>>31036973
>>31037128

Can somebody explain to me what the difference between SM-2 and SM-6? I thought SM-6 was just SM-2 with longer range? What's the real deal?

>>31038349
SM-6 is an SM-2 with the radar from the AMRAAM stuck in it. Meaning that it is essentially a fire and forget weapon and capable of engaging sea skimming targets well beyond the radar horizon of the vessel that fired it while also having significant home on jam capabilities.

>>31038360

So then is SM-6 completely superior to SM-2 or is there some trade-off?

>>31038375
It's more expensive and there's still tons of SM-2s in inventory around the world.

>>31038375
It's more expensive. That's the trade-off.

>>31038392
>>31038393

That answers the question. SM-6 is also usable against ships, right?

>>31038423
Both SM-2 and SM-6 can be fired at ships.

>>31038459

Would you consider those missiles to be better or worse than the Harpoon in an anti-ship role?

>>31038475
Worse, it's a backup capability.

>>31038651

Okay, all my stupid questions are answered now, but don't worry I'll be back when I have more.

>bongoloid gets rekt

no surprise

>>31036270
Very true. Whales are hard to bring down.

>>31036327
My truck doesn't damage itself when idling in my driveway. Your country is a miserable, muddy, CCTV covered shithole. Everybody worth a shit already left for America. You snaggleteeth are dysgenics in action. Your women are ugly

>>31036682
F35 is not even combat ready.

>>31037075
>A ship will never run low on fuel in a war so economy mode is irrelevant

This is what you sound like

>>31040773

F-35A and F-35B models have both been cleared for combat duty. This is not to suggest that the planes are really prepared for combat yet, but they are good enough that they would be able to carry out basically battlefield functions ranging from close air support to interdiction.

>>31040798

Why would you send your destroyer into battle low on fuel?

>>31040812
Yes, and women are Navy seals in the current year.

F35 was pencil whipped through and you know it.

>>31040825

>and women are Navy seals in the current year.

Name a single female SEAL.

>>31040835
Demi Moore?

>>31037033
>>31037033
dude a computer does the terminal guidance scheduling you bet your ass the slew time is taken into account

>>31035631
No, but your penis is anon, you stallion!!

>>31040682
OP isn't British nor is this his first bait thread.

>>31040835
Rangers. You know what I meant. Transgender Seals are a matter of time.

>>31037090
Ive never been in so much mental pain from a post on 4chan before in my life. The SM-6 is not the SM-3 you fucking tool.

>>31040825
>I dont like the F-35 so im just gonna say its shit even though it isnt because axe and sprey told me. A-10 4 lyfe and F-16 beat it in a dogfight.

>>31035631
HMS Conehead.

>>31036201
What transmitter sends out midcourse corrections? I thought that the SPY array did that, too.

>>31036655
It fires 2xSM-2 at each target, with a slight stagger if needed to ensure that the missiles will reach their intercept points a few seconds apart.

The illuminators engage the first 3 inbounds, and whichever is done first (and in arc) swings around to bag #4.

SM-2 is not semi-active-all-the-way. You're thinking of the original Sea Sparrow, or maybe the original SM-1.

>>31038349
SM-2--the basic missile. Mid-course guidance, semi-active terminal, most (all?) now have terminal IR (not sure if staring/imaging or old-school "hot spot"). MR is the bare missile, ER has an extra booster for longer range; the vast majority are MR.

SM-3--the BMD/ASAT missile. Punches through the atmosphere, releases an autonomous kinetic warhead that uses an imaging IR seeker and thrusters to hit the target.

SM-6--the Slamdard. Standard body and engine with a modified AMRAAM seeker (scaled up to the Standard's larger diameter). Mid-course guidance like both parents use. I don't have to explain terminal guidance, do I?

SM-6 is less common, and more expensive; it's intended for targets that are very far away, or at ridiculous altitudes (but sub-ICBM speeds), particularly to allow engagement of Russia's newer ASMs to begin at ranges beyond what SM-2 can reach. This buys the ship more time, allowing it to prosecute a larger number of the faster inbounds than it otherwise could. It also allows for some really cheesy SAM traps against enemy aircraft.

>>31038475
They have smaller warheads, and fly mostly ballistic trajectories (making them far easier to detect and shoot down than sea-skimmers).

SM-2 used to be restricted to LOS range (because of the semi-active terminal guidance), but I'm not sure if this is still the case with the IR-equipped SM-2s, or if they can use normal radio mid-course with IR terminal homing.

>>31040820
>why would you ever stay on station for more than a few days at a time during a shooting war?

Why doesn't anyone talk about soft kill? Is it that irrelevant?

>>31041091
There are no female Rangers. A Ranger is someone who is part of the 75th. Having a Ranger Tab means you graduated from a school.

>>31036655
I have never seen so many [citation needed]. Do armchair generals think they can fool people scientific jargons?

>>31045065
He completely does not know how PESA radars work. The world has long since obtained track while scan radars.

>>31037090
SM-6 is not SM-3

>>31045065
>>31045188
I think it is carry over from some past PESA vs AESA threads that came up when comparing the Su-35 to NATO fighters.

http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_044.pdf

The primary advantage of AESA is logistics and SWAP (size, weight, power). With a PESA, you have a single high-power amplifier like the Klystron or TWT. These are older devices, require extensive cooling, and very prone to breakdowns. And when your single source of RF amplification goes down, your whole radar goes down and you are blind. They are expensive, fragile, and a single point of failure. With AESA, your “high-power” amplification is now split up between thousands of solid-state devices. Several of these AESA elements can fail, and the overall AESA performance will be essentially unchanged. The modules are circuit cards that can be manufactured much more easily, and technicians can easily switch modules in and out.

With PESA, you require a precision set of waveguides in order to get the high power signal from the common amplification source to all of the phase shifters. This ultimately makes the radar larger, it has special space constraints, it is heavier, and it is more difficult to manufacture. AESA radars only require a flat panel with all of the elements installed. Think of it as a frame with a bunch of circuit cards plugged in. The panel can be separated from the REX and connected only with cables allowing it to be more easily integrated onto different platforms.

AESA also allows the use of solid state devices for RF generation and amplification. Single solid-state devices were never capable of generating the power needed at a single source for a PESA radar. But when split up over thousands of elements, now you can use solid-state, and you end up getting much better radar efficiency

>>31045500
Its nonsense. Both radar types do the same exact thing with differences in operation and jam resistance.

>>31045592
So SPY-1 can illuminate while searching, but Burkes/Ticos have AN/SPG-62 so that they don't normally need to?

>>31045762
>So SPY-1 can illuminate while searching

No, it can't.

The SPY-1 is S-band which is not accurate enough for terminal illumination, so either you use the SPG-62 or use missiles with active seeker.

>>31045811
Ok that makes sense.

File: imgonnapayyou.jpg (25KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x375px

>>31036794
>>31036794
>i have no idea what an SM-6 is

>>31045811
>>31045818
except it doesn't. Spy can do terminal guidance.

>>31045847
Spy can't do terminal guidance. It does midcourse guidance. It's not a huge issue because 1. Burkes operate in groups and 2. the SPG-62 has a time sharing capability to allow it to engage more than one target at a time unlike what >>31037033 so expertly argues.

>>31035899

Is nigel right in saying they'll have lasers on board by 2020? Seems like bs to me, but I'm just an idiot so who knows.

File: Type 45 Phalanx CIWS UK-Laser.png (1MB, 1011x728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1011x728px

>>31046111

He is right on that at least. MBDA has been contracted to have them on sea trials by 2018. The idea is one that can be hooked on to existing gun systems to give dual capability.

OP is being a bit of a tard and underselling US ships in a vain attempt to bait people and "reverse bait" on British too by trying to get people against them, he's done it elsewhere too.

It's undeniable that PAAMS is more advanced when it comes to fire control in sheer numbers and response time, and that Asters are fucking ridiculously accurate and agile, but again, he's going way too far in saying what the differences are.

All I know and care about is that US and UK AAW ships or systems are the best in the world above the others, that is the "NATO Stronk" importance that matters to me.

I need to make a NATO Strong thread sometime soon. We need a little more positivity between allies lately.

>UK AAW
>Above anything

Aster 30 missiles aren't even state of the art anymore.

UK was even forced to put SMART-L on the Daring class because muh Sampson doing anything at the same time didn't work out.

APAR + Smart-L + Standard Missile family is the best combination within the NATO right now.

The problem with Aster and Sampson is that the radar doesn't operate in x-band and can't provide terminial guidance so the anti-air missile needs an active seeker which is less accurate especially against stealth targets than a powerful AESA radar, which operates in X-band.

>>31046265

>UK was even forced to put SMART-L on the Daring class because muh Sampson doing anything at the same time didn't work out.

The plan was always to have two radars from the NFR-90 project. When the UK left it because the NFR-90 design wasn't good enough for their requirements, BAE immediately started touting the Sampson as "all you need" because they wanted additional workshare and thus profit (Because they're fucking BAE) and were told to hush. Both radars were installed as was always planned.

That's literally all it was.

APAR + Smart L + SM is fucking great. But all the APAR users are still using SM-2, while Sampson + Smart L is using Asters with active seekers. An APAR with the newer AESA Smart L and SM-6 would be fucking sweet though.

And you're crazy if you think Aster missiles aren't top tier. Very fast, VERY agile and precise active seekers on every missile. There's a reason they're using them as a basis for further development and BMD and the seekers are still getting put on other missiles for use, like the Meteor.

>>31036303
Formidable class can mount up to 24 Harpoon missiles.

>>31046286

Given basically every single country, including the US, is headed in the direction of active seekers replacing ship radar guidance, I think you may be exaggerating quite a significant amount.

SM-6 doesn't have any issues with that, neither does Aster. Again, they're putting its seeker on Meteor missiles, which are more than considered a capable concept against stealthy targets.

It's not an issue to them.

>>31036603
he is not asking you to explain anything, he is asking for your sources and as long as you can't come up with those your statement means shit