Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "Военное телевидение" channel.

It would not be possible to fit the T45 systems into an AB destroyer without major redesign work.
1
@ThatCarGuy Well you were the one who posted that the RN should have bought the AB and integrated technology they liked into it. Specifically though, the radar.
1
@ThatCarGuy That "Ball style" radome is intended to be mounted as high as possible, to increase detection range. Mounting it lower down would reduce its capabilities. Fitting kit into vehicles it is not designed for involves more than just checking dimensions. Just look at the CH47 debacle to see how it can go wrong in a major way.
1
@ThatCarGuy That "tower" holding the samson radar is not simply a hollow structure, it houses the cooling and ESM equipment. The radar itself sits at almost 40m (~125ft). A redesign of the rear smoke stack (the major redesign I talked about) would alter the seakeeping qualities of the ship requiring new trials and recertification. What then do you do about the S1850M surveillance radar? Mount it on top of the foremast? Where does the kit on the current foremast go? Could an AB be built with the T45s radar and fire control systems installed? Yes, but it would not be easy and the work involved would be extremely expensive. T45 already has provision for an additional sixteen strike length VLS cells (either Sylvar or Mk41) that could house ABM, anti-ship or land attack missiles. Another option for point air defence is to replace a portion of the current missiles with Sea ceptor. This system (fitted to the Type 23) is similar to the ESSM in that it can be quad packed. So a future AAW loadout could be along the lines of 16 ABM, 40 Aster 30 and 32 Sea ceptor.
1
@ThatCarGuy And my last response is this. There are no "what ifs" in my statement. The Type 45s already have provision for an additional sixteen full length VLS cells, they simply have to be installed. In bean counter parlance - Fitted for but not with. The navy is already evaluating the inclusion of an ABM capability into the Type 45 (it was called for in the 2015 Strategic Defence Review). Sea ceptor is available as a quad pack for either the Sylvar or Mk41 VLS (It will be fitted to the Type 26 in this format). If we are working with what we have then why are you talking about the UK purchasing a mythical Arleigh Burke with UK equipment? In addition, what we "have" is a general purpose destroyer (AB) and a dedicated anti-air warfare destroyer (T45). The AB has more VLS cells available in total, but NOT for area defence. Firstly, many of the cells on an AB destroyer house weapons intended for other tasks. Secondly, the Aster 15/30 are fired as single shots whereas the missiles on the AB are fired in pairs, halving the actual number available. Thirdly, the anti-air systems on the T45 are more capable than the AN/SPY-1 fitted to current AB destroyers (Flt III excluded) and are capable of engaging more targets simultaneously. What we have available now is a dedicated AAW destroyer that is more capable than the majority of AB destroyers in its intended role.
1
@Pdh24 It looks like the navy is assessing the options for an anti-ballistic missile capability, so they might finally get the 16 full length cells they were designed with.
1
If given orders to do so, yes.
1