Type 45 Daring class destroyer
- Thread starter Ali195
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Would it stop at landing gear ? Surely a delta wing fighter would have to have modified wings as well for storage below deck ?
In my personal opinion, cost aside, I rather like the JSF. I think that one of the reasons the supercarrier project has been delayed is because the F35 programme is behind schedule as well and Sea Harriers will not be used in the new carriers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
True. Too many people are employed by it and projects like these help maintain/create a lot of jobs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,392
I allways get confused when they say 360degree
i allways think that it can move in any direction as if it was attached to a ball, instead of like a ball cut in half.
am I think only one that thinks this?
i allways think that it can move in any direction as if it was attached to a ball, instead of like a ball cut in half.
am I think only one that thinks this?
What you are saying sounds quite interesting, but you lost me from the bit about F35 B variants.
To what are you referring? How does the Eurofighter come into all of this?
Probably.
I always think of 360° as referring to movement in one, fixed, plane.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,392
If there was something that piveted around a ball what would it be? 720?
F-35A - conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant intended for the US Air Force and other air forces.
The F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the aircraft. Similar in size to the A variant, the B sacrifices some fuel volume to make room for the vertical flight system.
The F-35C carrier variant will have a larger, folding wing and larger control surfaces for improved low-speed control, and stronger landing gear for the stresses of carrier landings.
The United States Navy will be the sole user for the carrier variant.
This is partly why the JSF program is the most exensive ever made.
Eurofighter is twin engined and far more agile in close combat (within visual range) but people argue the F-35 would detect EF first, fire its missile(s) & run off. It is a bomber so maybe not fair to compare the two. We have the EU for air superiority.
The F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the aircraft. Similar in size to the A variant, the B sacrifices some fuel volume to make room for the vertical flight system.
The F-35C carrier variant will have a larger, folding wing and larger control surfaces for improved low-speed control, and stronger landing gear for the stresses of carrier landings.
The United States Navy will be the sole user for the carrier variant.
This is partly why the JSF program is the most exensive ever made.
Eurofighter is twin engined and far more agile in close combat (within visual range) but people argue the F-35 would detect EF first, fire its missile(s) & run off. It is a bomber so maybe not fair to compare the two. We have the EU for air superiority.
Last edited:
Pivoting around a ball would be almost impossible as some part of the structure would have to be fixed stationary. I guess the closest you could get would be a gimbal system, allowing for almost complete rotation of the object around a fixed point.
Sort of like the gimbal cameras they use on helicopters. They can rotate in almost any direction apart from upwards as that's where they are attached to the chassis. I'm not sure whether it's a one, two or three ginbal system though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 11,742
- Location
- Northern Ireland
To make the Eurofighter Typhoon work on a carrier would cost billions. Getting the JSF is cheaper.
For a start the Typhoon is no built to cope with the enivornment, it has no folding wings, etc... there are loads of problems and it just wouldn't happen without a LOT of money being invested.
For a start the Typhoon is no built to cope with the enivornment, it has no folding wings, etc... there are loads of problems and it just wouldn't happen without a LOT of money being invested.
The money that is being spent on the 2 carriers and six destroyers is in my opinion, now a complete waste.
When the carriers were designed, they obviously needed a new type of destroyer to protect them, hence the Type 45. For the proper defence of the carriers, a bare minimum of 12 destroyers ARE needed. 4 for each carrier, with 2 undergoing refit at any one time and the other 2 engaged on other duties.
Due to political meddling, and stupid cost cutting, we are now down to 6 Destroyers. So we now have the stupid situation of 2 or maybe 3 destroyers protecting a carrier (3, only if the one is'nt in refit at a time of need).
Because of this, there is a very good chance, that at the first site of a carrier being in combat it will in effect be undefendable. That's why i say it is now a complete waste of mine and your money.
If we as country want to do this, then we should do it PROPERLY, or not at all.
When the carriers were designed, they obviously needed a new type of destroyer to protect them, hence the Type 45. For the proper defence of the carriers, a bare minimum of 12 destroyers ARE needed. 4 for each carrier, with 2 undergoing refit at any one time and the other 2 engaged on other duties.
Due to political meddling, and stupid cost cutting, we are now down to 6 Destroyers. So we now have the stupid situation of 2 or maybe 3 destroyers protecting a carrier (3, only if the one is'nt in refit at a time of need).
Because of this, there is a very good chance, that at the first site of a carrier being in combat it will in effect be undefendable. That's why i say it is now a complete waste of mine and your money.
If we as country want to do this, then we should do it PROPERLY, or not at all.
love the type 45 BUT, i know its meant to be for anti air use, but it has no surface to surface capability.
most modern frigs / destroyers these days have harpoon or something similar, but we get nothing. hell, even some 'gunboats' have better surface capabilities.
sea skua from heli is just plain pathetic....and from reading about very ineffective even against fishingboats lol
most modern frigs / destroyers these days have harpoon or something similar, but we get nothing. hell, even some 'gunboats' have better surface capabilities.
sea skua from heli is just plain pathetic....and from reading about very ineffective even against fishingboats lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 11,742
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Well not really, these days, who's going to attack and actually have the capability to sink our ships?
2 type 45 is plenty for a carrier i think, plus the carrier will be running awacs style cover while in ops ?
seems plenty to me...
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,773
- Location
- Leicestershire
Always thought it was absolutely retarded we're going for the F35 B variant and installing ski ramps on our carriers. Completely stupid. Should have been flat deck and just modify the landing gear of the Eurofighter. Would have cost a lot less.
The Type 45's are pretty great but AFAIK we are building a lot less than originally intended. Frankly I'd focus more of our military budget on RAF\RN and reduce the size of our army since we're an island nation anyway but that would reduce our ability to occupy and bully people on the other side of the globe I guess.
Huddy - They're not defending the waters per se, they will be defending carriers and other ships. Still, I see what you did there.
depends on the stresses induced. i imagine ramps are cheaper than losing even a couple of aircraft.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,255
- Location
- North Sea
IMHO, the money would have been better spent buying "off the shelf" American built Arleigh-Burke Class destroyers, which are large, modular and thus easily upgradable to incorporate systems from the Type 45, like SAMPSON and PAAMS. Plus, as they leave the yard fitted with Mk.41 vertical launch cells, they'd be capable of firing Tomahawk and Harpoon as well.
As for the carriers, I honestly think the money spent on jointly funding the development of VSTOL F-35B's would have been better spent on catapults and arrestor gear (which the carriers are built to accept) and either F-35C's (the carrier variant designed for the US Navy), Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets or French built Dassault Rafales.
As for the carriers, I honestly think the money spent on jointly funding the development of VSTOL F-35B's would have been better spent on catapults and arrestor gear (which the carriers are built to accept) and either F-35C's (the carrier variant designed for the US Navy), Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets or French built Dassault Rafales.
Last edited:
Plan B is still a possibility if we bail out of the JSF program.
"Planned 150 British aircraft rise from the original £9 billion estimate to £15 billion. Britain has already paid out £2.5 billion in preliminary costs but next spring (2009) must start paying for actual aircraft. At that point it is committed to the entire project whatever the price"
"Once full production begins, Britain will be paying more than £1 billion a year for the aircraft, exacerbating the already dire state of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget"
BUT.....
If we go to plan B: Navalised Typhoon, as per other comments would require improvement in landing gear, possibly a steam pully system (same as American carriers) so it can take off & land. Would be very expensive indeed. I very much dout the UK will pull out of the JSF program because of the UK/US relations, political fallout, BAE workload & sunk cost we have already invested.
"Planned 150 British aircraft rise from the original £9 billion estimate to £15 billion. Britain has already paid out £2.5 billion in preliminary costs but next spring (2009) must start paying for actual aircraft. At that point it is committed to the entire project whatever the price"
"Once full production begins, Britain will be paying more than £1 billion a year for the aircraft, exacerbating the already dire state of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget"
BUT.....
If we go to plan B: Navalised Typhoon, as per other comments would require improvement in landing gear, possibly a steam pully system (same as American carriers) so it can take off & land. Would be very expensive indeed. I very much dout the UK will pull out of the JSF program because of the UK/US relations, political fallout, BAE workload & sunk cost we have already invested.