HMS Daring

Luseac · 1 Feb 2006 at 22:39

Today sees the launch of the first Type 45 destoryer, 5 more are on the way with the possibiltly of another 2 being ordered.

HMS Daring will be equipped with a state of the art air defence system which will be able to track and destroy a target the size of a cricket ball travelling three times the speed of sound - a quantum leap forward in capability for the Royal Navy. Over 150m long, weighing over 7,000 tonnes with a crew of 190 and a range of 7000 nautical miles, she, and the rest of the T-45 destroyers, are designed using cutting edge technology to be flexible multi-role vessels able to carry out a variety of tasks across the globe, from their primary air defence role to humanitarian and anti-smuggling roles.

The launch of DARING is a wonderful day for the nation and the Royal Navy. She will be the Royal Navy’s most capable destroyer ever, and will enter service later this decade as the best air defence ship in the world. She represents the best of British high technology innovation and engineering. DARING and her class will ensure the Royal Navy remains the best in the world able to protect the UK’s interests worldwide in the 21st century.

These really are fantastic ships. They show the rest of the world that we are still a major power and remain the second largest Navy in the world. They will work well protecting the fleet and the new CVF Aircraft carriers next decade.

ZuG · 1 Feb 2006 at 22:56

i thought we were about 4th largest navy... They do look awesome though.
Hopefully the new air carriers will begin production soon.

Luseac · 1 Feb 2006 at 22:58

ZuG said:
i thought we were about 4th largest navy... They do look awesome though.
Hopefully the new air carriers will begin production soon.

Well according to wiki we are 2nd behind the US and the largest in Europe

This is based on tonnage.

MarcLister · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:03

Apparently each Type 45 Destroyer has more firepower than the whole of the Type 42 fleet that the Type 45 replaces! Pretty stunning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4667132.stm

Nana · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:07

complete and utter waste of money so we can kill innocent people for more oil for Mr Bush, is it any wonder we are hated?

Stringy · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:09

A truly awesome looking ship. Almost makes me wish I wanted to join the Navy instead of the RAF

Luseac · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:09

Nana said:
complete and utter waste of money so we can kill innocent people for more oil for Mr Bush, is it any wonder we are hated?

Yes protecting Britain's waters and overseas territories is a complete and utter waste of money :rolleyes:

Let's not get political.

Dace · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:13

Nana said:
complete and utter waste of money so we can kill innocent people for more oil for Mr Bush, is it any wonder we are hated?

I don't agree with your opinion.

Our security is not a 'waste of money'. Protecting our interests is not a 'waste of money'.

I have never agreed with the invasion of Iraq on the grounds of non-existent WMD's, but it should be made clear that the British Army does not target civilians and most certainly does not determine foreign policy - that job is for the democratically elected government.

I really don't like rhetoric and soundbytes, it just shows the mind of a consumer.

Kamerad · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:14

It looks like something from red alert

Ugley_Matt · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:14

Surely a cricket box would have been cheaper, they stop cricket balls too

Mic · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:17

Thats one UGLY main tower.
As for the the war/oil/safety stuff. I dont know, 45million? Im sure you could have gotten 2 well capable ships for the money. Its not like theres iraqis cruising around in battle ships.
Im no expert and I dont know how there equipped, but im guessing they are seriously OVER equiped for todays enviroment. We wont ever see sea battles like ww1 and ww2 so I dont. If there ever is a WW3, it will last about a day.

Nana · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:19

Dace said:
I don't agree with your opinion.

Our security is not a 'waste of money'. Protecting our interests is not a 'waste of money'.

I have never agreed with the invasion of Iraq on the grounds of non-existent WMD's, but it should be made clear that the British Army does not target civilians and most certainly does not determine foreign policy - that job is for the democratically elected government.

I really don't like rhetoric and soundbytes, it just shows the mind of a consumer.

this is nothing to do with security.

Aggression actually breeds insecurity and makes us more likely to be attacked - so in some ways our vast military spending makes us a bigger target.

Ever asked yourself why nations with virtually no military infrastructure are not being targetted? 650 million quid so we can kill poeple.. it genuinely makes me ashamed of being british.

wasc · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:20

Hmm, nice ship, but it doesn't have many guns on it. I know people will probably say that it'll only ever use missiles against enemy threats but they're not really all that practical. E.g they say it'll be used to stop smuggling - with what - it looks like the thing only has 3 guns on it.

They aren't exactly gonna launch a tomahawk as a warning shot

Stringy · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:21

-Mic- said:
Thats one UGLY main tower.
As for the the war/oil/safety stuff. I dont know, 45million? Im sure you could have gotten 2 well capable ships for the money. Its not like theres iraqis cruising around in battle ships.
Im no expert and I dont know how there equipped, but im guessing they are seriously OVER equiped for todays enviroment. We wont ever see sea battles like ww1 and ww2 so I dont. If there ever is a WW3, it will last about a day.

They're not for 'sea battles' (if I remember correctly) one of their primary roles will be carrier escort, as they are heavily geared for anti-air warfare.

SideWinder · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:23

My Dad is the project team leader of Ships Missile Systems so this means catering for the Type 45.

Luseac · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:24

wasc said:
Hmm, nice ship, but it doesn't have many guns on it. I know people will probably say that it'll only ever use missiles against enemy threats but they're not really all that practical. E.g they say it'll be used to stop smuggling - with what - it looks like the thing only has 3 guns on it.

They aren't exactly gonna launch a tomahawk as a warning shot

Doesn't have many guns????

It has the Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS), with the BAE SYSTEMS SAMPSON Multi-Functional Radar (MFR) (for surveillance and fire control) and the Signaal/Marconi S1850M Long Range Radar (LRR) for air/surface search.

Other weapons systems include: STINGRAY Torpedoes - helicopter-launched; 4.5" Mk 8 Medium Calibre Gun system; SYLVER launcher and combination of up to 48 Aster15 and Aster30 missiles, Surface Ship Torpedo Defence system.

Luseac · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:24

Stringy said:
They're not for 'sea battles' (if I remember correctly) one of their primary roles will be carrier escort, as they are heavily geared for anti-air warfare.

Yeah, we have frigates and subs for that sort of thing, these destoryers will guard our Aircraft carriers, more specificly to guard the next generation of Aircraft carriers:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/static/pages/1971.html

[TW]Fox · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:26

Nana said:
this is nothing to do with security.

Aggression actually breeds insecurity and makes us more likely to be attacked - so in some ways our vast military spending makes us a bigger target.

Ever asked yourself why nations with virtually no military infrastructure are not being targetted? 650 million quid so we can kill poeple.. it genuinely makes me ashamed of being british.

Don't be so utterly daft - Britain has been a large navy force for CENTURIES. It's nothing new and it's why we are still here today. The very fact we have a large naval force is exactly why we are still independant and exactly why we have never succesfully been invaded.

Nothing acts as a better deterant.

Can't wait for a nosey round the new ship

Mic · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:28

[TW]Fox said:
Don't be so utterly daft - Britain has been a large navy force for CENTURIES. It's nothing new and it's why we are still here today. The very fact we have a large naval force is exactly why we are still independant and exactly why we have never succesfully been invaded.

Nothing acts as a better deterant.

Can't wait for a nosey round the new ship

Is that necessary in todays world?

Curio · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:29

Nana said:
this is nothing to do with security.

Aggression actually breeds insecurity and makes us more likely to be attacked - so in some ways our vast military spending makes us a bigger target.

Ever asked yourself why nations with virtually no military infrastructure are not being targetted? 650 million quid so we can kill poeple.. it genuinely makes me ashamed of being british.

YOU genuinely make me feel ashamed to be British...

If Britain hadn't had the best navy for the past few centuries where do you think we would be today? You more than likely wouldn't be sitting behind a PC or have other luxuries like freedom of speech.....or a vote....or a country to feel proud of.

EDIT: Fox kinda beat me to it