I just love how they are all called cool names of HMS Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender then we have the last one HMS Duncan!?!![]()
They are "Daring" or class D after all....
I just love how they are all called cool names of HMS Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender then we have the last one HMS Duncan!?!![]()
Which is why i said terrorism, its a logical course of action if you want people off the island.
I am in no way supporting them, its just seems obvious.
And a Type 42 using its sea dart in the anti shipping mode is akin to using a Desktop PC as a radiator. The warhead doesn't arm so it relies on kinetic energy and unspent fuel to do any damage.
BS, it has one feature missing and that's anti ship missiles, everything else is far superior to the Type 42.
Yep, It will all work out when the Typre 26 comes into service, people really need to look at the longterm picture with this one.
But what use is the longer-term picture, if hostilities start tomorrow?
It really puzzles me that in an age where single-role aircraft have been classed as outdated and are being retired in favour of multi-role - that something so much more expensive, and smaller in number (warships) have been built as single-role.
The ONLY thing a Type 45 is good for, is shooting down aircraft. It makes a brilliant carrier protection vessel for the carriers we dont really have any more, and is fine when in a battle group. But we haven't sent a battlegroup to the Falklands, we've sent 1 anti-air boat.
The Mark 8 'Kryten' gun at the front end will hit out to 12 nautical miles.
Exocet can hit out to 100 miles, and given that we've seen how effectively 1 Exocet can sink a typical Destroyer, I really do think its a massive oversight to have the Type 45's floating about with no significant anti-ship capability.
Sea Skua missiles? Don't make me laugh...
But no doubt it was a Whitehall back hander much like the Lynx or Puma deal
But what use is the longer-term picture, if hostilities start tomorrow?![]()
It really puzzles me that in an age where single-role aircraft have been classed as outdated and are being retired in favour of multi-role - that something so much more expensive, and smaller in number (warships) have been built as single-role
The ONLY thing a Type 45 is good for, is shooting down aircraft. It makes a brilliant carrier protection vessel for the carriers we dont really have any more, and is fine when in a battle group. But we haven't sent a battlegroup to the Falklands, we've sent 1 anti-air boat.
The Mark 8 'Kryten' gun at the front end will hit out to 12 nautical miles.
Exocet can hit out to 100 miles, and given that we've seen how effectively 1 Exocet can sink a typical Destroyer, I really do think its a massive oversight to have the Type 45's floating about with no significant anti-ship capability.
Then we have the Type 23.
Fair point about the radar, it is a huge improvement over what we have had previously.Can't agree, firstly the 45 is multi role, the radar images and targets will be spread taskgroup wide, even as a radar and surveillance platform it's amazing.
Tell that to the shipyards in WW2Secondly as you must know we have new carriers on the way, you can't build all the ships at once.
True. But it seems to me VERY VERY expensive to have to station a sub alongside an air-defence destroyer, just to be able to sink ships, when the Destroyer should have this capability.And finally, it is in a small taskgroup we will have one or maybe two submarines in the area.
So what? My point is a Type 45 on station in a possible danger zone should be fitted with Harpoon, or Exocet, or something suitable to take out the relevant surface threats.The Exocet is an old missile, the 45 is designed to shoot down sea skimming missiles.
While I know the 45's are good and british built, but we should have bought Ageis ships from the US, half the price of a 45 and much much more mission capable.
But no doubt it was a Whitehall back hander much like the Lynx or Puma deal
Kimbie
As long as it gets in range in time.
Fair point about the radar, it is a huge improvement over what we have had previously.
Tell that to the shipyards in WW2- but today, fair point.
True. But it seems to me VERY VERY expensive to have to station a sub alongside an air-defence destroyer, just to be able to sink ships, when the Destroyer should have this capability.
So what? My point is a Type 45 on station in a possible danger zone should be fitted with Harpoon, or Exocet, or something suitable to take out the relevant surface threats.
Quick google and it appears they are very nearly the same unit price.
British built means the know how and technology is kept British and we also pay British companies who pay British workers wages and the worker then spends the majority of their wages in the UK. Money goes round in a circle through the economy, if we buy "off the shelf" then money is leaving the UK for other countries companys profits and propping up their economies.
That bit makes sense to build them here to me.
Quick google and it appears they are very nearly the same unit price.
British built means the know how and technology is kept British and we also pay British companies who pay British workers wages and the worker then spends the majority of their wages in the UK. Money goes round in a circle through the economy, if we buy "off the shelf" then money is leaving the UK for other countries companys profits and propping up their economies.
That bit makes sense to build them here to me.