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....
The Falklands thread
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
They are "Daring" or class D after all....
The Falklands are too small with too few people to hide terrorist cells in, regardless of the will to do so.
Everybody will know everybody and the only people they won't know will be British military personnel. If things start blowing up it'll be fairly obvious who is responsible.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I'd be shocked if this 45 didn't sail with a permanent submarine escort (for the moment), afterall in the future when the 45 is used in one of it's main roles (carrier escort / protection) a submarine will be on station 24/7 as part of the taskforce.
Maybe so, but don't forget the T45 has a very capable 4.5 gun on the front to deal with ships. Combine that with the missile tracking system, its Viper missiles, a helicopter onboard with anti ship missiles and a very capable range of decoysand other countermeasures. I can assure you she would hold herself very well.
Of course she is not alone either.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
I think people are forgetting she can be fitted with harpoon ( it's been designed to but never fitted?)
But the anti ship role is is the type 23 frigate
But the anti ship role is is the type 23 frigate
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
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It really puzzles me that in an age where single-role aircraft have been classed as outdated and are being retired in favour of multi-role - that something so much more expensive, and smaller in number (warships) have been built as single-role.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...
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
But no doubt it was a Whitehall back hander much like the Lynx or Puma deal
Kimbie
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 440
- Location
- Cheshire
Oh this is about war, I read thread title as Vuvuzela...
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
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...
The Exocet that sank the british destroyers fired from a PLANE not a boat. also the role of the type 45 is Air Defence so its has a limited surface to surface Role but do you really think the boat out there by itself?
But don't worry they also carry Phalanx
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
But what use is the longer-term picture, if hostilities start tomorrow?
Then we have the Type 23.
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.
Secondly as you must know we have new carriers on the way, you can't build all the ships at once.
And finally, it is in a small taskgroup we will have one or maybe two submarines in the area.
The Exocet is an old missile, the 45 is designed to shoot down sea skimming missiles.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
Don't worry next thing his going to say how bad the puma is
It's only been the backbone Of the RAF fleet since 1971
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.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
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
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.
Don't worry the navy will send out a dingy armed to the teeth with iPods.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
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.
Taken from another forum
I do know the missiles will use active radar homing and an omni-directional missile system. Sampson is said to have a higher resolution at longer ranges than SPY-1. So you can say that Type 45 will outclass AEGIS ships in those ways. BAE engineering does have access to some AEGIS technology, so it's feasible they may have improved on it. I actually believe that AEGIS's next upgrade may include some of the advances from this radar, since the two countries share so much technological innovation with one another.
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.
Also if we buy off the shelf from the US, it leaves our defence companies, for example BAE, with no major orders. If they have no major orders they can't maintain their status among the best in the world.
Neglecting our own defence industry affects their ability to produce the things we might need in future conflict. You can't rely entirely on another nation for materials during a major war.
You could argue that a healthy defence industry is perhaps a greater asset than any number, or capability of destroyers.
Last edited:
It's key that with the Type-26 that they sell plenty of them to other markets to keep the per-unit cost down of each ship, I think we sold a few Type-23's and Type-42's to other countries but it's pretty cut throat, much like the Arms sale to India with Europe v France. I'm sure a few skirmishes where the BAE ships hold their own would secure a few sales