It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HMS Daring

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
hope this hasnt already been posted?
sorry if it has

BBC NEWS ARTICLE

the video on that page is quite good too

has anyone got any more info on this ship, and the other 5 (i think) in production?

also does anyone have any info on the aircraft carriers the Royal Navy have planned?





posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Looks aside, the Type 45 is probably the only other destroyer thats a match for the American Arleigh Burke class. Here is some info and pictures of the Type 45.

GlobalSecurity.Org

[edit on 2-2-2006 by NWguy83]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
for information on all current and future UK navy projects check out navy matters

navy-matters.beedall.com...

Has all you ever wanted to know about type 45, cvf, etc etc



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I seen it on the news the other day, beast innit!

I cannot wait till the CVFs come in service. About time our navy's gettin sorted!

What will we get next, Lockheed Sea Shadows?

www.membrana.ru...

navysite.de...



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
great link to the shadow there Browno


i cant wait till the carriers come into service either, theyre massive compared to our current carriers.

It'll be interesting to see how the UK will utilise them, and the new type 45's due to come into service in a few years.

its great to see the Royal Navy updating the fleet, at last!



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I'm more interested in the final number of them...will it be 9? or less?

Also slightly worried about this:



In November 2004 the MOD quietly de-facto cancelled the FSC project



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The Royal Navy will once and for all be 'Top Gun' when the CVF's enter service. Ive always wanted Britain to have a 'Carrier' not some ship with a window ledge like the HMS Invincible.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We actually did have a Carrier, The HMS Ark Royal RO9

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 2-2-2006 by Browno]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
It's too bad Britain will only be getting 2 CVF's. Each will carry between 40-50 aircraft. Even though carriers of that size should be able to carry up to 60 aircraft.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
It is good to see the Navy is getting itself sorted, it is about time we try to get back to the reputation we used to have.

Yeah, it is a shame we are only getting two of those CVF's, but you never know what they have up there sleeves. They may be other A/C that are in development that haven't been released yet. Like a small, high speed, attack/strike type carrier, who knows.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Althought the carriers are designed for 40-50 aircraft, if they really need too they can squeeze quite a few more on (much like the did with the invincible class).

Devilwasp, when he says that the FSC is de-facto cancelled, technically it is on hold indefinatly. It basically means they dont want to pay for any more development work untill after the type 45's are all built (and most likely the carriers in 2018 (or even astute in 2287, lol)by which time the work they have already done will be out of date. This means they will have to start again, so dont expect any new frigates for at least 15 years.

I had friends at BMT (www.bmt.org) defense services who were working on it, they were all rather pissed off it was stopped!!!!!!! Have all moved to CVF now though.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Just as a quick heads... HMS Daring Type-45 destroyer will be open to the public this weekend (18th and 19th). I was planning on going to Portsmouth on the Saturday anyway, but if anyone is nearby and is interested in the ship then it might be worth going along to see what all the fuss is about. I went on a boat ride a couple of weeks ago through the harbour and the ship looks fantastic (very sleek and deadly). Hopefully i'll be able to ask a couple of questions while on board such what kind of RCS signature the ship give off


Wonder if i'll be able to take pictures of it



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
yeah these look like they will bring safety to our shores, really effective against homegrown suicide bombers



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Well, I imagine we'll be asked to go through a scanner before being able to board... otherwise they may as well put a big "Please bomb here" tag on the side of the ship.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tronied
Just as a quick heads... HMS Daring Type-45 destroyer will be open to the public this weekend (18th and 19th). I was planning on going to Portsmouth on the Saturday anyway. Hopefully i'll be able to ask a couple of questions while on board such what kind of RCS signature the ship give off



Ask them the following:

1. What anti-ship missiles is it armed with.

2. What type of CIWS does it carry.

3. What type of weapons it can use to engage shore targets that are more than 10 miles inland.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


1 - The Daring's have none themselves but they will carry Sea Skua armed Lynx.

2 - IIRC they will be cannibalising the Phalanx' from the existing Type 42s.

3 - The ships will enter service with a 4.5 inch Mark 8 gun with a range of up to 27.5km with extended range munitions. This may be upgraded in the future with a 155mm main gun though I'm not sure about what the expected range would be. It may also be possible for the ship to launch the upcoming Fire Shadow loitering munition which would have a range of around 100km.

Having said that the Type 45 is first and foremost designed for anti air warfare not littoral land attack or anti surface warfare. Best leave stuff like that up to SSNs and Frigates.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
1 - The Daring's have none themselves but they will carry Sea Skua armed Lynx.


During the Falklands war, an entire Sea Skua warload of 4 missiles failed to destroy an Argentinian tugboat after 2 direct hits (and 2 misses).

Those and the gun mean that the Type 45 has an inferior anti ship loadout to almost every other frigate (and larger) currently afloat.



2 - IIRC they will be cannibalising the Phalanx' from the existing Type 42s.


News to me, the latest official statement is that it will be "provided with" attachment points for Phalanx - itself a failed weapon system IMO.



3 - The ships will enter service with a 4.5 inch Mark 8 gun with a range of up to 27.5km with extended range munitions. This may be upgraded in the future with a 155mm main gun though I'm not sure about what the expected range would be. It may also be possible for the ship to launch the upcoming Fire Shadow loitering munition which would have a range of around 100km.


Trust me, it'll just have the Mark 8 - giving it the same shore bombardment capability the RN had in 1972 and I think you mean Storm Shadow which is an effective weapon, Fire Shadow is the new quirky looking land based rocket system.



Having said that the Type 45 is first and foremost designed for anti air warfare not littoral land attack or anti surface warfare. Best leave stuff like that up to SSNs and Frigates.


So the "world's most advanced destroyer" can shoot planes down, but not much else - all at a time when every other navy in the world is recognizing the importance of surface combatant flexibility in ships a lot smaller than the Type 45.

In my opinion - the Type 45 needs to have more flexibility and better self protection, especially bearing in mind its large size.

The Royal Navy saw several of its prized destroyer and cruiser assets sunk by anti-ship missiles 27 years ago, and is about to put their replacement into active service without any recognition of that painful lesson.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 



During the Falklands war, an entire Sea Skua warload of 4 missiles failed to destroy an Argentinian tugboat after 2 direct hits (and 2 misses).

Those and the gun mean that the Type 45 has an inferior anti ship loadout to almost every other frigate (and larger) currently afloat.


Yeah but it’s not a multi role frigate, it’s an anti air warfare destroyer.

The RN has a limited budget and to stick all the bells and whistles on something that will spend most of its time sticking closely to high value assets would be a bit of a waste.

As far as Sea Skua goes, it also sunk a couple of ships during the first Gulf War so its record isn’t bad. It’s not meant to be used against carriers or anything like that and to expect it to is to expect too much. If you want protection against that kind of threat then that’s what SSNs and Type 22/23s with SSMs are for. Nevertheless Sea Skua is in the early stages of being replaced.


News to me, the latest official statement is that it will be "provided with" attachment points for Phalanx - itself a failed weapon system IMO.


They’re not being built with them but as the T42’s are being removed from service the RN will be left with surplice systems which, I think, are to go to the Darings. I disagree with it being a failed system, perhaps it’s not the best (not that I necessarily think that) but it’s at least better than nothing.


Trust me, it'll just have the Mark 8 - giving it the same shore bombardment capability the RN had in 1972 and I think you mean Storm Shadow which is an effective weapon, Fire Shadow is the new quirky looking land based rocket system.


lol I think I’ll trust the RN when it comes to what they are and are not looking at if it’s all the same to you. It’s certainly not a sure thing but it is actively being pursued

And no I mean Fire Shadow; there is the possibility of it being packed into Sylver Cells.


So the "world's most advanced destroyer" can shoot planes down, but not much else - all at a time when every other navy in the world is recognizing the importance of surface combatant flexibility in ships a lot smaller than the Type 45.

In my opinion - the Type 45 needs to have more flexibility and better self protection, especially bearing in mind its large size.

The Royal Navy saw several of its prized destroyer and cruiser assets sunk by anti-ship missiles 27 years ago, and is about to put their replacement into active service without any recognition of that painful lesson.


What’s the point in giving it all the expensive bits and pieces if it is going to be superfluous to its role? The Type 45 is designed to protect itself and other assets from air attack and that is what it does very well. If the RN spent money from the start on giving it the ability to fire TLAM, Harpoon, 155mm shells, torpedoes, on giving it a top end ASW system then they would end up with a compromised AAW asset limited in its ability to do its job. It would do this despite the fact that it will have little opportunity to make use of these capabilities. It’s not going to be threatened by a sub surface threat without Type 23s being in the vicinity; it’s not going to be facing a surface threat without having SSNs available and it’s not going to be in the position to offer land support because it will spend most of its time out of the littoral protecting high value assets. It would be a waste of resources to pack it full of top end kit.

The RN does need more flexible ships and they have them in the T22 and T23 which do have a more rounded capability.

With regards to the Falklands, no ships were lost for the lack of a larger main gun, land attack capability or anti ship missile. The reasons for the losses were down to the radar fit, lack of AEW, lack of CIWS and human error. The Type 45 does take into account the lessons learned from that conflict.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
The Royal Navy saw several of its prized destroyer and cruiser assets sunk by anti-ship missiles 27 years ago, and is about to put their replacement into active service without any recognition of that painful lesson.


Please be factual. The RN lost one destroyer hit by an exocet - HMS Sheffield. She six days after being hit. Another destroyer HMS Glamorgan was hit but survived. NO cruisers were hit during the Falklands War - not sure there were any.

Let's not forget USS Stark.

Also, another point. Although Sea Skua is getting old it has a successful history against small targets - i.e. what it was designed for. Falklands and GW1.

Regards



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi

 



Actually the Argetinian Cruiser Bellgrano, was sunk by a RN Submarine, this was the only cruiser to be sunk during the Falklands War.

Those who say the RN will have a good navy once again, I wouldbeg to difffer, the Materials for the Carriers has been changed to thinner Metal, to save on the costs of building the two new carriers. Also The Type 45's, there were supposed to be 12 alltogether, for them to have any effect at all.. Now those have been reduced to 6, this willmeanonly one of those carriers can be at sea at one time. To have the right amount of defense capability.

One I find the link to were I read this, I will post it.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by paraphi

 

the Materials for the Carriers has been changed to thinner Metal, to save on the costs of building the two new carriers.

One I find the link to were I read this, I will post it.


How much thinner is the metal going to be?


[edit on 26/7/09, by Fang]







 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join