It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Type 45 Destroyer capabilities

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:26 PM
8 medium speed generators? Just asking why would she have 8 medium speed generators, I know the RFA fort george had 4 generators but cant remember for the life of me the speed of them.

Surely 8 med speed generators is a bit much for a ship like the daring?

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 05:10 PM
Gas turbines are relatively economical, at or near full power. (but they idle badly) Also, they can be (and usually are) run off of marine diesel fuel. Since you need a relatively constant supply of electricity throughout the ship anyhow, running lights, radars, ventilation, A/C, Heating, computers, galley, and everything else, a ship will already be consuming enough power to justify using a gas turbine to generate it. Electric drive means that you can tool around at 2-10 knots without having to run an engin designed to push you through the water at 20. A ship spends most of it's life cutting circles in the ocean at low speed, just staying on station.

*edit* glad to hear the RN at least knows the proper material to build warships out of. I hope the USN remembers before it's to late to change the design specs on the next classes of ships.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Travellar]

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:59 PM
Umm... what future class of ships are you referring to? I am under the impression that the DDX will have a steel hull with a mixture of composite material being used in some of the superstructure.

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:32 AM
I hope so, but I know they've also spent some time looking at the weight savings of using Aluminum. The composit superstructure had also caused me some concern, untill I started seeing they were testing it for it's ballistic and blast protection. I still worrey about fire though...

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:58 AM
They wont use the composite material unless it passes their fire and smoke testing, its a standard navy requirement. And the reason they are using composite material is the superstructure is because its harder to detect by radar and it lighter then steal.

Previous destroyer ship class deckhouse and command and control spaces used steel and aluminum. The materials were inexpensive and utilized common shipyard construction practices; however, internal and external fire protection, EMI shielding, lightning protection, and Radar Absorbing Material (RAM) had to be added to the structure, consequently adding initial acquisition and life cycle costs.

Both DDX and CVN are baselining composite deckhouses (DDX) and islands (CVN), driven by weight requirements and Center of Gravity (CG). To insert state-of-the-art war fighter capability the ship design requires a low center of gravity (reduced top-side weight), stealth (signature and survivability), EMI Protection (state-of-the-art electronics), all meeting Fire, Smoke & Toxicity (FS&T) requirements.

Have a read here, I recommend it.
Future Ship Materials PDF

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:34 AM
hey !

I just wonder, about the T45 frigate, does it have any NBC protection?
How the crew is protected against NBC threat, on Russians apply citadel concept (NBC filtration, Overpressure inside the citadel,...).

Does anyone know something about it in T45?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:11 AM
Sorry about the off topic and reply to a old post, but I think a correction is in order

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T

Originally posted by stumason
Try reading up on the Astute then. They carry a weapons loadout over twice that of the Trafalgar Class currently in service. Up to 32 missiles and Torpedoes in fact. Not bad for a submarine.

Seeing as the new Virginia class carries 16 Tomahwaks and 26 Torpedoes, its not that shabby seeing as the Virginia has the VLS. Also, the Virgina only has 4 tubes were as the Astute has 6.

Actually with the VLS system the Virginia has 20 launch tubes (16 + 4) and by your own figures 10 more weapons, all of which it can launch much, much faster.

A bit of double counting going on here.

The Astute class has 6 torpedo tubes and has a load of 36 missiles and torpedoes, 6 torpedo tubes.

The Virginia class has 4 torpedo tubes, 12 vertical missile launch tubes. and has a total load of 38 missiles and torpedoes. 12 in the vertical missile launch tubes and 26 for the torpedo tubes.
In could fire 16 cruise missles in a salvo using the 12 vertical and 4 from the torpedo tubes. (I think this is where confusion comes from)

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:28 PM
What exactly makes the Type 45 "The Most Powerful Destroyer Afloat"?

It has a 48 cell Sylver AS50 launcher that can only launch PAAMS, it has provision only for Harpoon (not exactly cutting edge SSMs to start with), no Phalanx, no Goalkeeper, no RAM, no cruise missile launch capability, and only "provision for" ship launched torpedoes, oh, and it has a deck gun and only one helicopter which is a Sea Lynx, not even the new Merlin . I for one am left wondering exactly how this ship would tackle a major surface combatant - with the gun I suppose.

On paper this looks to be an underarmed ship.

Up until the Batch 3 Type 22 Frigate the UK had a history of fielding poorly armed warships with the excuse that they were only designed for "specialist" roles, which was usually a euphemism for saying they had an ASW helicopter that could carry torpedoes.

The Type 45 is continuing that penny pinching tradition. It has a mechanically scanned radar (no AESA), a restricted weapons load out as stated above, and a traditional non-innovative design. The only radical design feature it seems to boast are improved crew accommodations with personal iPod chargers.

I know this sounds like a excessive critique of the design, but the German Sachsen class frigate is both smaller, and to me, much more advanced with a comprehensive load out including a much wider array of weaponry and 2 modern NH90 helicopters (as opposed to one old Sea Lynx design in the larger Type 45). The Sachsen is both smaller and more powerful, yet the Germans claim no special accolades for it.

The Type 45 looks to be behind the field, not ahead of it. I think the only award that is due here is superior marketing on the part of BAe.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by Retseh

It could in future operate the EH-101.
The sampson radar is Electronically Scanned, but is only has 2 faces so it also rotates.

The PAAMS/Aster is meant to cover long range to short range and since it uses a multicell vertical missile launchers a lancher problem shouldn't put the whole system out of action.

So it was probably hard to justify Phalanx since nobody has much faith in it anyway.

As it stands I agree you couldn't call it the most powerful destroyer in the world, but the the RN only calls it the most powerful destroyer the RN has ever operated.

If it was fitted with everything it was "fitted for" them it could well be a contender for the title. I think this was RN tactic so they actually got the type instead of it being cancelled as to expensive.

I hope the Type 22/23 will be replaced by a version of the type 45 as the basic design is more than capable for the role and it be cheaper than designing another new class, since the reduced number of ships these days they need to spread the design and develpment costs. Not to mention they need to go down the multirole route more.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:08 PM
I mostly agree. The Type 45 could have a been a competent destroyer, on a par with the best out there, but as it is, it is heavy and lightly armed.

Unfortunately the bureaucrats in Whitehall have always favored "hulls in the water" over comprehensive weapons fits, well up until the excellent Type 22 Batch 3 ships at least.

I'm still amazed that one of the cost saving measures was the adoption of a Sea Lynx instead of a Merlin (since Merlin orders are politically significant).

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by Travellar

what is the purpose of the 8 array located under sampson radar mainmast?

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Retseh
I mostly agree. The Type 45 could have a been a competent destroyer, on a par with the best out there, but as it is, it is heavy and lightly armed.

I think that most informed punters think that the capabilities of the Type 45 to be highly impressive. The PAAMS system and SAMPSOM make the ship the superlative air defence warship. Just because the current batch is “fitted for” but not “fitted with” anti-ship missiles and torpedoes is frankly unimportant as the primary role is air defence. If the world changed, then I am sure the ships could be “fitted with”. In addition, the ship is of sufficient size to add additional VLS and / or TLAM through an adapted Sylver launcher or VLS-41, so there is through life growth potential.

The merits of SAMPSON versus other systems (notably the US Aegis) have been widely debated and discussed, but either way the SAMPSON system coupled with PAAMS is formidable. As part of the key requirements for the Type 45 the ship is supposed to be able to successfully defend an area against eight supersonic sea-skimming missiles, which I think is pretty good.

It is a big ship with a modest crew complement, with marines. Lots of room and comfort. Probably the most comfortable naval ships for the Royal Navy.


posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:44 AM
the royal navy will only get 6, quite frankly that's shocking and i hope a conservative govern ment will invest in acually havin an escort fleet of over 30 ships that was promiced by labour. Britain needs a dozen more to have a wave ruling navy, not one fit for a bathtub.

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:44 AM

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in