Type 45 Destroyer, Royal British Navy

Does anyone know about the Type 45 Destroyer for the Royal British Navy? (For those that aren't sure, and in case it isn't still called that, I have provided a link to where I first heard about it.)

Are they still planning on building these? Was there ever really serious discussion about them seeing service? Have they been built? Anything.

The first one is almost done - HMS Daring was launched about a year ago and after a few more additions should be in full service by 2009. Two more are due to enter service in 2010, and no commission date has been set for the remaining ships. Here it is being fitted out.

Originally there were going to be 12 Type 45s ordered, but this has since been cut to 8 (the last two of which have not yet been ordered). They seem like excellent vessels, though - apparently they can even act as part of an ABM system.

I'm sure if you put 'Type 45' into Google, you'll come up with plenty of stuff.

Type 45 is the mutt's nuts.

These are the Key User Requirements (KUR) of the ship. Personally, KUR 6 is my favourite, although KUR 1 indicates the AAW capability quite well.

KUR1 PAAMS The T45 shall be able to protect with a Probability of Escaping Hit of ??, all units operating within a radius of 6.5km, against up to 8 supersonic sea skimming missiles arriving randomly within ?? seconds.

KUR2 Force Anti-Air Warfare Situational Awareness The T45 shall be able to assess the Air Warfare Tactical Situation of 1000 air real world objects against a total arrival and/or departure rate of 500 air real world objects per hour.

KUR3 Aircraft Control The T45 shall be able to provide close tactical control to at least 4 fixed wing aircraft, or 4 groups of aircraft in single speaking units, assigned to the force.

KUR4 Aircraft Operation The T45 shall be able to operate both one organic Merlin (Anti-Submarine Warfare and Utility variants) and one organic Lynx Mk8 helicopter, although not simultaneously.

KUR5 Embarked Military Force The T45 shall be able to operate an Embarked Military Force of at least 30 deployable troops.

KUR6 Naval Diplomacy The T45 shall be able to coerce potential adversaries into compliance with the wishes of Her Majesty’s Government or the wider international community through the presence of a Medium Calibre Gun System of at least 114mm.

KUR7 Range The T45 shall be able to transit at least 3000 nautical miles to its assigned mission, operate for 3 days and return to point of origin, unsupported throughout, within 20 days.

KUR8 Growth Potential The T45 capability shall be able to be upgraded to incorporate new capabilities or to enhance extant capabilities through displacement margins of at least 11.5 %.

KUR9 Availability The T45 shall have a 70% availability to contribute to Maritime Operations over a period of at least 25 years, of which at least 35% will be spent at sea.

I have copied these from the excellent site Navy Matters, ut have seen them elsewhere too. I mention the site because it has everything you need to knw about the Type 45. navy-matters.beedall.com...

Regards

mod edit: added external quote tags

Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)

[edit on 10-5-2007 by UK Wizard]

The Royal Navy actually old chap - despite the fact that other constitutional monarchies have navies (Holland for one) we don't feel the need to use a country designation - hence the capital 'T'.

As above they will be great - all 6 of them.

If they're ever fitted with (rather than fitted for) all the promised systems johnny foreigner will once again tremble at the sound of pink gin bottles clinking on the world's oceans

I wish they would procure more than just six, that is nowhere near enough, one in refit five available at one given time, how many contingencies can that cover, two at the most? They should build about two dozen at least...

[edit on 11-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

The type 45 has its own website with about as much infomation as you could want.

www.baesystems.com...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I wish they would procure more than just six, that is nowhere near enough, one in refit five available at one given time, how many contingencies can that cover, two at the most? They should build about two dozen at least...

[edit on 11-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

Well westy, your welcome to put this obvious point forward to the strategic masterminds at westminster. But frankly thousands have tried and no has managed to convice the government that REDUCING funding for the military is NOT a good idea if you want them to atleast keep thier level of efficiency or ability.

One would assume that's simple common sense, devilwasp, but apparently not.

It's very concerning with all these defence cuts - scrap ID Cards and use the £5.4billion saved (the cost predictably soared by another £400million just last week) to invest in our armed forces. And give final say as to how it's spent to the service chiefs, not the civil servants (obviously with monitoring and oversight from Parliament) - it's not them who have to use the equipment in battle after all.

All you need to bear in mind with regard to military spending is that it's a complete no-win situation. The public believes whatever the media tells them, and they can say whatever they please. If the government was to announce an increase in military spending, this would be denounced as being "militaristic, agressive, and a waste of tax payer money." But if any British troops were to be killed in the line of service due to not having the necessary equipment (ie - protective body armour, sufficient Air or Armour support) due to a lack of funding, then the government would be criticised for not giving the troops what they need to get the job done. The fact is, the public and the media seem to act as if they want to be able to create a high-tech, highly effective military for little to no cost, which is of course unfeasible.

Ste2652, have you ever read Tom Clancy's 'Executive Orders'? Has anyone else, for that matter?

Our hero, 'Jack Ryan' becomes POTUS by default, then sets about getting people from industry to take over the running of government agencies.

Believe it or not, his Department of Defence under Tony Bretano was almost being run as a business and could have been in profit after the fiscal year. Several other departments, much to the consternation of the people on 'The Hill' were also showing signs of coming into the black. I guess it would be nice if we could do the same in real life.

I envisage getting the heads of the services to tell the Sec Def what they want and the Treasury fitting the budget to their needs and not the other way round.

I do realise however, that that is just a pipe dream. Far too many people have their fingers in the defense pie, grabbing what they can.

We can only live in hope but I, for one, will not be holding my breath.

I am pretty sure this is a type 45 coming into Plymouth last Thurs afternoon.

I should of been able to get a better pic, but I was reading the news paper at thee time and almost missed it. Then it took forever for my phone to turn on. It was really sleek looking and moving. Massive wedge shapped redar on the back rotating once every 2-3 seconds. Definatly looked the business!

p.s. been trying to find the shipping lists for that day - not found yet.

Passed by one this morning sitting at the SECC centre on the clyde at finnieston. Looking very good and rigged with a lot of work lights very stealthy looking. These along with the new aircraft carriers being built should compliment a much more modern and adaptable naval force for the UK.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well westy, your welcome to put this obvious point forward to the strategic masterminds at westminster. But frankly thousands have tried and no has managed to convice the government that REDUCING funding for the military is NOT a good idea if you want them to atleast keep thier level of efficiency or ability.

DW, I wasn't aware Defence Spending has been cut whatsoever. I was under the impression that it has in fact increased almost year on year, at least since 1997.

As others have said, it's all about the Media representing the facts. After all, they claimed that "funding" was the problem with not having body armour out in Iraq, when it actuality it was down to piss poor logistics. The Army had the armour, but just couldn't get it out to the Gulf in time.

The Government/MoD/Army would rather you believe it was down to not enough money than them not planning properly.

Liability you see.

They can get away with a "budget" excuse, but if the admit they didn't plan properly, they admit liability and open a can of worms.

The Army has everything it needs, more or less.

They will always ask for more though, whether they have 100 Tanks or 10,000. As it stands, almost all the Chally's sit idle for most of their lives, do we really need as many as we had before the last review? I'm not aware of any major planned procurements, although their are several big projects underway.

The Navy, currently, is getting the best investment seen since the days of the Empire. Cannot argue with their procurement plans.

The Airforce has some big procurements in the pipe as well. The Typhoon for one and the A-400, when Airbus finally pull their finger out. Costing ALOT of wedge.

Originally posted by stumason
The Army has everything it needs, more or less.

Perhaps it's all about perspective but how can a country like the UK (which is actively involved in world affairs) be content with an active Army and Royal Marine force that even when combined are still smaller than the active USMC force?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by stumason
The Army has everything it needs, more or less.

Perhaps it's all about perspective but how can a country like the UK (which is actively involved in world affairs) be content with an active Army and Royal Marine force that even when combined are still smaller than the active USMC force?

It's all about quality mate, all about quality .

Well, when you put it like that, you have to take into account our population and GDP are much smaller. We have historically always maintained a small, professional Army over a larger one, except in times of Total War such as WW1 or 2. We also have other expenses to consider, such as national health care, which prohibits a huge expenditure on the Armed Services. Having said that, as a percentage of GDP spend on the military, I believe we do actually come close to the US in that respect. I believe the latest figures are:

USA: 3.7% GDP
France: 2.5%
UK: 2.4%

So a little behind, but you must take into account we can't afford much more with the added extra expenses our Governments are expected to meet.

The Army should be larger, that is a given, especially if the Government wants to actively take part in expeditionary adventures.

But, man for man, the Army is one of the best in world, in terms of equipment and training.

Larger equals more money, but smaller does not equate to less equipment, if you catch my drift. Whether you have ten men or ten thousand, as long as you spend the money on the kit they need, actual numbers shouldn't be part of the debate. The Army has the kit it needs for the men it's got. If we got more men, we'd get more kit.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
It's all about quality mate, all about quality

.

Quantity tends to have a quality of it's own I'm told, there is a point when you need more than quality to sustain a force. Still though, it's why I used the USMC for comparison, lets not debate that shall we...

Originally posted by stumason
Whether you have ten men or ten thousand, as long as you spend the money on the kit they need, actual numbers shouldn't be part of the debate. The Army has the kit it needs for the men it's got. If we got more men, we'd get more kit.

Well I'm not sure I understand this, certain making sure your force is well trained and equipped is admirable but sending them into battle with such a limited force is not. That's my point, unless the UK wants to never partake in large military expeditions than the current force is fine. But when you consider possible future conflicts is the current force enough, not only for an assault, but also for sustainment?

I think that it is a testiment to the quality of the british soldier that we can undertake the amount and size of taskings that we do. However I do feel that we are a bit overstretched.

For example since I transferred to the General Service Battalion I have completed tours of Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Iraq and an Afghanistan. Out of 11 years general service I have spent 4 full years on active duty in war zones. This does not include my time in the Home Service, where I spent 6 years on duty in Ulster. This works out at around 10 years out of 17 in war zones.

On top of this I have been on exercise all over the world, including USA, Norway, Belize, France, Botswana, Italy, Canada, Brunei, Spain and Kenya. Add a shed load of courses to this which can last anywhere from a week to several months and you start to get the idea

Basically I have spent more than half of the last 11 years away from home. It has already cost me a marriage. Don't get me wrong, I hate the cow and I love my job, but this is a lot of time away from home. Can you imagine the strain that this puts on young soldiers' families?

I think that the government are taking advantage of the average British servicemans' (sorry servicepersons attitude. They are seeing that we are coping and are treating our adaption to overstretch as the norm. All armies have a breaking point, and I hope that our new prime minister reduces our commitments before we reach ours.

[/Rant]

Well, obviously your not going to send 10 men (no matter how well trained or equipped) into direct battle with 10,000 men. That would be folly.

What I meant was the quality of our troops and equipment is top-notch. What we lack is number's, but increasing number's also increases cost, which we have a limit.

Also, sadly enough, the current Government have tied us to the USA even more than before. Our Military is designed either for small scale expeditionary jaunts alone (such as Sierra Leone) or if a larger force is required, as part of a coalition (read America's *lady dog*). Current thinking in Whitehall is not of one where we go it alone for any major battle.

We integrate either as brigades under US/Allied divisional command, such as Kosovo, or for really big one's, like Iraq 2003, we send you guys a Division (plus Brigades) to play with. We won't ever be going it alone willingly, hence why we don't maintain a larger Armed Forces.