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.

 

Type 45 Daring class destroyer

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   

HMS Daring, the first of six Type 45 Anti Air Warfare Destroyers in production for the Royal Navy, is heading to its home port of Portsmouth for the first time.

It has been hailed by its creators as the most powerful and advanced vessel of its kind.
The Principal Anti Air Missile System (Paams) is the Type 45's primary weapons platform and is designed to combat enemy missile attacks on ships.

Paams consists of a 48-cell vertical missile launcher that allows the destroyer to engage targets from 360 degrees.

The missiles themselves are a mix of Aster 15s and Aster 30s, which can strike targets at distances of up to 30km (19 miles) and 100km (62 miles) respectively.

They are radar-guided by the Sampson phased-array radar system perched, like the head of a snowman, atop the Type 45's mast.


source

I wondered what some of our naval experts could tell us about this - neddless to say there will be people here who have already studied this, and I don't know enough about this to comment effectively.




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Great! Another instrument of death to cherrish and ohh ahh over.


Doesnt it strike anyones curiosity over so much of this new hardware being touted by different nations lately?

Appears to me to be some kind of preperation for another major conflict, so they want to make sure all the new stuff is ready to use.

Sounds impressive, but Im not all that impressed by devices of distruction and death.


Cheers!!!



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

The hardware look fairly standard. The US Ticonderoga class has better kit than this and is more than 30 years older. Still no decent gun and no torpedo launchers????

What gets me is the 6 man cabin approach with internet access - there goes the off-watch board games, slanging matches, videos and beers then - that's what life at sea is all about. Now they'll be playing Call of Duty and surfing porn behind the privacy of their bunk curtain.

Pretty poor attempt I think.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Great! Another instrument of death to cherrish and ohh ahh over.


Doesnt it strike anyones curiosity over so much of this new hardware being touted by different nations lately?

Appears to me to be some kind of preperation for another major conflict, so they want to make sure all the new stuff is ready to use.

Sounds impressive, but Im not all that impressed by devices of distruction and death.


Cheers!!!


its hardly an "instrument of death" when its obviously been designed for defensive purposes


And i dont think its preparation for another conflict, its merely the navy updating its platforms, which given the naval traditions of the UK, is long overdue



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by expatwhite
 


Hope your right. It just seems alot of new hardware is popping up in various nation's militaries..and all happening almost at the same time.

Just seems a bit odd, not that hardware is being upgraded or replaced, but the number of nations doing this almost at the same time at this point in time...ie so close to that 2012 date thing.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Nah, no conspiracy here. These ships are long overdue to replace the decrepit old Type 42's which couldn't hold their own in a catapult fight.

I personally think the 2012 disaster scenario is a complete load of twaddle. In fact every prediction on this forum which has ever had a date attached has failed to materialise.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I seen a type 45 come into Plymouth some time last summer, dunno if it was out on sea trials or coming in for some kit to be fitted but either way it's an impressive looking tub. I tried to get a picture on my mobile phone, but by the time I'd pulled it out and turned it back on (really need a new phone) all I got was a long shot of the stern. It was very smooth and quite quick coming through the approach, and quite often that's a difficult bit of water I've been told. Defo a nice bit of kit.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I'm no naval expert, but whilst technologically impressive these babies seem to be lacking slightly in firepower, someone please correct me if i'm wrong. I guess the commisioning of these new 45s fall hand in hand with the acquisition of the proposed 2 new super carriers for the Royal Navy.

All in all it's good to see that the Royal Navy intends to keep its prestige with the much needed upgrading of its fleet.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vonspurter
reply to post by budski
 

The hardware look fairly standard. The US Ticonderoga class has better kit than this and is more than 30 years older.


How so? Unless you're just going by how many weapons and weapon types it carries I can't see you're point.

The two aren’t really comparable; the Daring class is an air defence destroyer not a multi role cruiser. It has no ASW or land attack remit so torpedoes and a high calibre gun aren't really necessary (though the latter is being considered).

Just comparing Spy-1 to Sampson gives an idea of which should be better in the AAW role.


They could definitely do with some CIWS but they’ll probably come off the T-42s.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
They are good looking ships

I drive past them everyday, theres 2 bow's sitting in the yard at govan, must be the last two

then theres at least one moored at scotstoun, perhaps 100m from the main road

I always thought it was a little strange seeing these ships popping up in the middle of the city :p

will be good to watch the new carriers take shape, well, parts of them



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by theblunttruth
I'm no naval expert, but whilst technologically impressive these babies seem to be lacking slightly in firepower, someone please correct me if i'm wrong.


You're not wrong, they DO lack substantial, and diverse firepower. 'Fitted for but not with' just does not fly. Especially when you're only building 6 vessels. How can you even compromise on firepower and role with such a small buy? Building 6 ships with moderate anti air capability, moderate self defense capability and limited helicopter borne anti surface and anti submarine capability is questionable. I don't really know what makes the Type 45 so technologically advanced but as the class stands now, they need more armament, and more ships, for the role.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


gun CIWS has had its day - and unless they`re going to fit goalkeeper (50% more range than Phalanx) then they might as well use the deckspace for anything else really - 1500 yards will give you less than 200 rounds against a subsonic missile and less than 30 against a super sonic one.


PAMS is really very very good, a good mix of sea wolf and sea dart for the 21st centruy

[edit on 30/1/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see something better than phalanx but there’s no hope for that and it is still better than nothing.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
... Building 6 ships with moderate anti air capability, moderate self defense capability and limited helicopter borne anti surface and anti submarine capability is questionable. I don't really know what makes the Type 45 so technologically advanced but as the class stands now, they need more armament, and more ships, for the role.


"Fitted for" is just a way of reducing cost but enabling capability when needed - I know it is a bit of a fudge, but that's life. I have to say that the T45 is an anti-air warship and I think you are wrong in describing its capaility in that field as moderate.

Without getting into an arguement of the merits of different missile systems, the common consensus is that the PAAMS (Sea Viper) /SAMPSON / S1850M is a very potent combination.

Regards



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Without getting into an arguement of the merits of different missile systems, the common consensus is that the PAAMS (Sea Viper) /SAMPSON / S1850M is a very potent combination.

Regards



And without getting into the merits of different radar/sensor systems my issues is with the 48 VLS tubes. You're going to build a ~10,000 ton vessel, with state of the art sensors and give it 48 missiles and self defense capability? Might as well build several command and control ships and dozens of cheap vessels with that 48 missile capability. That's really my main issue with the RN, the lack greater armament and the limited buy.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I don’t think 48 missiles is a major problem, I can’t think of many air forces that could get past three or four T-45s but even so this number may be increased in the future. As has been said an additional 16 cells can be added and the new CAMM missile has the potential to be quad packed into Sylver cells. So potentially a Daring could have a total of 64 cells and carry up to 60 Aster while maintaining 16 point defence missiles in the form of CAMM.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by paraphi
Without getting into an arguement of the merits of different missile systems, the common consensus is that the PAAMS (Sea Viper) /SAMPSON / S1850M is a very potent combination.

Regards



And without getting into the merits of different radar/sensor systems my issues is with the 48 VLS tubes. You're going to build a ~10,000 ton vessel, with state of the art sensors and give it 48 missiles and self defense capability? Might as well build several command and control ships and dozens of cheap vessels with that 48 missile capability. That's really my main issue with the RN, the lack greater armament and the limited buy.


Well I agree with the limited buy, which leads onto why an apparent lack of armament, since it's mission is area air defence so they will be defending the aircraft carriers and amphibious assault forces and there will not be enough of them to be diverted to others tasks.

The type 45 is actually 8000 ton vessel which has gone down the route of automation to reduce crew numbers which increases the displacement for example take DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class which is also reducing crew numbers its nearly a 15000 ton vessel with 2 main guns and only 80 VLS cells which on the face of it makes it a similar amount of weapons for weight

Interestingly Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class wasn't fitted with harpoon launchers, Towed array sonar or CIWS, bit of a common theme. It did get embarked helicopters.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join