DarkBlueLoggie

Take a look in the headline here - http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2374052005

scopey

I was told by a Navy chap that the difference between a boat and a ship is whether it leans outwards or in to the turn; a boat leaning in, and a ship leaning out...

D O Guerrero

The only explanation that I've ever heard is that Ships can carry their own boats.
Except submarines. Which are boats. Obviously.

Double Zero

If you think 'Dainty' is potentially painful, how about a run ashore on a Friday evening in Portsmouth wearing the cap badges of the ( ex ) Beaver, or the USS Ponce ?!!!

Toddington Ted

I seem to recall reading a list of the proposed new "D" class T45s some years ago and "Diana" was definitely on the list. No more it seems.

West Coast

Jesus, capable ship. The Iranian navy can't wait to get it's hands on it.

Pierre Argh

Short-sighted, how long do such projects take to come into service, with Putin getting his long-range bombers into the air (BBC News yesterday) maybe we need to think beyond rucksacks... or even campaigns in desert regions once again... heck there might even be something for the Typhoon to do?

Modern Elmo

From the always reliable Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMPSON

“ …The SAMPSON uses two planar arrays to provide coverage over only part of the sky; complete coverage is provided by rotating the arrays, essentially similar to the way conventional radar systems operate. This is in contrast to the US AN/SPY-1 system, as used on the Ticonderoga class cruiser and Arleigh Burke class destroyer, which uses multiple arrays fixed in place to provide continuous coverage of the entire sky. Whilst this may seem to be a disadvantage, the SAMPSON radar rotates at 30 revolutions per minute, meaning no part of the sky lacks coverage for more than one second on average - the precise time varies as the beams can also be swept back and forth electronically. In addition, the use of a smaller number of arrays allows the system to be much lighter, allowing placement of the arrays at the top of a prominent mast rather than on the side of the superstructure as in the US ships. Placing any radar emitter at higher altitude extends the horizon distance, improving performance against low level targets; SAMPSON is at approximately double the height above the waterline than the arrays of its US equivalents. Although precise details of the SAMPSON's performance in this regard are unlikely to enter the public domain, such factors may mitigate or even eliminate the disadvantages of fewer arrays. …”

Umm-hmmm. . How far can an antiship missile travel in one second?



“…The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery. …”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm

LateArmLive

Just to settle the argument - they're all boats.

oldspook

Apropos the Daring class names - pity Decoy is not being revived. Was a Midshipman on the old HMS Decoy back in the 60s - in the days when you went on a 'Flag-showing' cruise i.e. CTP to CTP with not a lot in between. I seem to remember that SNOWI (Senior Naval Officer West Indies) at the time was a bachelor who had two 'XI's of eligible unattached females for the said Cocktail Parties - his 2nd XI was wheeled out for the official one on the Quarterdeck, but his 1st XI was kept back for the post official thrash down in the Wardroom. Happy days.

Decoy and her sister ship Diana were sold to the Peruvians in the 70s - Decoy became Ferre, swapped her Seacat missiles for Exocet and has only just in the last year or so been decommissioned. Not bad for a destroyer laid down in 1949. And to think in the 60s we were not allowed to do much chipping of the hull for painting in case the chipping hammers went through the hull!

BackPacker

In peacetime, I would appreciate it if she were to provide a LARS for wherever she happens to be. Just NOTAM her whereabouts with a contact frequency. Good training for the crew, useful service for GA.

WillDAQ

"When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery. …”

Judging by how smug BAES is i'm guessing they've got this one nailed.

Navaleye

Quite a long way. The latest packages of nastiness can cover a mile in about 2 or 3 seconds. The maths are quite interesting. You are always trained to engage missile targets at the maximum effective range of your system. Lets say 6 miles for a Sea Wolf type system. To hit a Mach 3 missile at 6 miles with a Mach 2 interceptor, you would have to achieve a firing solution and launch while the target is still 16 miles away.
This raises another set of questions. If your target is a Mach 3 sea skimmer like an SS-N-27 Sizzler and you are on even an Aegis ship, it breaks the radar horizon at considerably under 16 miles, probably about 13 miles.
By the time someone in the ops room has noticed, blown his/her whistle, shouted "Zippo One! Bruiser!" its at 10 miles and closing and the maximum range at which you can engage wiith your inner layer missile system is already frighteningly close. Repeat the process with 4 Sizzlers coming from separated bearings and you can see how even a modern warship can easily be overwhelmed.
This is where, in my opinion, a T45 is a generation ahead of anything in the USN at least for now. Its radar is mounted at twice the height of the equivalent SPY/1D in an Arleigh Burke. An AB will pick up a Sizzler at an altitude of 3m at a fraction over 13 miles, A T45 will detect it at 16.6 miles. Then the AB with its clunky old semi active systems will have to assign directors to illuminate the threat (which takes time - and they might be busy dealing with other threats and not immediately available) and we are back to brown trouser mode.
A T45 on the other hand has no need to illuminate the target and so can respond much faster with M3.5 Active Aster 15 and can take down the target, this even leaves time for a second shot at any leakers. The AB is unlikely to get a second chance.
Also if the incoming threat is detected by an ASaC platform it can engage them at 35 miles plus at sea level with Aster 30. The AB has to sit twiddling its thumbs until they reach 13 miles. Semi active systems simply don't work in a high supersonic sea skimming threat environment, which is why I would take a T45 over an AB any day. It is the best AD destroyer in the world bar none. Make no mistake. I would pay for a day in the simulator.

Clockwork Mouse

Gratefully noted Komrade.

Gainesy

Apart, presumably, from the anchor falling off? Or will BAe claim that as a close-in anti-submarine weapon?

Bob the Doc

12 targets engaged at the same time? Surely, one vessel destroying 12 targets at a time can cope with a volley of considerably more than 12 in total. The chances of any opposition launching that number of targets simultaneously seems to me to be so vanishingly small that one T45 seems ample. Assuming you were happy to leave it on the Thames...

glad rag

Gratefully noted Komrade.


Actually he's left the best bit out.....................

Navaleye

All public domain information folks, that's why Adm West said that the T45 was only ship capable of defeating a Sizzler attack. It really comes down to old fashioned maths. It much like fighting an AMRAAM equipped fighter when you've only got Sky Flash or Sparrow.

You can guess how a T42 will do in similar circumstances. We need at least 8 T45s.

Modern Elmo

The PAAMS (ASTER 15/ASTER 30) system comprises:

A Fire Control System based on a new generation radar implementing or coupled with an up-link (either I/J or G or F bandwidth). The French and Italian Horizon platform will use the Empar MFR, the British T 45 destroyer the Sampson MFR, both in conjunction with the T 1850M long-range surveillance radar,
A 50 Sylver Vertical Launching Systems, each containing eight ready-to-fire missiles,
ASTER 15 and ASTER 30 anti-missile missiles.

This system provides 360 ° defence and an all weather capability. It also features an extremely quick response time, a high firing rate (8 missiles within 10 seconds), and the capability to engage up to 12 targets simultaneously.

…


Guidance accuracy

The Aster missile computes the predicted intercept time according to the target and environmental data it receives during the launch sequence. From the missile flyout and up to the point at which the active RF seeker switches on, the missile is inertially guided, receiving periodic target position and environment updates from the Firing Control Unit via the up-link. …

Implying that Aster missiles have rather long minimum range of engagement, and that Aster ought to be supplemented with a closer-in air defense missile.

…

This data allows the missile to update its own computations continuously as well as its optimum trajectory towards seeker switch-on and intercept and the predicted intercept time. As soon as the seeker has switched on and achieved target lock, the missile can home onto the target. The risk of acquiring the wrong target is avoided by means of sophisticated functions within the seeker and the on board computer.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=89


Please explain the advantage of midcourse updates via data link over semiactive, provided that one’s system has multiple electronically steered antennae which can keep many targets “painted” simultaneously around 360 degrees az. and 180 degrees el. with mucho more kilowatts than transmitters in Aster missiles can emit. In addition, missiles used by brand AB can also get data link updates.

It seems to me that PAAMS/Aster's principal advantage is that it can be fitted to a smaller ship than Aegis/SPY.

Blacksheep

Assuming that the system doesn't have to be mounted in a floaty, boaty thing, it seems to me that we have a pretty useful close air defence system there. Why not deploy it at all important military bases (i.e. targets)? Oh, I forgot, defence spending cuts. The money is to be spent on a rapid reaction force (read carrier groups) that can poke its nose into any other country's business anywhere in the world. Why would we ever need to defend the United Kingdom?