Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Christ, in my day revealing even the approximate locations of certain compartments within a warship was court martial stuff, now they put them on the web!
The first of the destroyers, HMS Daring - which was launched in 2006 - is without its full communications system and will not get its new principal anti-air missile system (PAAMS) - which can shoot down multiple enemy aircraft or missiles simultaneously - until 2011.
It will have to wait until 2014 to be fitted with the co-operative engagement capability (CEC), which links together weapons systems and sensors on a number of ships, improving their ability to work together in combat.
The NAO said these delays would leave the Navy "struggling" to make do with its ageing Type 42 destroyers, which were designed and built for the Cold War and which the Type 45 is set to replace.
Now what was it that nice Mr Ingram said about the introduction of the Type 45 from 2007 (sic) mitigating against the loss of air defence when the Sea Harrier got axed?
The Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers will be at least two years late and £1.5bn over-budget, the government's spending watchdog has said
Thats because the Government delayed the project.... Doooooohhhh Where my foot..? Tee Hee
But this is a prime example of two reporters having different opinions on the same story. One reports that there has been delays whilst the other reporter writes that although there have been delays the project has made progress.... Same story...different reporters.
So Type 45's designed for the Cold War won't be able to take on the role of the retired FA2's designed for the Cold War nor the Type 42 of similar vintage? Hmmm, interesting.
What was it that nice Bob Ainsworth said about the RN only getting 6 instead of the 8 agreed instead of the 12 the RN wanted as the T45 is "so much more capable than we at first thought..."
Bob, we didn't believe you then and, by God, we don't believe you now.
Its alright though. The T45 is designed to fight a Cold War threat just like the Typhoon and we all know (well many folk think they know) just how pointless they are now days.
Or perhaps Cold War relics may have a role in the 21st century, who'd have thunk it.
Helpful Stacker, that's a bit unfair. You can't hold a cocktail party on a typhoon, well not a large crowd anyway. Daring's Flight deck is massive, I bet she's got a magnificent awning!
Widger - Since HMY Britannia was decommissioned the arduous task of hosting cocktail parties in some of the world's warmest spots has been increased no end without a corresponding increase in budget.
For the RN a new STR which takes into account the real world situation can't come soon enough.
I'm just trying to be optimistic with this post and not just take the P (make's a change).
I suppose that an air defence destroyer without the 'air defence' capability actually returns the T45's to the RN core role of Frigate - and a heavy frigate at that.
By 'Frigate' - I don't mean the cold war ASW version, but more a Nelson - Aubrey type of independent duty warship to show a strategic presence around the world.
The ships will not be useless per se - they will have uses; just not in the core role that they were ordered for (and let's hope we never need - and hence miss - the key capability) and then paid for at twice the price.
I'm not sure what ASuW they have other than the big gun on the front...
I am not too sure why everybody seems surprised by the T45/PAAMS issue - it is the nature of defence procurement everywhere on introduction to service:
Typhoon with no weapons (or anything else for that matter) T23 with no computer system Merlin with no ASW system Lynx (Navy) with no missile SeaKing (Navy) with no ASW sytem or weapons T22 with no Sea Wolf Spitfire with no guns Sopwith Camel with no.....
I am sure the US etc have similar examples. In pretty well all cases the final product is world class in its prime role.
How big is that gun, anyway? I don't suppose there's any chance it could be 155mm and use the same wide range of ammunition types that all the NATO armies have available? And all the R&D paid for by someone else, too. I seem to remember that the USN were at least thinking along those lines for the DDX.
And, don't get me started on a 10,000 ton "destroyer". It should be an Anti-Air Cruiser at that size
How big is that gun, anyway? I don't suppose there's any chance it could be 155mm and use the same wide range of ammunition types that all the NATO armies have available? And all the R&D paid for by someone else, too.
It's funny that you say that as a navalised 155mm gun is being talked about.
More recently BAE Systems have changed tack and are now offering a new concept, the existing 4.5 inch Mk 8 naval mounting with the gun switched to the 155mm L/39 from the AS90 (surplus barrels being available). This is known as the 155 TMF (Third generation Maritime Fire support). The existing mounting is apparently strong enough to stand the additional weight and recoil (and could also accept the 155mm L/52 if required). The weight of the 155 TMF mounting goes up from 22.5 tons (Mk 8 Mod 1) to 24.5 tons. although this is still lighter than the original 4.5 inch Mark 8 Mod 0 at 26.4 tons. Other modifications needed to the mounting include a double-stroke loading cycle to fire the separated ammunition (which would presumably halve the RoF to around 12 rpm) plus some adjustments to accommodate the wider ammunition. It appears that the gun will use a single-module L10 artillery charge. Obvious advantages include commonality of gun and ammunition with the British Army (with a huge long-term saving in future ammunition development costs), 80% commonality with the existing Mk 8 Mod 1 mounting without requiring the "navalisation" of an army turret, and greater destructive power than the 5 inch gun with a longer range than even the new 4.5 inch Extended Range ammunition: 30 v. 27 km. There is clearly the potential for far greater range and effectiveness increases in the future using advanced ammunition, including guided projectiles; for instance, Italy is planning a 155mm artillery version of the 5 inch Vulcano ammunition (see above). The RN is very keen on the 155 TMF project, resulting in the award of government development funding in 2007. The main problem to be solved is the handling of the propellant charges, which the RN requires to be encased for fire safety reasons.
Ah, the old 'NGS is best' argument. Ever since a couple of T23s and an ANZAC lobbed some shells at Al Faw we have wound ourselves around the axles about NGS and maybe getting a bigger 155mm gun on the front end. Now I am the first bloke to want to have more toys but why bother going to all the hassle for a few extra kms of range? One squadron of F-18s with JDAMs or a flight of GR9s with E-Paveways will do way more damage for much less bucks. Keep the good old 4.5", get some more ammo (maybe some ERGM to keep the techno-weenies at BAE in a job) and let the RAF worry about deep penetration from a Host Nation Support airfield...............(tees the ball up, waiting for WEBF to smack it)
One squadron of F-18s with JDAMs or a flight of GR9s with E-Paveways will do way more damage for much less bucks.
Are you sure about that? I'd guess that a decent 155mm will deliver cheaper destructive power. Extra range keeps you out of harms way. 155mm gives you savings over the life of the system - with shared development costs and standardisation. Plus, there is actually a real prospect for overseas orders!
