Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New British Destroyers
neofire1000    4/22/2007 11:32:40 AM
Hi folks, want to ask a question. I was just a soldier so don't know massive amounts about surface ships (well not current ones) however like all things military I have great interest. I was reading about the new Daring class destroyer (type 45) and was wondering how it compares to other nations current/future equivalents in terms of quality, weapons and computer systems etc. I know there are alot of knowledgeable posters here so would appreciate your opinions. Thanks, Neo.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
spsun10000       8/12/2007 7:04:13 AM

ERGM is not yet in service, so you can't really give the AB that and not spot the T45 a Merlin.

Although I do realise that the T45 is not in service either.


Fair point about ERGM, though it should be in service by the time the Type 45 is (I think!)
 
 
As to Merlin, as I said, the lack of any anti-ship missiles on the Type 45 and the fact Merlin can't carry Sea Skua probably means the 45's will continue to carry Lynx even after they are given the capability to deploy Merlin.
 
 
What annoys me about the Type 45 is that it's the usual thing we Brits have a long and shameful history of whereby we omit equipment from ships or fit sub-standard systems to save money. In the Falklands that cost lives as Type 42 destroyers built to the policy of "minimum effectiveness" with no point defence anti-aircraft system and Type 21 frigates with the obsolete Seacat system were sunk with the loss of dozens of lives.
 
 
We learnt the lesson with the relpacements for those ships - the Type 22 batch 3 frigates (arguably the best ships the navy built in their day), but it hasn't taken us long to forget that lesson again with for example Type 23 frigates built without a CIWS back up to their Seawolf (pretty much every other western designed equivalent frigate has this).
 
 
Now we're at it again with the Type 45. We've bought a more expensive and less flexible VLS system to be good little Europeans but omitted anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine torpedoes and a land attack capability plus we are fitting the refurbuished gun and CIWS from the ships they are replacing despite there being far more capable systems available.
 
 
I'm back to the comment of Commodore Greenish, one of the senior naval staff involved in the Type 45 project, who described it as "the best ship we can afford, not the best ship we could build". That's why all this media swallowing of the MoD hyperbole and hubris about it being the worlds most powerful warship sticks in my throat.
 
 
Cheers
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier       8/12/2007 10:09:46 AM



ERGM is not yet in service, so you can't really give the AB that and not spot the T45 a Merlin.


Although I do realise that the T45 is not in service either.




Fair point about ERGM, though it should be in service by the time the Type 45 is (I think!)

 

 

As to Merlin, as I said, the lack of any anti-ship missiles on the Type 45 and the fact Merlin can't carry Sea Skua probably means the 45's will continue to carry Lynx even after they are given the capability to deploy Merlin.

 

 

What annoys me about the Type 45 is that it's the usual thing we Brits have a long and shameful history of whereby we omit equipment from ships or fit sub-standard systems to save money. In the Falklands that cost lives as Type 42 destroyers built to the policy of "minimum effectiveness" with no point defence anti-aircraft system and Type 21 frigates with the obsolete Seacat system were sunk with the loss of dozens of lives.

 

 

We learnt the lesson with the relpacements for those ships - the Type 22 batch 3 frigates (arguably the best ships the navy built in their day), but it hasn't taken us long to forget that lesson again with for example Type 23 frigates built without a CIWS back up to their Seawolf (pretty much every other western designed equivalent frigate has this).

 

 

Now we're at it again with the Type 45. We've bought a more expensive and less flexible VLS system to be good little Europeans but omitted anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine torpedoes and a land attack capability plus we are fitting the refurbuished gun and CIWS from the ships they are replacing despite there being far more capable systems available.

 

 

I'm back to the comment of Commodore Greenish, one of the senior naval staff involved in the Type 45 project, who described it as "the best ship we can afford, not the best ship we could build". That's why all this media swallowing of the MoD hyperbole and hubris about it being the worlds most powerful warship sticks in my throat.

 

 

Cheers



Then, why did UK quited the Horizon program?
A Horizon use the same PAAMS but has as well anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.
Plus the Horizon will be able to use the SCALP-Naval cruise missile.
All that for a cost 20% cheaper than a T45.
 
Why?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/12/2007 11:32:41 AM






ERGM is not yet in service, so you can't really give the AB that and not spot the T45 a Merlin.





Although I do realise that the T45 is not in service either.







Fair point about ERGM, though it should be in service by the time the Type 45 is (I think!)



 



 



As to Merlin, as I said, the lack of any anti-ship missiles on the Type 45 and the fact Merlin can't carry Sea Skua probably means the 45's will continue to carry Lynx even after they are given the capability to deploy Merlin.



 



 



What annoys me about the Type 45 is that it's the usual thing we Brits have a long and shameful history of whereby we omit equipment from ships or fit sub-standard systems to save money. In the Falklands that cost lives as Type 42 destroyers built to the policy of "minimum effectiveness" with no point defence anti-aircraft system and Type 21 frigates with the obsolete Seacat system were sunk with the loss of dozens of lives.



 



 



We learnt the lesson with the relpacements for those ships - the Type 22 batch 3 frigates (arguably the best ships the navy built in their day), but it hasn't taken us long to forget that lesson again with for example Type 23 frigates built without a CIWS back up to their Seawolf (pretty much every other western designed equivalent frigate has this).



 



 



Now we're at it again with the Type 45. We've bought a more expensive and less flexible VLS system to be good little Europeans but omitted anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine torpedoes and a land attack capability plus we are fitting the refurbuished gun and CIWS from the ships they are replacing despite there being far more capable systems available.



 



 



I'm back to the comment of Commodore Greenish, one of the senior naval staff involved in the Type 45 project, who described it as "the best ship we can afford, not the best ship we could build". That's why all this media swallowing of the MoD hyperbole and hubris about it being the worlds most powerful warship sticks in my throat.



 



 



Cheers





Then, why did UK quited the Horizon program?

A Horizon use the same PAAMS but has as well anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.

Plus the Horizon will be able to use the SCALP-Naval cruise missile.

All that for a cost 20% cheaper than a T45.

 

Why?

1. The Type 45 is built to global seakeeping specifications; the Forbin is a fairweather boat built for the Mediterranean.
2. The SAMPSON is a much better radar  for  area defense  than EMPAR/Hercules.
3. The French and the Italians  abandoned FORBIN after building two turkeys? WHY? It didn't do the fleet defense  job that  its proponents claimed, [overglorified point defense gunboat incapable of beyond horizon defense or upgrading] so back to the drawing boards to build a better; hopefully more effective escort design.
4. The Daring has enough tonnage and volume British to rip out that ridiculous SYLVER launcher and replace it with a better VLS without damaging the magazine capacity or ship stability.
5. If the FORBIN turkeys can carry  SCALP then STORM SHADOW is a sea based option for DARING.
6. ASTER in its short ranged and long ranged forms is still a CRAP missile. ESSM for short ranged area defense and GOALKEEPER/RAM for point defense will work until the British build a ERMAD to replace ASTER.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier       8/12/2007 3:36:48 PM

1. The Type 45 is built to global seakeeping specifications; the Forbin is a fairweather boat built for the Mediterranean.
2. The SAMPSON is a much better radar  for  area defense  than EMPAR/Hercules.
3. The French and the Italians  abandoned FORBIN after building two turkeys? WHY? It didn't do the fleet defense  job that  its proponents claimed, [overglorified point defense gunboat incapable of beyond horizon defense or upgrading] so back to the drawing boards to build a better; hopefully more effective escort design.
4. The Daring has enough tonnage and volume British to rip out that ridiculous SYLVER launcher and replace it with a better VLS without damaging the magazine capacity or ship stability.
5. If the FORBIN turkeys can carry  SCALP then STORM SHADOW is a sea based option for DARING.
6. ASTER in its short ranged and long ranged forms is still a CRAP missile. ESSM for short ranged area defense and GOALKEEPER/RAM for point defense will work until the British build a ERMAD to replace ASTER.

Herald
1) What are you talking about? T45 and Horizon have quiet the same design. Not a surprise because they both are coming from the same early studies. The water that T45 could sustend is water that a Horizon can sustend.
ps. there is some awfull tempest in Med.
2)Wait to see. :))
3)I gess that cost saving was the main issue. Not a surprise due to MN usual politic (not so many ship class with more than 2). For France, their job will be carrier protection, then only 2. The surprise would be 4.
4) I hope so!!! A so big ship only for 48 missiles, only used in air defence ;)). At least it is 4000t bigger than the needs.
5) I don't think that Forbin/Horizon is a Turkey. But as much as I read this thread, I'm now thinking that T45 is... No ship attack capacities or anti-sub weapons out of a single Merlin...
6) ASTER is a crap missile? Maybe, I don't know. As far as I know your so beloved brit-engeeners are unable to provide anything else/better than that and your Dod didn't found anything in US furbishment minimark to justify to not use PAAMS on T45. I gess that a country paying 1bn Euros for a ship only able of air defence has carefully choosen the system, I hope so...
 
But whatever you said, the main issue was: why to pay 20% more for a similar ship regarding the main design but with limited capacities. Why to have leaved the Horizon program?
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       8/12/2007 3:48:18 PM
ht*p://navy-matters.beedall.com/cngf.htm
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier       8/12/2007 4:13:33 PM

ht*p://navy-matters.beedall.com/cngf.htm


Thanks for the link Flamingknives.
 
I particulary like this one:
"Finally, in April 1999 the UK decided to pull out of the platform component of the Common New Generation Frigate, although it confirmed it would still continue with the PAAMS component, despite MoD assurances that the decision had been taken by all three partners. "In suggesting that its termination was a joint decision, we judge that the MoD is putting a rather favourable gloss on the programme's failure" and that while such a decision was formally put forward as a joint one, from "comments we have received from France and Italy, it is quite clear that this was the initiative primarily of the UK, which withdrew from the project after losing patience with the programme's unfocused management and the high price of the warship."
 
A bit funny when you know that Horizon are now not late in achieving than T45 (and a bit more advanced regarding the system integration), with a Horizon cost slightly under the T45 and operationnal capacities far more advanced:
Horizon (Forbin): 48x Asters 30/15, 12x Sadrals, 8x Exocets, 2x Torpedoes tubes, 2x 76mm anti-air guns, 2x 20mm guns; Planned: SCALP-Naval
T45 (Daring): 48x Asters 30/15,......, 1x 114mm gun, 2x Phalanx,........ ; Planned: Torpedoes......
 
After that some donkeys persons are calling Forbin/Andrea Doria crap boats...  ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/12/2007 4:30:28 PM



1. The Type 45 is built to global seakeeping specifications; the Forbin is a fairweather boat built for the Mediterranean.
2. The SAMPSON is a much better radar  for  area defense  than EMPAR/Hercules.
3. The French and the Italians  abandoned FORBIN after building two turkeys? WHY? It didn't do the fleet defense  job that  its proponents claimed, [overglorified point defense gunboat incapable of beyond horizon defense or upgrading] so back to the drawing boards to build a better; hopefully more effective escort design.
4. The Daring has enough tonnage and volume British to rip out that ridiculous SYLVER launcher and replace it with a better VLS without damaging the magazine capacity or ship stability.
5. If the FORBIN turkeys can carry  SCALP then STORM SHADOW is a sea based option for DARING.
6. ASTER in its short ranged and long ranged forms is still a CRAP missile. ESSM for short ranged area defense and GOALKEEPER/RAM for point defense will work until the British build a ERMAD to replace ASTER.

Herald

1) What are you talking about? T45 and Horizon have quiet the same design. Not a surprise because they both are coming from the same early studies. The water that T45 could sustend is water that a Horizon can sustend.

Specifications - Type 45 Daring Class Anti-Air Warfare Destroyers, United Kingdom
Key Data
Crew     190 (with space for 235)
Dimensions
Length     152.4m (overall)
Beam (At Waterline)     18m
Maximum Speed     Over 27kt
Range     More than 7,000nm at 18kt
Displacement    7,350t (full load)
Weapon Systems
Surface-to-Air Missile     PAAMS: 6 x 8-cell Sylver VLS, 16 x Aster 15, 32 x Aster 30
Surface-to-Surface Missile     2 x 4-cell launchers
Guns     114mm gun and 30mm guns
Torpedoes     Launchers for Stingray torpedo
Helicopters     1 x EH101 Merlin
Countermeasures     ESM/ECM, chaff / flare launchers, torpedo decoy
Air and Surface Search for PAAMS     BAE Sampson E/F band multi-function
Radar
Volume Search for PAAMS     BAE / Thales S1850 D band

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

France, Italy   
Builders:    Horizon Sas (DCN, Thales, Fincantieri, Finmeccanica)
Operators:     French Navy
 Marina Militare
Preceding class:    Duquesne, Durand de La Penne class
Commissioned:    2008
In service:    2008
Ships in Class
Ships in class:    4
Ships building:    Caio Duilio
Ships fitting out:    Andrea Doria, Chevalier Paul, Forbin
General Characteristics
Class type:    Anti-air destroyer
Displacement:    5600 tons (6635 tons full load)
Length:    152,87 m
Beam:    20,3 m
Draught:    5,4 m
Propulsion and power:    2 x 40500hp GE/Avio General Electric LM2500 gas turbines

2 x 5875 hp SEMT Pielstick 12 PA6 STC diesels
1 bean propulsor
2 x 5-blade propellers
Speed:    over 30 knots (18 on diesel)
Range:    7000 nm at 18 knts, 3500 nm at 25 knots
Boats and landing craft ca
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier       8/12/2007 5:44:49 PM
1)  Please note (about the heavy water hability) that in your datas, both have the same lang but Horizon has a bigger beam.
Please note also that Forbin is 7000t (as stated in the french navy site) and not the 6635t quoted from an old notice.
Just another thing about this, 27knots for Daring when 30knots for Forbin, I gess if power is needed, Forbin will be better fitted against mother nature.
 
Please note again that France has an Atlantic coast ;)
 
2) Just some nice comments. How much big flying hight aircrafts was it representing? It was said that one Atlantic was enougth to watch the sky of half the Africa (Tchad operation during the 80's) at his time.
Is Sampson marvelous just because it has 2 phased-array antennas at 30rpm when Empar has 1 at 60 rpm? Maybe brits weren't able to design a fast enougth rotating  system...  ;) just a joke.
 
3) It's your interpretation. I gove you mine ;) Now, if you feel more secure to think that Horizon is crap... you are free.
 
4) Why abandon Aster? You think it's a dog, not me. Fit your boat with anything else you can... But what are you able to do?
 
5)I'm not sure that Empar is only restricted to 160km (or at least in a military term maybe, any threat has to be tracked at 160 km), please keep in mind that Aster has 100km range, at mach4, 60km is enougth to intercept anything comming low, if it come from space(up)... It will be detected far before. But please note that Empar is able of 300 trackings and 12 simultaneous engagements that is not 4. This is not a turkey according to me.
 
6)The failure I see is T45: 1bn euros for a airdefence only big political ship when the internationnal cooperation could provide an effective multi purpose large destroyer 20% cheaper.
 
"See above. Daring is larger, better countermeasures [hope they work!] with a MUCH better radar  suite."
As we saw above Daring is smaller 18m beam (20m for Forbin), just a bit heavier due to the lack of technology in new naval materials.
Better countermesure? I don't know. You provide a long list of systems fitted on Forbin but pretty nothing about Daring, just "Countermeasures  :   ESM/ECM, chaff / flare launchers, torpedo decoy" a bit light isn't it?
 
What are those 2x4 sea-sea launchers I gessed that T45 was fitted with that?
What about those launchers for torpedoes, I gessed it was just planned?
 
Cheers, Didier.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/12/2007 9:56:10 PM

 
Complex post from a change.
1)  Please note (about the heavy water hability) that in your datas, both have the same lang but Horizon has a bigger beam.

That should have been a warning bell to you. The draft tells you a lot about total hull volume and shape. Narrow, long, slender, and deep tells you about where the ship was intended tol operate.OPEN OCEAN as opposed opposed to confined waters for a broad beamed ship that rolls much more even with roll dmapeners .

Please note also that Forbin is 7000t (as stated in the french navy site) and not the 6635t quoted from an oldnotice.                                      
Not impressed The data is all over the place for the  FORBIN. The best I can find is 6500 tonnes dry. Different navies measure displacement differently.
 
Just another thing about this, 27knots for Daring when 30knots for Forbin, I gess if power is needed, Forbin will be better fitted against mother nature.
RN data for DARING gives its speed as 27+ knots. Once again don't leap to conclusions. My own research indicates she tops out around 29 knots [47 kph]. Most warships never cruoise at maximum speed anyway, being content to use economic speed to increase endurance and save fuel. For daring we look at somewhere around 18 knots or 28 kph as averageed speed..  
Please note again that France has an Atlantic coast ;)
 Meaningless. You had that same Atlantic coast when you designed the worthless and topheavy Bretagne battleships. Those tuibs were designed and intended for Mediterranean and coastal duty. Nothing in the FORBIN shows me anything diffwerent in the Marines approach to naval design.   
2) Just some nice comments. How much big flying hight aircrafts was it representing? It was said that one Atlantic was enougth to watch the sky of half the Africa (Tchad operation during the 80's) at his time.
Considering that SAMPSON is mounted higher over the DARINGS's keel than EMPAR is over the FORBIN's and is a higher powered propogator I think you've answered yo
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier       8/15/2007 5:04:51 AM

Sorry but I don't see so much diferences between the two designs.

The fact remain that Forbin is 7000t as quoted in the french navy site and I think personnaly that this wider beam, far to be a handicap in blue waters (please note that a thing exist, known as oceanic tugs and is usefull during stroms when UK need  a ship to rescue geant tankers or cargos, regarding the use of a wider beam could teach you a lot) will allow Horizon to operate closer from the coasts, exactly where all the war planners in the world are predicting that such a vessel will be needed in the future. Horizon is able to sail in Atlantic and the persian gulf. I just think that Horizon are more versatile.
 
Daring is 27+ knots and Forbin is 29+ knots, just simple facts. I would say that is as more to do with the more important displacement. In fact, at egal speed, that mean that Forbin save fuel, not the reverse.
 
But why to speech about the Bretagne battleship? Built in 1915, sunk in Mers-el-Kebir under the trahison of the british guns?
You speach about the "NOTORIOUS poor compartmentalization and hull breach isolation design that French naval architects put into their ships
" but regarding what UK was able to achieve only 4 years before Bretagne(sunk by brits heavy guns), I mean the Titanic, then please, be a bit more humble about "poor compartmentalization...".
The fact remain, regarding naval design, that the queen Mary II is a french design and construction. If it were such a british suprematie there I gess that this vessel would be british designed and built... Isn't it?
 
About Sampson, maybe will it be marvellous, I don't know, I hope so. But wait for the trials with the others ship systems.
 
For PAAMS replacments you point SM1 to 16, a hypotetical/mistical "improved" seadart and RAM... Great, but the fact remain that UK navy went on with PAAMS but didn't dare to complete it with others weapons.
Then before to say that Forbin is crap, please note that it has anything that is lacking in T45.
 
What are this UK war experience that showed that UK use succesfull missiles and decoye systems?
 Malvinas?
..........................  ;))
Actually the "failing" Exocet : HMS Sheffield(sunk), Atlantic Conveyor(sunk), HMS Glamorgan (damadged), a brit ship looking like a carrier (damaged), USS Stark(damaged). A various number of ship in the Persian Gulf.
What is the Harpoon record?
 
There is another thing that you have to clarify. You speak about Harpoon on the Daring. Why? I gessed it was not even planned.
Just the topedoes tube installation is planned.
Then before you call one time more Horizon "crap" let me just clarify this (just remainder):
Horizon (Forbin): 48x Asters 30/15, 12x Mistrals (Sadral), 8x Exocets, 2x Torpedoes tubes, 2x 76mm anti-air guns, 2x 20mm guns; Planned: SCALP-Naval
T45 (Daring): 48x Asters 30/15,......, 1x 114mm gun, 2x Phalanx,........ ; Planned: Torpedoes......
 
 What I understand regarding this lack of weapons and defence systems is that the defender has to be defended. Escort the escorter, the new UK navy mantra...  ;)
 
About the deep water exploration, please note that France is world leading with IFREMER and some vessels are used in common between the french navy and IFREMER.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics