Type 45 hms dauntless
- Thread starter jaffo4011
- Start date
The Royal Navy has been conducting a rather absurd PR campaign for these ships, IMHO. So far only the hull of the first of class has been completed, receiving mission systems (radars, command & control systems, armament and other sub systems etc) installation and integration. Type 45 will accomodate new technologies, i.e systems not used before, not tested before, not combat proven.
In addition, promoting some features like DVD players, iPod charging stations, enhanced crew accomodation etc serves only one purpose: Attracting more men and women for a military branch based on professionalism. Keeping in mind that that branch has been on a steep decline in terms of budget and assets (both air and naval), such active promotion like "the very very best AAW destroyer in the world! so best that we cannot afford much and cannot provide fixed wing air cover" makes more sense.
Type 45 is a promising ship though. But it is more than early to claim that it is the best right now. It's hull maybe the best AAW destroyer hull in the world, though, nothing more.
In addition, promoting some features like DVD players, iPod charging stations, enhanced crew accomodation etc serves only one purpose: Attracting more men and women for a military branch based on professionalism. Keeping in mind that that branch has been on a steep decline in terms of budget and assets (both air and naval), such active promotion like "the very very best AAW destroyer in the world! so best that we cannot afford much and cannot provide fixed wing air cover" makes more sense.
Type 45 is a promising ship though. But it is more than early to claim that it is the best right now. It's hull maybe the best AAW destroyer hull in the world, though, nothing more.
BAE, like any company, is entitled to describe and endeavour to sell its products as the most advanced in the world. In one of their own press releases though, it was put in perspective when the British Secretary of State for Defence, Dr John Reid, was reported to have said at the launch of HMS Daring that when the ships enter service in 2009 they will be among the most advanced in the world. That' probably fair enough comment. Best in the world? Let's hope so for the RN, but IMHO, its far too early to make such a call.i understand that the new royal navy destroyer hms dauntless,is to be the best ship,of its type,in the world....why is this?..what are the features that make it so?
/www.baesystems.com/type_45/index.asp
http://www.baesystems.com/type45/pdf/BAE_Type45_update_8.pdf
Cheers
Last edited:
"not combat proven"
In terms of naval systems I cant think of many that are combat proven. The last time a naval force came under sustained and determined air attack was the Falklands (so Sea Dart, Sea Wolf were proven to be able to work albeit with deficiencies, Sea Dart also shot down a missile in GW1) and possibly the Iraqi Navy patrol boats that were hammered predominately by air power.
I may be wrong but have any other naval SAM's achieved kills in the last 20 years? (other than an iranian passenger plane) Obliged if anyone can provide links. I think the US airpower shot down any iraqi aircraft long before they became a threat to vessels.Plenty of weapons are "proven" in trials and simulations.
Proven ship based assets are the TLAM's used succesfully in recent wars, the radar systems, ship based aircraft etc. It remains to be seen which destroyer is the best when missiles are flying about in real combat. BAE is just talking up its product which is expected when money is at stake, its no different to claims that the F35 will be the best aircraft in the world. "best" can often mean best in that price range.
The T45 might be the best on offer for those that cant afford an Arleigh Burke, Aster might be better than any Standard missile that actually gets offered for export (I assume the latest anti missile tehnology will be protected?) and the vessels might be cheaper to run. Had the T45s been planned with three times the VLS tubes, with the full ASW suite etc then it possibly could claim to be better. It was as with all UK ships , not the definitive version as asked for by the navy but one delivered within the budget that the accountants would allow, I believe a naval source said, "its not the best we could get but we are getting 12"...only we arent!"
Its got new technologies and probably takes more risks in terms of powerplant and technolgy and likely meets RN needs rather than the original European projects.
In terms of naval systems I cant think of many that are combat proven. The last time a naval force came under sustained and determined air attack was the Falklands (so Sea Dart, Sea Wolf were proven to be able to work albeit with deficiencies, Sea Dart also shot down a missile in GW1) and possibly the Iraqi Navy patrol boats that were hammered predominately by air power.
I may be wrong but have any other naval SAM's achieved kills in the last 20 years? (other than an iranian passenger plane) Obliged if anyone can provide links. I think the US airpower shot down any iraqi aircraft long before they became a threat to vessels.Plenty of weapons are "proven" in trials and simulations.
Proven ship based assets are the TLAM's used succesfully in recent wars, the radar systems, ship based aircraft etc. It remains to be seen which destroyer is the best when missiles are flying about in real combat. BAE is just talking up its product which is expected when money is at stake, its no different to claims that the F35 will be the best aircraft in the world. "best" can often mean best in that price range.
The T45 might be the best on offer for those that cant afford an Arleigh Burke, Aster might be better than any Standard missile that actually gets offered for export (I assume the latest anti missile tehnology will be protected?) and the vessels might be cheaper to run. Had the T45s been planned with three times the VLS tubes, with the full ASW suite etc then it possibly could claim to be better. It was as with all UK ships , not the definitive version as asked for by the navy but one delivered within the budget that the accountants would allow, I believe a naval source said, "its not the best we could get but we are getting 12"...only we arent!"
Its got new technologies and probably takes more risks in terms of powerplant and technolgy and likely meets RN needs rather than the original European projects.
Super Nimrod
New Member
Personally I am against such claims. The Politicians only start to think along the lines of, "Oh if its that good, maybe you need a few less than we originally funded". 
I know that sort of thing certainly happens in industry, when we have a super new toy to play with :shudder . If you have something good, keep quiet about it until its fully delivered.
I think that the "We are so poor that the French, German, Spanish, Italian Japanese, Indian and Swiss navy's are better than us" mantra would be a far more successful approach for the RN nfloorl:
I know that sort of thing certainly happens in industry, when we have a super new toy to play with :shudder . If you have something good, keep quiet about it until its fully delivered.I think that the "We are so poor that the French, German, Spanish, Italian Japanese, Indian and Swiss
navy's are better than us" mantra would be a far more successful approach for the RN nfloorl:
Last edited: