The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
spsun100001, the amount of weapons and the potential of those weapons is depedent upon not only the weapon itself but the guidance system used for those weapons. There have been a few rumours problems with the new Aster/Sampson layout, well that is to be expected to be frank. It is a new system.
However let that make no mistake, the T-45 is not costing what it does for nothing. The Arliegh burke MIGHT be a more flexible platform however i doubt seriously if it could compete with the T-45 in AAW. Consider first of all that the most recent major AAW requirements where the Falklands. Who fought that? The British, they will have learnt lessons from that. Those lessons as well as the usual development and planning will have been a big part of the T-45. Its no good having 90+ SM2 sams if they cant engage a missile that is either too agile or too low. The Aster 15 and 30 are agile and SAMPSON radar is able to detect much lower targets i would hazard a guess.
I might complain that the T-45 cannot get the job done, but i am talking about the patrol and drugs/anti terrorist duties that it is stupid to being risked in. In AAW the T-45 is a capable and powerful platform. Just remember this, 150+ missiles are a waste if you get attacked by 40 missiles and only get off 80+. Id rather have two ships with even just 50 missiles to be honest.
As for fitted for but not with. I have begun to possibly change my mind. The harpoon, phalanx and 30 mm guns can all come off the T-42 (the 30mm guns might even get the upgrade the T-23 are getting
then) and things are then starting to look a bit better. I am assuming the torpedo tubes will be given as well. So why do this before, it cuts cost i suppose (spreads it out) but i think the reason is to get hulls in the water that we need. Perhaps the Navy has realised that and knowing it wont get extra budget for the C-3's its pushed the T-45's into service so they can do Blue water and carrier escort and free up other ships?
The main problem is if the Politicians will cut back on what the T-45 will get when the T-42's retire from active service. That and it WOULD be nice for the extra 16 Slyver 70 cells to be put in to allow more Asters, some LAMs or even development of an Aster 45 long range ABMS.
Don't criticise the ship. It was meant for 28 knots and got 31 knots comfortably and with impressive acceleration time. Its radar is doing well so to be honest it seems to be accounting for itself very well.
However let that make no mistake, the T-45 is not costing what it does for nothing. The Arliegh burke MIGHT be a more flexible platform however i doubt seriously if it could compete with the T-45 in AAW. Consider first of all that the most recent major AAW requirements where the Falklands. Who fought that? The British, they will have learnt lessons from that. Those lessons as well as the usual development and planning will have been a big part of the T-45. Its no good having 90+ SM2 sams if they cant engage a missile that is either too agile or too low. The Aster 15 and 30 are agile and SAMPSON radar is able to detect much lower targets i would hazard a guess.
I might complain that the T-45 cannot get the job done, but i am talking about the patrol and drugs/anti terrorist duties that it is stupid to being risked in. In AAW the T-45 is a capable and powerful platform. Just remember this, 150+ missiles are a waste if you get attacked by 40 missiles and only get off 80+. Id rather have two ships with even just 50 missiles to be honest.
As for fitted for but not with. I have begun to possibly change my mind. The harpoon, phalanx and 30 mm guns can all come off the T-42 (the 30mm guns might even get the upgrade the T-23 are getting
then) and things are then starting to look a bit better. I am assuming the torpedo tubes will be given as well. So why do this before, it cuts cost i suppose (spreads it out) but i think the reason is to get hulls in the water that we need. Perhaps the Navy has realised that and knowing it wont get extra budget for the C-3's its pushed the T-45's into service so they can do Blue water and carrier escort and free up other ships?The main problem is if the Politicians will cut back on what the T-45 will get when the T-42's retire from active service. That and it WOULD be nice for the extra 16 Slyver 70 cells to be put in to allow more Asters, some LAMs or even development of an Aster 45 long range ABMS.
Don't criticise the ship. It was meant for 28 knots and got 31 knots comfortably and with impressive acceleration time. Its radar is doing well so to be honest it seems to be accounting for itself very well.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The Radar Horizon of the T45 is much longer then that of the Burke class as the Radar is something like twice as high, this means that the ships is much more capable against sea skimming anti-ship missiles, as it has more time to engage them (twice the height=twice the time)spsun100001, the amount of weapons and the potential of those weapons is depedent upon not only the weapon itself but the guidance system used for those weapons. There have been a few rumours problems with the new Aster/Sampson layout, well that is to be expected to be frank. It is a new system.
However let that make no mistake, the T-45 is not costing what it does for nothing. The Arliegh burke MIGHT be a more flexible platform however i doubt seriously if it could compete with the T-45 in AAW. Consider first of all that the most recent major AAW requirements where the Falklands. Who fought that? The British, they will have learnt lessons from that. Those lessons as well as the usual development and planning will have been a big part of the T-45. Its no good having 90+ SM2 sams if they cant engage a missile that is either too agile or too low. The Aster 15 and 30 are agile and SAMPSON radar is able to detect much lower targets i would hazard a guess.
I might complain that the T-45 cannot get the job done, but i am talking about the patrol and drugs/anti terrorist duties that it is stupid to being risked in. In AAW the T-45 is a capable and powerful platform. Just remember this, 150+ missiles are a waste if you get attacked by 40 missiles and only get off 80+. Id rather have two ships with even just 50 missiles to be honest.
As for fitted for but not with. I have begun to possibly change my mind. The harpoon, phalanx and 30 mm guns can all come off the T-42 (the 30mm guns might even get the upgrade the T-23 are getting
The main problem is if the Politicians will cut back on what the T-45 will get when the T-42's retire from active service. That and it WOULD be nice for the extra 16 Slyver 70 cells to be put in to allow more Asters, some LAMs or even development of an Aster 45 long range ABMS.
Don't criticise the ship. It was meant for 28 knots and got 31 knots comfortably and with impressive acceleration time. Its radar is doing well so to be honest it seems to be accounting for itself very well.
Ur probably right about the Harpoon & Phalanx, as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread (round about post #1,000). The Guns are coming straight from the MSI Factory, & it's the T-23's that are being brought up to T-45 standard..As for fitted for but not with. I have begun to possibly change my mind. The harpoon, phalanx and 30 mm guns can all come off the T-42 (the 30mm guns might even get the upgrade the T-23 are getting
Mmm... I think the Torpedos can wait till a "service period", because of the work that will need done.
IPMD & FBNW are similar, but not the same. FBNW, means that it's just a case of getting the kit & fitting, as the cabling / services & seat / mount are all present. Great for a Falklands style, get the ship ready to fight ASAP, routine. Just rob it / take it from stores & fit it. Job done !
IPMD is basically space provision. Design calculations take into account that room will be required on cable runs, spare spaces & capability to absorb the extra load are "built in" to fuse panels, physical space is allocated to take equipment, but lots of work would still need done, so no quick fit / fix.
Too true ! ANYONE I've spoken to whose in the Navy, or been onboard the ship during her periods at sea, can't praise the ship enough.
It's technological advances in equipment, materials, manpower reduction, improved capability & cost effectiveness mean it's been the 1st time in decades that a "New ship" has been the talk of the town, rather than being ridiculed for barely being an improvement on the last "New" ship.
Even the US DoD have sent reps onboard for a guided tour, to see what's happening with it, as they're curious to see how it's done...
So...
Are we still putting all our eggs in 1 basket, or doing what we've learned to do best...
Get on with the tools we have & adapt them to do the job as we go along ??
SA
spsun100001
New Member
Type 45 points
Steve OJH: The point you made about the crew. If there's a difference of 125 crew at say an average oncosted rate of £30k per sailor and the ships have a 25 year life then that's an extra crew cost of around £100million per ship over the whole ship life or about £600 million for the total force. Given that the Arleigh Burke's would have been available earlier we would not have had to pay the upgrade for the Sea Dart and the refit costs for the Type 42's which we have incurred to keep them in service until the 45 is available. I'm prepared to bet that will be broadly cost neutral.
As to the active seeker on the ASTER, the US has just successfully test fired the SM6 which has an active seeker warhead adapted from the AMRAAM.
Brutoni/Swerve: You can't take the Harpoons from the Type 42 as they don't have any. They can use their Sea Dart against surface targets. ASTER cannot be used in this way. If we had bought the Arleigh Burke class we would not have needed a seperate SSM as the Standard missile can be used against surface targets.
Brutoni: No country forgets lessons learned in war quicker that the UK. If we'd learned the lessons of the Falklands we wouldn't have withdrawn the Royal Navy's air defence fighter capability.
Brutoni/Harry Ried: I'm sure the Type 45 propulsion system is wonderful. No doubt it would get to a flashpoint quicker than a US Arleigh Burke.
Once there the Type 45 could excercise sea control over other major surface vessels through it's embarked SSM system. Damn, forgot, it can't; it doesn't have one.
Never mind, it could strike strategic land targets if needed through it's land attack missiles, Damn, forgot, it can't; it doesn't have any.
Still, it can provide TBM cover to any surface units or land forces threatened by TBM's. Damn, silly me, can't do that either as its AAW missiles can't be used against the TBM threat and aren't being modified to permit that use.
At least it can use its helicopter to project power (when its single light helicopter is available).
Never mind though. It can wait for the arrival of a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke which can do all of those things for the same cost as well as having at least double the number of SAM's (or more depending on how many quad-packed ESSM's are embarked) and twice the number of helicopters.
Summary: I'm not saying the Type 45 is a useless AAW platform. I'm saying in an era of fewer and fewer hulls you can't have single role ships. That's why no other Navy is building AAW warships without some, most or all of these other capabilities. Capabilities we could have had years ago but didn't because we wanted to design "the best warship we can afford, not the best warship we can build". The Programme Directors words, not mine.
Steve OJH: The point you made about the crew. If there's a difference of 125 crew at say an average oncosted rate of £30k per sailor and the ships have a 25 year life then that's an extra crew cost of around £100million per ship over the whole ship life or about £600 million for the total force. Given that the Arleigh Burke's would have been available earlier we would not have had to pay the upgrade for the Sea Dart and the refit costs for the Type 42's which we have incurred to keep them in service until the 45 is available. I'm prepared to bet that will be broadly cost neutral.
As to the active seeker on the ASTER, the US has just successfully test fired the SM6 which has an active seeker warhead adapted from the AMRAAM.
Brutoni/Swerve: You can't take the Harpoons from the Type 42 as they don't have any. They can use their Sea Dart against surface targets. ASTER cannot be used in this way. If we had bought the Arleigh Burke class we would not have needed a seperate SSM as the Standard missile can be used against surface targets.
Brutoni: No country forgets lessons learned in war quicker that the UK. If we'd learned the lessons of the Falklands we wouldn't have withdrawn the Royal Navy's air defence fighter capability.
Brutoni/Harry Ried: I'm sure the Type 45 propulsion system is wonderful. No doubt it would get to a flashpoint quicker than a US Arleigh Burke.
Once there the Type 45 could excercise sea control over other major surface vessels through it's embarked SSM system. Damn, forgot, it can't; it doesn't have one.
Never mind, it could strike strategic land targets if needed through it's land attack missiles, Damn, forgot, it can't; it doesn't have any.
Still, it can provide TBM cover to any surface units or land forces threatened by TBM's. Damn, silly me, can't do that either as its AAW missiles can't be used against the TBM threat and aren't being modified to permit that use.
At least it can use its helicopter to project power (when its single light helicopter is available).
Never mind though. It can wait for the arrival of a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke which can do all of those things for the same cost as well as having at least double the number of SAM's (or more depending on how many quad-packed ESSM's are embarked) and twice the number of helicopters.
Summary: I'm not saying the Type 45 is a useless AAW platform. I'm saying in an era of fewer and fewer hulls you can't have single role ships. That's why no other Navy is building AAW warships without some, most or all of these other capabilities. Capabilities we could have had years ago but didn't because we wanted to design "the best warship we can afford, not the best warship we can build". The Programme Directors words, not mine.
kev 99
Member
An Arleighh Burke Flight 2A has 380 crew, thats double a T45, so your cost savings are a little out, then there is of course the difficulty of finding the crew, RN is struggling at the moment least it needs to do is adopt an Escort that requires more crew than present T42s.
Propulsion isn't just about how quick the vessel is its about how economical it is, in Darings recent sea trials it used a third of the fuel of a T42 even though its a third larger, running costs are important for RN they don't have the limitless budget of the US Navy.
Then there is cost; T45s do not cost £1b, the total cost of the programme for 6 destroyers was a little over £6b including development costs, the actual unit cost was only £650m that would of come down if we'd of built more. Cost for a Burke is $2b, plus of course if you want ABM thats extra, it doesn't come as standard, then there is the cost of filling those 96 vls, that won't exactly be cheap.
Personally I don't have a problem with T45, sure there's a few extra weapon systems I'd like it to have, I think leaving SSM's off is a bit daft but they can be added if needed, land attack missiles would be nice to. It does have a really tasty radar system though and it has missiles that if work as advertised should be just about as good as anything out there, which means it will be plenty good at what it was designed for.
Propulsion isn't just about how quick the vessel is its about how economical it is, in Darings recent sea trials it used a third of the fuel of a T42 even though its a third larger, running costs are important for RN they don't have the limitless budget of the US Navy.
Then there is cost; T45s do not cost £1b, the total cost of the programme for 6 destroyers was a little over £6b including development costs, the actual unit cost was only £650m that would of come down if we'd of built more. Cost for a Burke is $2b, plus of course if you want ABM thats extra, it doesn't come as standard, then there is the cost of filling those 96 vls, that won't exactly be cheap.
Personally I don't have a problem with T45, sure there's a few extra weapon systems I'd like it to have, I think leaving SSM's off is a bit daft but they can be added if needed, land attack missiles would be nice to. It does have a really tasty radar system though and it has missiles that if work as advertised should be just about as good as anything out there, which means it will be plenty good at what it was designed for.
why do they need SSM missiles if their job is to protect the ARG or CBG. thats its main focus everything else is secondary. Im much happier with Fitted for but not with compared with chopping 40 feet off the ship to afford all these extra wizz bangs which was done with the T-42.
the SM-6 still isn't in service ASTER is and that still doesn't stop ASTER being Mach 2 faster than the SM-2/3/6. As you no speed is life and the faster missile has the better chance of stopping missiles/planes
the SM-6 still isn't in service ASTER is and that still doesn't stop ASTER being Mach 2 faster than the SM-2/3/6. As you no speed is life and the faster missile has the better chance of stopping missiles/planes
spsun100001
New Member
I'll take your word on crew numbers. I'm still prepared to bet though that the whole life cost is broadly the same when the cost of the Sea Dart upgrade and refits are taken into account that have been needed whilst the Type 45 was in development.
Given the choice was between designing and building the the Type 45 which required us to incur the development costs and buying the Arleigh Burke design where they had already been incurred then it's a perfectly accurate comparison of a £1 billion Type 45 to a $2 billion Arleigh Burke.
The £1 billion for the Type 45 which I quoted includes missile costs as I'm assuming does the $2 billion for the Arliegh Burke.
I'm not going to contradict you on the tasty air defence radar or the low running costs (though there was no evidential comparison quoted on fuel ecomony between a type 45 and the AB as your comparison was to the Type 42).
I come back again though to asking what use is a warship on Armilla patrol if Iran kicked off which has no land attack capability to strike shore based offensive assets (SSM sites, airbases, radar stations, naval installations etc.), which cannot establish a zone of sea control from major warships as it has no SSM capability, has no TBM defensive capability and which has limited ASW capability as it has only one small helicopter with no dipping sonar.
The Iranians aren't going to wait until the Type 45 returns to Portsmouth to have those capabilities fitted (though you can't make it TBM capable in any event). Fortunately the Type 45 will probably be in the presence of US equipped ships which have those capabilities which are fitted for and with the required range of capabilities.
Real threats exist now in the operating environment into which the Type 45 will need to deploy for which they are not equipped to deal. We could have had a ship equipped to deal with them already in service for less cost.
spsun100001
New Member
Aster isn't in service yet unless we've actually accepted Daring into operational service which we haven't. Standard is in service on in excess of 150 warships worldwide and Standard is being developed to be TBM capable whereas ASTER isn't.
As to SSM's see my previous post about the Armilla patrol. I can think of fewer more stupid things than a £1 billion warship whose numbers will constitute about 25% of our total surface fleet that can't effectively undertake the most important operational deployment the Navy is required to make.
kev 99
Member
Cost of T45 verses AB isn't an accurate comparison because the cost of AB is due to economies of scale derived from a long production run which ours would not have, unless of course they were built in the US, unit cost of £650m for a T45 should be expected to come down with additional builds as was expected when they were designed.
I'm almost positive that the Costs for either ship don't include missiles since missile loads for an AB won't necessarily be standard across the board, I don't know this for certain and public domain information is of course limited but I would be very surprised if loadouts for Tomahawk in particular were not mission dependent.
Your example of the Armilla patrol is a relevant example of why I personally would like SSMs on board, MOD have stated that T45s will have other roles apart from escorting carrier and amphib groups. I don't agree with the land attack option though, I'm convinced that any cruise missile launched by a single RN vessel in the gulf against Iranian land targets would result in that vessel getting stomped on pretty quick by a joint attack from aircraft, SSKs, small boats and land based missile batteries.
Your costs analysis of crew is a valid point but you haven't addressed the problem of where the extra crew are going to come from when the RN is already struggling in that respect.
The fuel economy of T45 during sea trails was actually a third of that of a T42 and a T23, T23s came in at a similar period as the first AB (commissioned 90 and 91) and have half the displacement so I would suspect that its a safe bet T45 would cost significantly less to run than an AB as well.
Last edited:
pray do say when the last time an SSM was fired in anger im talking about the ship based harpoons and formally exocet missiles. the only anti ship based missiles fired in anger have been sea skua from lynx's on has it happens the Armilla patrol in 1991 gulf war. I think that these are at present not needed on the T-45 the helo is far more useful. If were talking drugs and piracy Harpoons are overkill. While dealing with Iran Sea Skua is far more useful and put the fast attack boats further away from ships. Haven't you notists that the RN doesn't mount SSM on its destroyers.
spsun100001 Why in gawds name would put a an anti air destroyer on NGFS it should at most if required for land attack launch cruise missiles but thats all thats miss using resources that task is for a C1/C2 or T23/T22.
you seem to be expecting RN to use its T-45 like an AB which doesn't reflect the different cultures of the two navies. the AB is multi perepous because there are only really AB as escorts[the Perry's don't count as they have been nurtured with only 3in gun and Phalanx] and Ticonderoga class cruiser so they need the other requirements of land attack and ASW/ASuW because apart from Tico they are the escorts as well as the single ship ops.
ASTER not service thats a straw man its in service with French/italian Saudi and Singaporean navy's its as in service as Standards. TBM is still a future upgrade path which the French are keen on.
Have you seen the inflation of warship prices these days 650 million to a billion is a very good deal and comparable to other ships of this class. in 1997 a flight 1 AB $900 million for a ship without a helo hanger. Sterling also pushes up the price compared with countries with a weaker currency
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Not to mention of course that the Burkes are probably poor ASW escorts compared to say a T23 due to their primary role being that of AAW. However due to being "multipurpose" on paper, buying those ships would probably mean a smaller force of ASW ships as well due to the treasury claiming they can do the job of the T23.
The only difference between the Aster 15 and Aster 30 is the size of the booster,they are the same missile, they are designed with ABM work in mind, probably just need a booster that is larger again.
I hope by E. Europe you really meant to say South E. Europe because I wouldn't want to build in Poland, Romaina or the Baltic States, and Russia would be out of the question. Croatia would be the best place in (low cost) Europe with cheapish yards that have the ability to build complicated vessels.
The other advantage is that Odense has a huge sick leave problem whereas the E. Europen yards don't. Even paying the workers at Odense an extra 5 kroner per hour to be at work hasn't stopped workers taking advantage of the generous sick leave entitlements that the Danish give out.
That would be A&P Group they have facilities in Tyne, Teeside and Falmouth.
spsun100001
New Member
Thank you for misrepresenting almost every point which I made. You're free to pass your opinions like anyone else but if you're going to comment on mine then the courtesy to read them and not misrepresent them would be much appreciated.
I never painted a scenario where ships were firing off SSM's at each other. I made the point that a warship exercises sea control around itself from other vessels through it's SSM's.
I also pointed out the importance of SSM's in the context of sea control from other major warships. I fully accept Sea Skua is the ideal system for use against small targets. However, it is not intended to be used against major units as it requires targetting from the helicopter which would put the helicopter in range of that units AAW systems.
And although you misrepresented me by asking about SSM engagements (then for some reason quoted an ASM engagement) for the record, I'll answer your question. In operation Praying Mantis in 1988 the Iranian Navy attacked US warships in the Gulf which had bombarded Iranian oil platforms in response to Iran's attacks on neutral tanker shipping.
Iranian Frigates and FAC's attacked the USS Wainwright Surface Action Group firing at least one Harpoon SSM at them. The USS Wainwright fired two Standards SAM's at the Iranians (unlike Aster the Standard can be used against surface targets), USS Simpson fired four Standard SAM's and USS Bagley fired a Harpoon SSM.
You also comment that the RN does not mount SSM's on its destroyers. Again, if you'd read my post you'd have seen that I made the point that Sea Dart (like Standard) can be used against surface targets. The Type 42 does therefore have an SSM capability through the dual role of Sea Dart. The Type 45 does not.
You also raised NGS. I never mentioned that. I referred to a land attack capability through Tactical Tomohawk which the Arleigh Burkes and soon the Spanish F100 AAW destroyers will have. For the record though, I understand that Type 42 destroyers were involved in providing NGS in the Falklands.
Your point that the AB's are ony multi-purpose due to the limited capabilities of the Perry's is incorrect. When the AB's entered service the Perry's still retained their full range of capabilities and these have only been decomissioned relatively recently.
I also never suggested we should buy the Flight I or Flight II ships which have no helicopter. Again, if you read my post you'll see I have only referred to the Flight IIA ships which carry two medium sized helicopters.
I disagree about using the 45 a different way. The Type 42's have undertaken the Armilla patrol. That is the single most important operational deployment for escorts in the Navy. The Type 45 will represent 25% of the Navy's escort fleet and is the most expensive warship in our inventory. I would therefore fully expect it to be able to perform the Armilla role but the capability gaps it has (for example having a poorer ASuW capability that the Type 42 it replaces), no land attack capability, no TBM capability and a small helicopter inhibit it's usefulness and increase the risk in deploying it on that mission.
I was also informed by Commodore Greenish, previously the Programme Director (who I quoted earlier as saying this was the best ship we could afford not the best ship we could build) that we would not be providing a TBM capability for Aster. He did not state whether that was for technical reasons, cost reasons or both.
I have no problem with some folks saying that for their £1 billion a ship they'd prefer the lower crew, more efficient propulsion and (arguably) more efficient AAW radar on the Type 45. I disagree with then as I'd rather my £1 billion provided me with a ship with at least twice the number of SAM's, a SAM system that can be used in the SSM mode to eastablish sea control, two medium helicopters, a land attack capability through Tactical Tomohawk and potential TBMD capability, but there is at least a logic to their argument.
The argument that we don't have things like SSM's because we don't need them is laughable though. You can't have single role platforms in a shrinking fleet. Those capabilities were on the orginal design but were deleted as costs rose. They were taken off because we didn't have the money for them not because the American, French, Italian, Spanish, Australian, Dutch, German, Japanese, Korean, Russian and Chinese Navies were all blundering idiots when they put that capability on their AAW destroyers and only the Royal Navy can see the error of their ways.
The Type 45 doesn't have these capabilities because we couldn't afford them and it's a very much poorer ship as a consequence.
...After a quick trawl of the net, here's an update of the UK Shipyard picture...
A & P
Facilities on the River Tyne, the River Tees, in Hull, at Chatham (assuming that's the old RN dockyard facilities), at Southampton & Falmouth
http://www.ap-group.co.uk/APGroup/APLocations.html
Northwestern Shiprepairers
Facilities are mainly on the Mersey, utilising some of Cammell Laird's old site (??). They have recently been awarded a large portion of the "Support Cluster" work for the RFA Fleet of Support ships & Oilers.
http://www.nsluk.net/cln/home.php
Babcock Marine
Facilities at Rosyth on the River Fourth, HM Naval Base Clyde & Devonport Royal Dockyard (In Plymouth). According to their Location Map, they also have some dealings with the old Appledore facilities too.
http://www.babcock.co.uk/opco/marine/index.php
BAE Systems / BVT Surface Fleet
BVT Surface Fleet as the new joint venture has been called, has shipyards in Glasgow (x2) & Portsmouth (where VT are / where based). There is also the Inchgreen Drydock facility, which is currently leased to BAE from the Clyde Port authority & which has subsequently been leased out by them to AMEC to construct the floating dry dock facilities for the Astute submarines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems#UK
NOTE : If you go halfway down this page (below the HERITAGE Section), there is a drop down "map" of the Shipbuilding Companies in the UK, from 1960 - 2007.
On the River Clyde there is also Ferguson's Shipbuilders, which while originally being an "independent yard, it has in it's history been part of the British Shipbuilder Corporation, the McCrindle group, the Appledore group & the Alisa group, somehow managing to outlive all these partnerships after they went "belly up / folded / dissolved". The yard is still classed as "active", although there is a very limited number of staff still present (less than 100) & no ship construction work on the books at the moment.
Harland & Wolf (in Northern Ireland) & Swan Hunter (on the Tyne) have, like so many construction facilities, fell victim to the lack of work / mis-management by the UK Govt & the lack of management control within the company, respectively.
Hopefully I've covered most of the larger facilities who could construct vessels larger than an 85M OPV. I do realise that there are still many thriving boat yards across the country, but wrt Naval construction, I'm sorry, you don't count !
SA
PS Please feel free to correct errors/ add to my comments !
The T-45 never had Harpoons in the first place. Why increase the costs of the ship you are buying when you already have many of the weapons you plan to fit to the ship already on inventory. As far as i'm aware Harpoon is the only one of these weapons where they have annouced they have no plans to fit it. As Phalanx and the Torp Tubes are already owned by the RN you can bet they will fit them as soon as possible.
Lets have a look at the other two capabilities you say the Darings lack in, ABM and TLAM. On the ABM front, I would point that as Ballistic missiles cannot be used against ships, then it would be pointless to fit it the T-45 if we are already building/have land based capabilities for ABM defence, including this European Missile shield they plan to build and Fylingdales.
On the TLAM front you have overlooked the fact that the RN likes to fire its Tomahawks from the safety of its Subs, rather than from a large visible surface ship (read surface target).
We are also overlooking the fact that the Darings are AAW destroyers, not multipuropse destroyers. Anything extra that it can do is only a bonus. Maybe a better debate would be whether the RN is right to continue building these specialised ships when budgets are only getting smaller, rather than arguing over a ship where the RN knew what it was getting and is so far happy with it?
spsun100001
New Member
The originally published images of the Type 45 showed it with SSM's:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/daring3.htm
I did make the point about specialised ships being inappropriate in shrinking fleets (in fact it's one of my main points)
Tactical Tomohawk has a range of over 800 miles so you aren't risking your Type 45 by using it with that weapon and Tomohawk has been used successfully from US surface warships many times none of which were sunk in the process.
The point of TBMD is to defend land based units against attack by TBM's (that's what the US is developing it for). Royal Marines on a beachead in the Middle East aren't helped much by Fylingdales.
I believe they have said the torpedo tubes will never be carrried (they are already available from de-comissioned Type 42's).
I don't believe anything has officially been said about Phalanx but I do know we have deployed several Phalanx units to protect our base in Basra which in fairness does make sense given that's a real threat now.
Capabilities such as SSM on an AAW destroyer are not a bonus. I listed a whole host of Navies that have those capabilities on their AAW vessels and I named an operational deployment the Type 45 will need to make where there is more risk to the ship and limitation on its effectiveness as a result of not having them.
As Kev 99 said, £1 billion includes design & development, spread over 6 ships. Build more, & the unit price comes down. Also, if you incorporate Type 45 technology (e.g. the UK part of PAAMS, the propulsion system, etc.) into other classes of ship, you're spreading that development cost over more platforms, which could either be taken as reducing the unit cost of Type 45s, or saving money of development of other classes.
Or we could just give up weapons development & buy whatever the Americans will permit us to buy, accepting that we're a client state which has to do as it's told.
Last edited: