HMS Dauntless Commissioning

#2
It will be rather embarrassing if they moor USS Winston S Churchill next to HMS Dauntless. It will bring the almost complete lack of weaponry on the Type 45 Destroyers into very stark relief.
 
#3
Normong_Gruntham said:
It will be rather embarrassing if they moor USS Winston S Churchill next to HMS Dauntless. It will bring the almost complete lack of weaponry on the Type 45 Destroyers into very stark relief.
Have you forgotten this so quickly?

Re: Express: "HMS Daring Ruler Of The Waves"
WhizzbangDai said:
Normong_Gruntham said:
WhizzbangDai said:
Normong, you are Lewis Page and I claim my £5

Stand by for another 10 pages of is the T45 is a good warship or not. 3, 2, 1....GO
Would you care to compare the 'impressive' weapons fit of 'The Ruler of the Waves' with comparable vessels such as the US Navy's Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers of the Spanish Armadas Ãlvaro de Bazán Class Frigates?
<snip>

The Arleigh Burke is a slightly more powerful ship i'll admit, but not really massively different - it has more engines, which is a nice redundancy, but would run out of fuel around 2600nm before a T45. They need a bigger crew (not good for the RN), and because its an SM2/ESSM + AGEIS fit, again it will struggle against the same SSM/ASM's that the Spanish ship would struggle against - which the T45 CAN knock down. Plus the T45's LRR is more powerful. I will admit it has more missiles, and the SM3's anti ballistic missile ability is something we lack (until Aster45 comes along) but they (The ships, not the missiles.... well, both, really) have been around for ages and have grown, whereas the T45 is a new build with loads of life and through life room to grow.

In short, the T45 is exactly what i'd choose anyway. And you ARE Lewis Page, now go away nobody here likes you.
Please change the record; it's getting extremely tedious, not least in its lack of imagination and insight. USS Winston S. Churchill is an Arleigh Burke for which the US Navy initiated design studies in 1980 (i.e. 30 years ago) and the first ship was commissioned in 1991. The Type 45 is a completely new generation and, like the Arleigh Burke, will achieve its potential in time. Unlike the Arleigh Burke, it has the built-in flexibility and space to do so, after which it will have 30+ years of operational life ahead of it.

Incidentally, I doubt that either ship will moor. They are much more likely to berth alongside. If this happens, the 21st century lines of Dauntless will contrast starkly with Winston S. Churchill's older and more cluttered design.
 
#4
I'm sure in the minds of the people at Abbey Wood, the Type 45 Destroyer is a world beating warship with a world beating missile system.

Just like the County Class and Sea Slug were 'world beating' and the Type 42 and Sea Dart were 'world beating', or not as the case turned out.

Much is made of the ability for the Type 45 to 'grow', but the harsh reality is, like all Royal Navy warships of the last fifty years, they will see no significant upgrade of their weapons fit during their lifetime and will always promise much, and deliver little at great cost.
 
#5
Normong_Gruntham said:
I'm sure in the minds of the people at Abbey Wood, the Type 45 Destroyer is a world beating warship with a world beating missile system.

Just like the County Class and Sea Slug were 'world beating' and the Type 42 and Sea Dart were 'world beating', or not as the case turned out.

Much is made of the ability for the Type 45 to 'grow', but the harsh reality is, like all Royal Navy warships of the last fifty years, they will see no significant upgrade of their weapons fit during their lifetime and will always promise much, and deliver little at great cost.
So, no significant development of the carriers since the 'through-deck cruiser' HMS Invincible first put to sea in 1980 - have you looked at one recently?

And no difference between a Batch 1 and a Batch 3 T42? (Incidentally, I was embarked in Gloucester when her Sea Dart took out the Silkworm in the Gulf. Funny how often our platforms and systems have actually been proven in battle compared to others for which some people continue to make exaggerated claims).

Or between a Batch 1 and a Batch 3 T22?

Or between the basic T23 (remember the initial AIO, or rather the lack of it?) and the T23s stooging around today?

Or between a Hunt Class minehunter with 193 sonar, CAAIS, RCMDS and WWII vintage Bofors 40/60 and today's Hunt fitted with 2193 wideband sonar, NAUTIS 3, Seafox, Emerson Lec 30mm and Mk 44 miniguns?

Where exactly have you been all this time?
 
#9
Having visited her whilst she was in North Shields recently I have to say I was most impressed with what I saw. If I were still serving now, I'd want a draft to one of the new Type 45s for sure.
 
#10
Naval_Gazer said:
So, no significant development of the carriers since the 'through-deck cruiser' HMS Invincible first put to sea in 1980 - have you looked at one recently?

'THrough deck cruiser', yes, a toy make believe aircraft carrier. They are still what they are, too small and no longer carry any fighters. THey were relatively useless in 1989, they are effectively useless now.



Naval_Gazer said:
And no difference between a Batch 1 and a Batch 3 T42? (Incidentally, I was embarked in Gloucester when her Sea Dart took out the Silkworm in the Gulf. Funny how often our platforms and systems have actually been proven in battle compared to others for which some people continue to make exaggerated claims).
Batch 1 and Batch 3? Still the same weapons fit except for the belated fitting of a CWIS, and even that caused topweight issues on what was, and still is, a very poor design. SHooting down a Silkworm? Hardly a test of the system, I should hop it would have been able to hit a Silkworm, a very old and now obsolete anti ship missile the size of an airplane and nothing like a sea skimmer.


Naval_Gazer said:
Or between a Batch 1 and a Batch 3 T22?

DId they upgrade the weapons fit on the utterly pointless Batch 1 and 2? No? I rest my case.


Naval_Gazer said:
Or between the basic T23 (remember the initial AIO, or rather the lack of it?) and the T23s stooging around today?

Still the same basic weapons fit. A decidedly short range SAM and a too small gun.


Naval_Gazer said:
Or between a Hunt Class minehunter with 193 sonar, CAAIS, RCMDS and WWII vintage Bofors 40/60 and today's Hunt fitted with 2193 wideband sonar, NAUTIS 3, Seafox, Emerson Lec 30mm and Mk 44 miniguns?

Changing the 40mm bofors gun for a 30mm gun is a major upgrade? And Mk44 miniguns? You are seriously calling this a significant upgrade?
 
#11
Normong_Gruntham said:
Naval_Gazer said:
And no difference between a Batch 1 and a Batch 3 T42? (Incidentally, I was embarked in Gloucester when her Sea Dart took out the Silkworm in the Gulf. Funny how often our platforms and systems have actually been proven in battle compared to others for which some people continue to make exaggerated claims).
Batch 1 and Batch 3? Still the same weapons fit except for the belated fitting of a CWIS, and even that caused topweight issues on what was, and still is, a very poor design. SHooting down a Silkworm? Hardly a test of the system, I should hop it would have been able to hit a Silkworm, a very old and now obsolete anti ship missile the size of an airplane and nothing like a sea skimmer.
Having served as a DHP rating on both a batch 1 and a batch 2 type 42, I can confidently state that the Hobart on a batch 2 is considerably better than the one fitted to a batch 1 so there.
 
#12
[quote="Normong_Gruntham]DId they upgrade the weapons fit on the utterly pointless Batch 1 and 2? No? I rest my case.


Still the same basic weapons fit. A decidedly short range SAM and a too small gun.

[/quote]

What was utterly pointless about the batch 1 and 2 T22? :?:

They were designed to carry out a specific role.

As for the T23 having the same basic weapons fit.
Really?
There has been no upgrades at all during the refitting of the T23's. 8O
Are you sure?
 
#13
Normong_Gruntham said:
Naval_Gazer said:
So, no significant development of the carriers since the 'through-deck cruiser' HMS Invincible first put to sea in 1980 - have you looked at one recently?

'THrough deck cruiser', yes, a toy make believe aircraft carrier. They are still what they are, too small and no longer carry any fighters. THey were relatively useless in 1989, they are effectively useless now.



Naval_Gazer said:
And no difference between a Batch 1 and a Batch 3 T42? (Incidentally, I was embarked in Gloucester when her Sea Dart took out the Silkworm in the Gulf. Funny how often our platforms and systems have actually been proven in battle compared to others for which some people continue to make exaggerated claims).
Batch 1 and Batch 3? Still the same weapons fit except for the belated fitting of a CWIS, and even that caused topweight issues on what was, and still is, a very poor design. SHooting down a Silkworm? Hardly a test of the system, I should hop it would have been able to hit a Silkworm, a very old and now obsolete anti ship missile the size of an airplane and nothing like a sea skimmer.


Naval_Gazer said:
Or between a Batch 1 and a Batch 3 T22?

DId they upgrade the weapons fit on the utterly pointless Batch 1 and 2? No? I rest my case.


Naval_Gazer said:
Or between the basic T23 (remember the initial AIO, or rather the lack of it?) and the T23s stooging around today?

Still the same basic weapons fit. A decidedly short range SAM and a too small gun.


Naval_Gazer said:
Or between a Hunt Class minehunter with 193 sonar, CAAIS, RCMDS and WWII vintage Bofors 40/60 and today's Hunt fitted with 2193 wideband sonar, NAUTIS 3, Seafox, Emerson Lec 30mm and Mk 44 miniguns?

Changing the 40mm bofors gun for a 30mm gun is a major upgrade? And Mk44 miniguns? You are seriously calling this a significant upgrade?
You really are a complete mong. Since when has a minehunter been in real need of major weapons to defend itself. You obviously undestand sod all about the RN, so why don't you just go and stick that dildo you own up your arse and moan a bit more you total Gerber.
 

Guns

War Hero
Moderator
#14
And there are too many Lt Cdr's on the new T45. We could have gotten away with more Lt MCDOs cos they is the best.
 
#16
MCDO, we had one of those on the Abdiel namely Timothy Trounson, he often returned from the depths with a good bag of scallops, lightly sauteed in butter they are far superior to pussers snorkers.
 
#17
Tim Trounson was also plank-holding CO of HMS Wilton, the world's first GRP warship. He's still going strong after a second career in the commercial diving world although he obtains his scallies from the fishmonger these days.
 
#18
Naval_Gazer said:
Tim Trounson was also plank-holding CO of HMS Wilton, the world's first GRP warship. He's still going strong after a second career in the commercial diving world although he obtains his scallies from the fishmonger these days.
Good on him, he must be a good age as I am no spring chicken. :)
 
#19
WhiteRose said:
Guns said:
And there are too many Lt Cdr's on the new T45. We could have gotten away with more Lt MCDOs cos they is the best.
Gotten? Gotten? We could have "got" away. Bloody Americanism!
In pedantic mode, when I was at school one was not allowed to use the word "Got" as it was then deemed slang.

I haven't got a pen.
I have no pen.

I got it for my Birthday.
I had this for my birthday.

Pedantic mode off....have you got what I mean. :D :D :wink:

And back on thread, Dauntless was for "girls" :wink:
 

WhiteRose

Lantern Swinger
#20
Rumrat said:
WhiteRose said:
Guns said:
And there are too many Lt Cdr's on the new T45. We could have gotten away with more Lt MCDOs cos they is the best.
Gotten? Gotten? We could have "got" away. Bloody Americanism!
In pedantic mode, when I was at school one was not allowed to use the word "Got" as it was then deemed slang.

I haven't got a pen.
I have no pen.

I got it for my Birthday.
I had this for my birthday.

Pedantic mode off....have you got what I mean. :D :D :wink:

And back on thread, Dauntless was for "girls" :wink:
Ah yes, my English teacher would have agreed. "Got" (and indeed "get" and "getting") was lazy and unimaginative.

Any journalist would know that too... ;)