T45 - TOOTHLESS TIGER OR MAJOR HARDCORE WARSHIP??

DingDong

Lantern Swinger
To all who frequent these hallowed pages: Has anyone here been part of the development of the Type 45?

What would you say about the class, is it under armed or is it about right.

I have a preconcieved idea, however i'm having to do a small presentation about it and wandered you would forward some comments
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
Not been part of the design team on the ship, but have had to deal with the IPT & PCO from time to time. It's probably fair to say the following...

1. The AAW system should be the absolute mutts nuts in terms of performance. But - we should have bought the industry standard VLS (with the potential for a number of sensible weapons already integrated) and maintaining the SAMPSON will be a challenge. Why anyone would think that adding a rotating mechanical element to a radar that could be fixed (as SPY1 & EMPAR are) is beyond me.

2. Operating a 16 te helicopter (on the rare occassions it embarks) without a handling system is just barking.......I know it's going to mainly work with Lynx, but really. BTW the official line is that motions are so benign, it won't need a handling system - 16 tonnes of aircraft have a motion all of their own!

3. The ME fit is a disaster waiting to happen - and all because Buff bowed to pressure from Rolly's and mandated WR21. We now have a ship with unreliable, complex cycle turbines, backed up with 2 very small diesels that are no longer manufactured by wartsila. If RR sell more than a dozen WR21 I'll be astonished.

4. She could probably do with more weatherdeck. The RAS position is actually very good (except for ammo). Operating those Pacifics out of the funny little boat bay above the tumblehome will be interesting though.

5. Could have been worse - it could have been a modified 23!
 

Prochnow

Midshipman
The following is an interesting read on the 45...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/06/ams_goes_windows_for_warships/

Being in the RNR my day job is IT support. I do have an overly nerdy interest in the 45s Command Operating systems. I think I can say with some conviction (12 years and a degree in information systems) that anyone with any ounce if IT support knowladge knows UNIX is far superior than any MS operating system in terms of performance, reliability, security and robustness. So regardless of what any "independent survey" says I'm frankly gob smacked that the RN would allow the Command Operating System to be Windows based.

Quoted in the above URL “Anyone with elementary knowledge of computer science can see that Microsoft Windows, as described here by Gates, is inherently insecure by design.†is – for me at least – fascinating.
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
Prochnow said:
The following is an interesting read on the 45...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/06/ams_goes_windows_for_warships/

Being in the RNR my day job is IT support. I do have an overly nerdy interest in the 45s Command Operating systems. I think I can say with some conviction (12 years and a degree in information systems) that anyone with any ounce if IT support knowladge knows UNIX is far superior than any MS operating system in terms of performance, reliability, security and robustness. So regardless of what any "independent survey" says I'm frankly gob smacked that the RN would allow the Command Operating System to be Windows based.

As a professional safety engineer (not health and safety, but making sure things work correctly and safely) I don't have any pre-conceived reservations about which OS should or should not be used; however as a professional safety engineer I would expect to see a reasoned argued justification, in the form of a safety case, that failures within the OS cannot and do not affect safety (or functionality, reliability, availability or any other "-ility"). Sadly, from first hand experience of working with the developer, I don't think such an argument will be presented - it will more likely be "here it is - take it or leave it!".

Looking slightly deeper into the "why" of the switch; from reading the article, it appears that the drive to Windows has not been driven by technical requirements arising from the designers and/or customers, but is instead a result of AMS' (now BAeSystems) use of a sub-contract IT department's desire to remove all things "non-Windows". FFS, since when did design decisions get taken by sub-contract service suppliers?

This decision reflects two major problems with today's defence engineering approach:

1. There is a major ignorance within MessyBeast's organisation about the distinction between the systems that it is producing to supply to its customers and its own internal IT systems - while it may be reasonable to mandate MS for the latter on grounds of commercial efficiency, such restrictions must not be applied to the former without the consent of the design authorities.

2. With the virtual monopoly that MessyBeast has created for itself, I doubt whether the DPA has the necessary power, nor indeed the motivation, to insist that a sound engineering decision is instead of deferring to a commercial decision taken by a sub-contractor.


Prochnow said:
Quoted in the above URL “Anyone with elementary knowledge of computer science can see that Microsoft Windows, as described here by Gates, is inherently insecure by design.†is – for me at least – fascinating.

Security is not my concern, I'm more worried, nay scared, of the fundamental non-determinism of Windows (i.e. no-one, not even the MS designers, can predict with certainty what it will do) and as such it should not be allowed to be used within any system interfacing with a weapons system, especially not when such a system could support autonomous engagment.
 

SailbadTheSinner

Lantern Swinger
FlagWagger said:
Security is not my concern, I'm more worried, nay scared, of the fundamental non-determinism of Windows (i.e. no-one, not even the MS designers, can predict with certainty what it will do) and as such it should not be allowed to be used within any system interfacing with a weapons system, especially not when such a system could support autonomous engagment.

The ship will have to be covered by a safety case and the software will have to attain the appropriate SIL level

Nothing to see, move along
 
D

Deleted 493

Guest
Streaky said:
When Windows goes wrong, will the phone call to the support department be charged at national rates, or premium?

And, should a fault develop in the weapons IT package, will it take the remaining Platform Management System with it (assuming the two are compatible, interfaced and indeed, on the same version level.)

Levers
 

SailbadTheSinner

Lantern Swinger
Not_a_boffin said:
Not been part of the design team on the ship, but have had to deal with the IPT & PCO from time to time. It's probably fair to say the following...

1. The AAW system should be the absolute mutts nuts in terms of performance. But - we should have bought the industry standard VLS (with the potential for a number of sensible weapons already integrated) and maintaining the SAMPSON will be a challenge. Why anyone would think that adding a rotating mechanical element to a radar that could be fixed (as SPY1 & EMPAR are) is beyond me.

2. Operating a 16 te helicopter (on the rare occassions it embarks) without a handling system is just barking.......I know it's going to mainly work with Lynx, but really. BTW the official line is that motions are so benign, it won't need a handling system - 16 tonnes of aircraft have a motion all of their own!

3. The ME fit is a disaster waiting to happen - and all because Buff bowed to pressure from Rolly's and mandated WR21. We now have a ship with unreliable, complex cycle turbines, backed up with 2 very small diesels that are no longer manufactured by wartsila. If RR sell more than a dozen WR21 I'll be astonished.

4. She could probably do with more weatherdeck. The RAS position is actually very good (except for ammo). Operating those Pacifics out of the funny little boat bay above the tumblehome will be interesting though.

5. Could have been worse - it could have been a modified 23!

1. The design is lighter than radars such as SPY-1, allowing the radar to be higher, and extending the radar horizon. Note EMPAR also rotates

2. I was on the T45 IPT when this was being discussed. As I recall there was no handling system available at the time for Merlin other than PRISM - and that was deleted to save money

3. The engine competition was a joke. On paper WR21 should be excellent, we'll see....

4. RAS was carefully thought through - as were the replenishment routes
Ammo for the 4.5 has to go forward due to the superstructure shape. I doubt if they'll have to RAS 4.5 that often though. The boat bays are actually a lot larger than you might think - if I recall they can take 40ft boats. The handling gear was planned to be a combined davit/crane which should be safe and quick. Weatherdecks are bad for RCS - that is why there are hardly any.

5. No argument there! There is a fair amount of pullthrough from Type 23 - for example the command system.
 

SailbadTheSinner

Lantern Swinger
Levers_Aligned said:
Streaky said:
When Windows goes wrong, will the phone call to the support department be charged at national rates, or premium?

And, should a fault develop in the weapons IT package, will it take the remaining Platform Management System with it (assuming the two are compatible, interfaced and indeed, on the same version level.)

Levers

IIRC PMS is separate from the command system and they are not interfaced (security accreditation)
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
SailbadTheSinner said:
The ship will have to be covered by a safety case and the software will have to attain the appropriate SIL level

All pigs fed and ready to fly! SIL (the level is unnecessary by the way) is a target that defines how well the software will need to be written, it is not a number that can be applied retrospectively. If Windows has been pre-selected then any determination of SIL will be nugatory.
 

Latest Threads

Top