Type 45 Sea Trials Telegraph 15/8/07

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by stumpy, Aug 15, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Check this out:


    Apparently she was meant to make 28 knots but actually does 31.5!

    Also she is described as the "greenest" ship the RN has ever had... as she has electric propulsion. But what does the journo think makes the electricity!!! Personally I think that the Victory had a greener propulsion system... as well as the SSNs/SSBNs.

    The stats look good though.
  2. Size: Five times higher than Nelson’s column.

    Is that right?
  3. What teh article doesn't mention is the loss of a hook, a VERY abbreviated 4.5" shoot and most importantly that although she may have made 31.5 kts (not heard confirmation myself) - the "eco-friendly propulsion system" can't currently be used in that mode as the Great White Turbine is a malfunctioning bunch of b0llocks!
  4. Journalistic licence i think. I take issue with several of the comments:

    "A warship that can defend the entire city of London from missile and aircraft attack " - the radars are good but they can't see through buldings.

    "The most powerful front-line warship since the Second World War" - bollocks. It only has a 4.5 inch gun and 48 missiles.

    "The system is so powerful it can monitor all take-offs and landings from every major European airport within 200 miles of Portsmouth." Excellent, however given that there aren't very many radar concoles (i know each position has three screens before people start bleating) in the OPS room, if NATS did ever go down, we wouldn't be able to the anti-collision, not to mention the fact that MoD won't stump up the cash to validate the IFF mode C for true separation. With the OPS room fully manned we can't even do RED crown with Daring.

    "will carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles." - so where are they going to stick them? The Sylver launcher won't take tomahawk and the yanks have stopped producing the box lancher variant.

    "The ship's capablities left American visitors to the yard on the Clyde "shaken and shocked", according to BAE Systems, its builders." - probably because they can't believe we've built something as large as an Arleigh Burke but with less than half the weapons.

    Cost: £1 billion. - should have been £580million and in service by now

    Crew comforts: First warship to include email facilities and iPod charging points - unbelieveable

    "Equipment: can take a large Chinook or Apache attack helicopters as well as Merlin anti-submarine helicopters." Except that anything othar than merlin will have to remain on deck to be eaten away by the saltwater because we built two massive boat bays either side of the hangar instead of a big hangar capable of taking two merlin (which would have been very useful for antisubmarine ops) or two lynx (for quick boarding ops and air cover)

    Maybe the batch 2s will be better armed - oh but because these things cost £1b we can't actually afford them.
  5. sounds like the cutting job they did on the 42s, saying they didn't need phalanx or goalkeeper.
    Its ok so the penny pinchers but at the end of the day its jack & jenny on the receiving end.
  6. Superb!! Means the boarding party can take their fully charged iPod on ops with them. :thumright:
  7. Go on then, give us a clue "can't even do RED crown" wossat then?
  8. Does it have cup holders?
  9. That is one reason why I don't blame the government too much for not buying the full dozen which they had planned to do when they cost about £580 million each. At almost £1 billion each we would never have had all of them. My criticism is that we could just have brought/built some Batch II Arliegh Burkes which might not have been so advanced but carry loads of weapons and are already developed. Why didn't we? Because (I understand) that they were too expensive at £1 billion each... so instead we build our own for ...£1 billion each...
  10. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    1. That crack about airports was just a way of trying to explain to civilians how many tracks the system can hold. There can't have ever been any idea the ship would do civilian ATC.

    2. False jump from 'can land a Chinook' to bleating about problems if one was resident, which it won't be. Real point is that other 'small ship' flight decks can't take a Chinook.

    3. Get real about sea trials, they are just that. 1959 Tiger lost all power in the Clyde, diesel gennys which Browns said could come on in 20 secs took 20 mins, situation saved by the 1st Lt (on board strictly as an observer) thumbing a passing tug. Her guns still didn't work properly over a year later, winning ironic Jak cartoon in the Evening Standard. 1963 London immediately after acceptance lost all power and propulsion in the middle of a measured mile with a whacking great tanker bearing down on her. Why should trials be any different now?

    Pics on BBC news this morning but totally inane commentary by totally uncomprehending journo (which they all are).
  11. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    I rather like the colour scheme, very fetching.
  12. That would have been Tiger the cruiser that had been suspended partly complete for several years before recommencing work, NOT a warship that has been in design gestation (with associated machinery demonstration programme) for well over 10 years and has been the only game in town for Scotstoun since their well-publicised performance on the Brunei ships then. Quite how a well-proven gun mount (as opposed to Tigers highly unusual main armament) can (allegedly) fail after 13 rounds (with a full gunring) is beyond me.
  13. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    The Telegraph wrote

    A large Chinook? Is there another kind? Safer to use the small one then? Chinooks operating from big ship flight decks are scary enough. Seaweed will be right and I doubt there will even be a FOC trial with a Chinook.

    Telegraph again,

    Diesel electric propulsion isn't new in the RN let alone the world and so in the T45, not unique.The inclusion of gas turbine driven alternators is hardly awesome technology. Or does 'unique' apply to some aspect of the propulsion motors' control beyond the ken of a Telegraph journalist?

    A dead halt?

    2009 or next year. Which is it? A pi$$ poor article from the Telegraph.


    edited to make sure the gas turbines got a mention.
  14. What do you expect from a Blunt? (Snappers nickname for reporters - Blunts
    Reporters, after the state of their pencils, minds and humour
  15. Oh come on!! If they managed to get a Chinook on a Castle Class they can certainly give it a go on a T45!!
  16. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    Getting it on a small deck is easy but it may be in too many pieces to take off again. Scary.
  17. A Lynx might fly for a hundred hours in one month without any major hitches. Then it might break down twice in 25 hours flying. That's just engineering, doesn't prove a thing. Things break down, they get fixed, they get used then eventually break down again.
  18. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Never, but I get your point and agree, things break down. They can also be poorly designed not necessarily by negligence but because some of the design asumptions were wrong, that's why we have development, trials and through life monitoring.
  19. Smartass! :lol:

Share This Page