Type 45's

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by seafarer1939, Apr 9, 2008.

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. I read in the paper this weekend that the Type 45's are to be fitted with Microsoft NT electronics and it would cost too much to update it.
    Now I'm no computer expert but as it is stated this system crashes often surely it was not beyond the brains of the MOD to leave room for updates in computer system.
    The ships depend on it and,although I'm no fan of the French,they are spot on with electronics and the Yanks would also not persue such a stupid decision and risk servicemens lives by not having methods to update whenever needed.
    Even a poor computer user like me is on Vista so what's going on?
    Still the MOD says they are happy with it,lets hope the excocets fly pretty slow or we will be in deep shit.
    Or can someone put me right as it seems crazy to me.
  2. I'm sure there is a plan to update the system. However, if you are designing, testing and integrating a combat system (particularly one as complex as the DNA fit on T45) over a period of (say) ten years, a line has to be drawn somewhere as to equipment and software configuration to allow design, integration and test, which is what is happening on Portsdown Hill and somewhere off the south of France. Care to hazard a guess as to the state of the art COTS operating system around six to eight years ago?

    Now, sensible folk might well try and put a programme together to periodically refresh the hardware, operating system and actual software, but given the number of lines of code, it ain't going to happen overnight and it ain't going to happen cheaply. Does it survive first contact with teh beancounters?
  3. thanks for that,it still puzzles me as the science reporter said it crashed every 200 hours without fail!
    Of course when the upgrade is needed it will all be trashed out and millions spent on replacement systems.
    The MOD spares no expense when making cockups.
    In my time we had the Flyplane 5 system which was operated by a brand new frigate
    [Chichester] and whilst I was below in the TS we had to ask the target planes to fly under 350 knots so our sytem could get a lock!
    After a 2 year commission it was still the same.
    I often thought our gunnery was not the best in the Falklands but I was not there ,however the radar guided guns[USA 3"] on the Victorious I operated were superior for AA to any Flyplane system.
  4. NT is a stable and robust system.
  5. If it works and and has had all the vagaries written out of it; leave it alone! It's not a fashion show that needs the latest Gucci kit. I think you will find that the current Airbus types have flying control software that isn't a million bytes different from the first ones.

    The most reliable computer I have runs on WIN98. It's totally useless on the internet but I don't expect that many weapon control systems want to search Google or use Flashplayer.
  6. Bollocks bollocks guys when the shit is inbound you want a system that can deal with it not something the fecking boffs say works trust me a 4.5" mk 6 is and always has be more effective than any fecking Mk8 been there done the trials and taken the casualties. **** comments really can anyone give me the last tme a Mk8 did more than 30 Rds FFE ??
  7. Seafarer 1939.

    Vic had the US 63 system. I was aimer of P1 (62/64) and quickly learnt that Italian ammuition was bloody dangerous. I really did appreciate my anti flash gear and tin helmet. On one occasion I had a an early burst about 20 yards away, paint work was burnt and little bits of metal were zinging around. Luckily me and some of the guns crew only suffered minor flash burns.

    Semper Strenuissima

  8. Isnt it the MODs job to define the requirement - ie what the ship and its weapons systems are supposed to be able to do , and the contractors job to provide that capability. Its when the MOD starts intefering in HOW that capability is provided ( what software is used) that lines of responsibility get confused - delays creep in, costs go up etc etc??
  9. I would certainly be suspicious of some one saying the system crashed every 200 hours as that would indicate a pretty specific cause of the failure, crashes are usually the result of a number of independant variable suddenly ending up pointing the same way, an thus wholly random and thus much moredifficult to identify. I understand the system is Windows for Warships, which is as you suggest based on NT. NT was very stable when operated in a controlled environment as a warship system is and many companies only stopped using it because Microsh*t stopped supporting it to force them to buy into a more modern system and keep the funds rolling in.
  10. Compared to Vista, Windows NT is very stable. However, Microsoft no longer support it and so new 'vulnerabilities' can't be fixed, on a totally closed system this shouldn't be too much of an issue as long as the eborders are properly policed.

    I thought that NT had lost its MOD security accreditation, so shouldn't be used on any protectively marked systems anyway?

    Crashing every 200hrs sounds very predictable ... should be fix-able, if you invest in the right IT bods ..... Maybe those lovely chaps from EDS?? They've done such a good job on JPA and DII, and they work so well with MoD civil incompetents ;)
  11. Well I was the aimer on S1 61/62 and never had a problem with the 3"it was superior in tracking aircraft than any other I used with the flashing HUD telling you where the target was coming from.
    I liked it and don't forget the Yanks introduced it as they knew a Bofors would not stop a Kamikazi to any great effect and the 3" did.
    At the same time we were still installing STAAG mounts, the most useless piece of AA gunnery ever designed.
    We never had a succesful shoot in two years with that load of crap on the Chichester, and the Bofor on the Puma was behind the funnel! every time I aimed I could not see a bloody thing for smoke.
    Guess the ones who thought that up are in charge of the MOD now.
  12. I was seariding in the mid nineties and it was decided that AA gunnery was ineffective, mmmm just ask any Argie pilot what they thought about 20mm and 7.62mm tracer coming at them. Cost as always was an issue and I felt they were pulling the plug on AA firings because of reduced ammunition allowances.
    Some very senior naval officers should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the bean counters to undermine operational capability. To rely on modern missile systems to counter the FBA is bollocks I have worked with GWS 30, 25 and 26 to be honest they were unreliable when the sh*t hit the fan even Phalanx and Goalkeeper have fundamental maintenance problems. Glad I'm out of it now next shooting war inflate lifejackets and locate your nearest liferaft - and don't forget your fags.
  13. If it's any consolation, current thinking is back towards throwing the kitchen sink at any hostile FBA: chance of a lethal hit might be laughably low, but the _real_ measure of effect is "did he hit you with his weapons?" and a faceful of tracer will do nothing to improve the Bad Guys' aim. If he escapes unhurt having missed... that's the next best thing to killing him before weapon release.

Share This Page