Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Admiral Duncan's coat of arms? Just had a look at it on his wiki page... might work? If not theres something to do with the horn they have as the ships badge?Lord Jim wrote:So what would HMS Duncan have on the bow?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Well there is a rather well known pub in Soho called the 'Admiral Duncan'... Not quite sure what inspiration it might provide but a 'rainbow-bow' would be amusing for Gulf deployments. Especially if confronting Iranian patrol boats...Lord Jim wrote:So what would HMS Duncan have on the bow?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
LMFAO, cue Village People jokesJensy wrote:Well there is a rather well known pub in Soho called the 'Admiral Duncan'... Not quite sure what inspiration it might provide but a 'rainbow-bow' would be amusing for Gulf deployments. Especially if confronting Iranian patrol boats...Lord Jim wrote:So what would HMS Duncan have on the bow?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Alex SalmondRon5 wrote:Something Scottish and scary?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
He is no way as scary as his successor, she who would be Queen of Scotland.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
To be painted with a 'rampant Scottish beast' on the bow?!
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Ruuuuun, run away!!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
No, it would attract too much action. Who wouldn't tire slapping/shooting at that?!
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
One fact didn't know was that even though first T45 commissioned more than ten years ago the RN has never been able declare class fully operational due to its propulsion problems.
Below NAO findings
The 18th March NAO report "Defence capabilities – delivering what was promised"
Figure 6 Type 45 destroyer – example of non-declaration of Full Operating Capability (FOC)
The Type 45 destroyer incurred significant engine problems during and after its entry into service The Ministry of Defence (the Department) procured six anti-air warfare destroyers to replace the Type 42 destroyer. The Department declared them in service between July 2010 and December 2013, at a cost of £5.8 billion for the original build and £0.2 billion for the current propulsion upgrade. The last Type 42 destroyer was withdrawn from service in June 2013. Propulsion problems were already apparent when the first ship, HMS Daring, entered service in July 2010. Problems increased significantly when the Department deployed ships to the Gulf during 2012 and 2013, with an incident approximately every two days at sea. Despite this, the Department continued to accept ships into service through to HMS Duncan in December 2013. High-profile failures prompted renewed efforts by the Department and industry to solve the problem. The Type 45 left the Government Major Projects Portfolio in April 2014. At this time the Senior Responsible Owner reported that the user lacked a clear understanding of the capability performance due to multiple layers of acceptance criteria. The Navy rated delivery confidence of FOC in December 2015 as ‘highly likely’. While operating improvements reduced the frequency of defects, they could not mitigate the serious impact of defects when they did occur. Therefore, the Navy did not declare FOC. In March 2016, Navy Command submitted Project Napier for approval by the Department’s central approvals committee to upgrade the ships’ propulsion system. This was the committee’s first involvement with the procurement since 2007, as the ships had entered service in line with the approved timetable. The Department will complete the upgrade by the mid-2020s
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... omised.pdf
Below NAO findings
The 18th March NAO report "Defence capabilities – delivering what was promised"
Figure 6 Type 45 destroyer – example of non-declaration of Full Operating Capability (FOC)
The Type 45 destroyer incurred significant engine problems during and after its entry into service The Ministry of Defence (the Department) procured six anti-air warfare destroyers to replace the Type 42 destroyer. The Department declared them in service between July 2010 and December 2013, at a cost of £5.8 billion for the original build and £0.2 billion for the current propulsion upgrade. The last Type 42 destroyer was withdrawn from service in June 2013. Propulsion problems were already apparent when the first ship, HMS Daring, entered service in July 2010. Problems increased significantly when the Department deployed ships to the Gulf during 2012 and 2013, with an incident approximately every two days at sea. Despite this, the Department continued to accept ships into service through to HMS Duncan in December 2013. High-profile failures prompted renewed efforts by the Department and industry to solve the problem. The Type 45 left the Government Major Projects Portfolio in April 2014. At this time the Senior Responsible Owner reported that the user lacked a clear understanding of the capability performance due to multiple layers of acceptance criteria. The Navy rated delivery confidence of FOC in December 2015 as ‘highly likely’. While operating improvements reduced the frequency of defects, they could not mitigate the serious impact of defects when they did occur. Therefore, the Navy did not declare FOC. In March 2016, Navy Command submitted Project Napier for approval by the Department’s central approvals committee to upgrade the ships’ propulsion system. This was the committee’s first involvement with the procurement since 2007, as the ships had entered service in line with the approved timetable. The Department will complete the upgrade by the mid-2020s
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... omised.pdf
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Old news. Watch the TV to see the ships conducting operations.
But by all means keep bashing the Royal Navy and the equipment it operates.
But by all means keep bashing the Royal Navy and the equipment it operates.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Trivial question here but a diversion from the end of the world news.
Whenever I see a photo of a Type 45 there always seems to be more of the black hull paint showing under the forecastle than further aft.
Is there any particular reason for this? My uneducated brain thought it might be because the ship rarely carries a full load of ammunition for the 4.5 gun and/or a limited missile load.
Whenever I see a photo of a Type 45 there always seems to be more of the black hull paint showing under the forecastle than further aft.
Is there any particular reason for this? My uneducated brain thought it might be because the ship rarely carries a full load of ammunition for the 4.5 gun and/or a limited missile load.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Well there would have to be weight margin at the front for the FFBNW Mk41 VLSBring Deeps wrote:Trivial question here but a diversion from the end of the world news.
Whenever I see a photo of a Type 45 there always seems to be more of the black hull paint showing under the forecastle than further aft.
Is there any particular reason for this? My uneducated brain thought it might be because the ship rarely carries a full load of ammunition for the 4.5 gun and/or a limited missile load.
What surprises me when you see a T45 is how small/slim they look for their actual displacement. The Horizon class cousins, T26 and F125 look big and bloated in comparison.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
On many ships, the black band is thicker at fore and aft. the top boundary is a curve.Bring Deeps wrote:Trivial question here but a diversion from the end of the world news.
Whenever I see a photo of a Type 45 there always seems to be more of the black hull paint showing under the forecastle than further aft.
Is there any particular reason for this? My uneducated brain thought it might be because the ship rarely carries a full load of ammunition for the 4.5 gun and/or a limited missile load.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I think the massive windows make them look a lot smaller than they are, just like the FLYCO on the QEC.tomuk wrote:Well there would have to be weight margin at the front for the FFBNW Mk41 VLSBring Deeps wrote:Trivial question here but a diversion from the end of the world news.
Whenever I see a photo of a Type 45 there always seems to be more of the black hull paint showing under the forecastle than further aft.
Is there any particular reason for this? My uneducated brain thought it might be because the ship rarely carries a full load of ammunition for the 4.5 gun and/or a limited missile load.
What surprises me when you see a T45 is how small/slim they look for their actual displacement. The Horizon class cousins, T26 and F125 look big and bloated in comparison.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I see that Dauntless was due to enter Portsmouth at 1230pm today, presumably on completion of latest trials. I was under the impression that she was due in for PIP at Birkenhead in March, anyone have any info on this. ?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
(Navy Lookout) 1st/3rd May 2020
HMS Dragon currently dry-docked in D-Lock, Portsmouth
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Does that suggest the Smart-L/S1850M radar is getting replaced or upgraded to the latest MK2 version? Seems pretty big news if so.Repulse wrote:
I understand that the RNLN had to replace the entire installation for their upgrade. Don't suppose there would be any chance of recycling the old ones on Type 31, seeing as the original IH design was built around it?