UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1214
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Pseudo » 13 Dec 2018, 23:34

jimthelad wrote:The problem for CAMM on T45 is throw height. It cant clear SAMPSON on its mast if it is on the forward silo. Same for QE class. In the former it needs to be behind the first GT trunk or on the hangar roof. QE would need to be on the after island probably.

I thought that there was additional space for a silo between the gun and current silos. Would putting a VLS there solve the problem and provide 32 CAMM?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby tomuk » 14 Dec 2018, 02:55

jimthelad wrote:The problem for CAMM on T45 is throw height. It cant clear SAMPSON on its mast if it is on the forward silo. Same for QE class. In the former it needs to be behind the first GT trunk or on the hangar roof. QE would need to be on the after island probably.


Why does it need to clear the mast/sampson? If the target is directly behind the ship the missile can easily turn after launch.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10604
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Dec 2018, 06:46

tomuk wrote: the missile can easily turn after launch.


That is what it does. Plenty of vids around, to show at what height that happens (and the actual rockets, after the siphon effect wears off, ignite).

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 14 Dec 2018, 10:39

Poiuytrewq wrote:How can you ensure the safety of the Amphibious Task Group if your T45's are 200nm away with the CSG?


this is why I feel it is important to fit the carriers with CAMM then up T45s missile load out to 100+ missiles build 5 carrier group only ASW frigates to release the type 26s which if needed could escort the amphib group plus offer NGS and land attack when the group starts it off loading

The way I see it is if we had the said escorts above in time of war when needed ships could deploy as so

Carrier group 1 could deploy with 1 x carrier , 2 x T45 , 2 x Txx , 1 x SSN , 1 x NATO frigate

carrier group 2 as above

Amphib group 1 could deploy with 1 x LHD , 2 x Bay , 2 x Point , 4 x T26 , 2 x NATO escorts plus be given air cover from a UK , French or
US carrier group

For me when comes to the Missile question I feel that the escorts , carriers and if we had one the LHD/ LPH should be fitted with CAMM and all other ships like MHPC , RFA should be FFBNW SeaRAM

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1486
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 14 Dec 2018, 11:38

I feel we're straying too far away from news-related discussion here guys. Take it to the escorts thread please:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=701

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5819
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 14 Dec 2018, 12:38

Poiuytrewq wrote:How can you ensure the safety of the Amphibious Task Group if your T45's are 200nm away with the CSG?

I doubt the escorts would be 200 miles away. Also remember CAMM is capable of area defence, with control software derived from PAAMS.

jimthelad wrote:The problem for CAMM on T45 is throw height. It cant clear SAMPSON on its mast if it is on the forward silo.

What is the throw height? Whats the difference between an T45 and T26?
@LandSharkUK

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 354
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby jimthelad » 15 Dec 2018, 09:44

Throw height is the apogee of the soft launch sequence. From the video's posted it seems to be about 30m (cant tell exactly from the naval angles and I dont know the height of the cab of the land launcher to do the maths. Therefore it is highly likely that any CAMM in a forward sile at deck height could hit the SAMPSON mast or array. It would mean restricting the arcs of fire to about 310 degrees and probably a lot of expensive changes to the launch canister or the software of the missile. The same applies for any sponson launched CAMM on the carriers. They need to be on the islands or in a canted outward system in the catwalk/sponson with the number of weapons limited to portside and starboard side arrays.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3280
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Dec 2018, 10:04

jimthelad wrote:Throw height is the apogee of the soft launch sequence. ...
I've commented on Escort Thread.

RNFollower
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 10 Jul 2015, 22:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby RNFollower » 18 Dec 2018, 09:24

So I was watching Episode 4 of "Warship: Life at Sea" last night and I noticed that one of the sailors was using a 50 Calibre Heavy Machine gun. I did not think the Royal Navy used them?. I thought it was GPMG and Mini guns only at that level?

Its a pleasant surprise, as much as i would not want to be on the recieving end of a GPMG, a 50 Cal must be a better deterrant against small boats?. But then i am no expert :)

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2470
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby RetroSicotte » 18 Dec 2018, 10:39

RNFollower wrote:So I was watching Episode 4 of "Warship: Life at Sea" last night and I noticed that one of the sailors was using a 50 Calibre Heavy Machine gun. I did not think the Royal Navy used them?. I thought it was GPMG and Mini guns only at that level?

Its a pleasant surprise, as much as i would not want to be on the recieving end of a GPMG, a 50 Cal must be a better deterrant against small boats?. But then i am no expert :)

When I was aboard HMS Duncan a few years back they did tell me that the mounts were "mostly" universal. Presumably they just smack it on.

Royal Marines and the Vikings have a bunch of M2s to lug around, so they have them in inventory.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Dec 2018, 11:00

if we were to fit 2 to every escort we have it would only be 38 50 cals l am sure we could find 38 spare weapons in the MOD

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Location: Germany

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Qwerty » 18 Dec 2018, 12:22

M134D is more effective than M2 when it comes to reaching out and touching someone with the full metal jacket of love.



Apologies for use of the Americanism, “Awesome” in the title, just imagine it states “Brilliant or Superb”
instead.”

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10604
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Dec 2018, 13:02

Qwerty wrote:when it comes to reaching out

I agree (but only out to 1 km)

A bit like what mortar to use in support of island hopping ops (suppression, whilst that is happening)
- getting the 81 onto shore (and back) is kids' stuff
- doing the same with a 120 mm is back breaking
- but often only the latter can reach out & touch (depending on distances; support is often from an island one away from the jumping post, closer to the objective for the Op)

Digger22
Member
Posts: 242
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Digger22 » 18 Dec 2018, 14:05

[quote="Qwerty"]M134D is more effective than M2 when it comes to reaching out and touching someone with the full metal jacket of love




Can't say 40 rounds v 200 is entirely fair, plus the punch of the round is not comparable. Recoil is a problem with the M2 too, so most are shoulder stabilised. Not sure what that comparison proves, other than why a Gatling type weapon is the CIWS barel of choice. Rate of file, stability etc...

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3280
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 Dec 2018, 15:44

How about GAU-19/B, 12.7mm gatling gun. 48 kg, rate of fire of 1,300 shots per minute.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-19

There are several means to improve "close-in defense" fire power. For example, GAU-19/B may have a commonality to in logistics for bullets with ordinal 12.7mm M2? (which shall be very cheap, not as much as 7.62mm, but much cheaper than 20mm, and much much cheaper than 30mm rounds). Lighter than Oerlikon 20 mm guns, it must be easy to carry onboard RN escorts. The only matter is, cost and manpower efficiency.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1640
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Dec 2018, 16:29

donald_of_tokyo wrote:How about GAU-19/B, 12.7mm gatling gun. 48 kg, rate of fire of 1,300 shots per minute.
Very Impressive :thumbup:

That would be a useful upgrade to the miniguns.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5653
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby SKB » 30 Jan 2019, 12:13



I sometimes wish we had a T23 named HMS Wellington....

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Scimitar54 » 30 Jan 2019, 12:21

We already do, it is known by his alternative title "The Iron Duke" :mrgreen:

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Jan 2019, 13:28

would be interesting to know haw many crew will deploy on this one and if she will go with a Wildcat

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Jan 2019, 18:39

is this due to one of the Horizon class being in refit and will there be a Horizon class ship with the carrier

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5653
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby SKB » 04 Feb 2019, 15:02


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3280
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 Feb 2019, 13:53

What a big big flight deck! Very impressive.


User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1640
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Feb 2019, 14:05

donald_of_tokyo wrote:What a big big flight deck! Very impressive.
The 21m beam makes a BIG difference.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1640
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 24 Feb 2019, 10:15

Welcome news

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10604
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Feb 2019, 10:31

This
" a spokesperson for DE&S confirmed that Project Napier had now “defined what that modification solution looks like,” and confirmed that implementing the PIP would take around 12 months. However, he explained that this work would be incorporated into the planned maintenance for the ships: “We can do these in parallel with the maintenance periods. While there will be some additional out-of-service time for Type 45, it will not be of the order of 12 months”
sounded very reasonable at the time. But the proof of the pudding (which is now being served) is in eating it.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Zero Gravitas and 22 guests