Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I guess this mock up answers my questions.
Still saving the room for a strike length launcher maybe?
Still saving the room for a strike length launcher maybe?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3236
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
That ship sailed a long time ago...they'd be nothing to put in them anyway.Jdam wrote:Still saving the room for a strike length launcher maybe?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
From the press releases it is clear that Aster 15 is being binned in favour of CAMM and it would be logical to upgrade the Aster 15s to 30s (Block 1 NT?) as part of the MLU, would be cheaper as only need to buy boosters and would fill up the T45 silos.Timmymagic wrote:This is the key question. No mention of the Aster 15 being re-lifed to Aster 30 standard. If we are...its a massive development.Ron5 wrote:Aster 15 is identical to Aster 30. Only the booster is different. Unbolt one booster and replace with a bigger one
I would hope that the lack of mention of Aster 15>30 upgrade/relife is just it is a nerdy detail for a press release and that MOD won't just throw them in a skip.
Anyhow looks like we have a fungal infection.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3236
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
This is why the Army potentially getting CAMM-ER is interesting...RN would be mad not to take advantage of the shared stockpile...Jdam wrote:The shared stockpile comments I think means we will not be switching to CAAM ER, makes sense I guess that what Aster 30's are for.
Yes, mentioned this earlier. Seems like a silly timing issue.Jdam wrote:So the Type 45's are going to be in dock with the power and propulsion update and now they are going to be in dock to fit the mushroom launchers? Hopefully we can do it with the existing power and propulsion update and catch Dauntless at a later date.
Think all bets are on mushroom farm. Space isn't an issue there.Jdam wrote:I wonder if it will be mushrooms or the type 26 style launchers maybe?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Truth be told there is nothing really wrong with the Mushroom farm. This is just a good update for the Type 45
Very strange that this wasn't worth mentioning in the defence review
Very strange that this wasn't worth mentioning in the defence review
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
For those asking the question earlier:
"The existing 48 Sylver cells on the Type 45 will now be solely for the longer-range Aster 30 missile, which is also subject to a recently announced mid-life refresh. This will see the missile remain in service throughout the life of the Type 45s."
From: https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... estroyers/
"The existing 48 Sylver cells on the Type 45 will now be solely for the longer-range Aster 30 missile, which is also subject to a recently announced mid-life refresh. This will see the missile remain in service throughout the life of the Type 45s."
From: https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... estroyers/
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I actually quite like the look of the 6 cell mushroom farm....i get me coat
if they are better suited & more robust for the north Atlantic as well as cheaper ?
if they are better suited & more robust for the north Atlantic as well as cheaper ?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
A closer look:
("Speculative mockup" from Navy Lookout)
("Speculative mockup" from Navy Lookout)
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
That a modification of this picture which brings another question to my mind. If the farm is going in front of the current launchers, it looks they will needs to add a section, is there any need for the 4.5-inch gun to rotate 360 degrees?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Roayl Navy's own press release claims the following:
The statement is somewhat contradictory to MOD's announcement of the new launchers being "in front" of the Sylver, as we commonly understood the reserved silo space (aka Mk41 gym) to be the spot in between the Sylver and the bridge.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... sea-ceptorThe 45s were built were an additional missile silo as well as spare compartments to meet future requirements and new tech arriving on the scene.
This forward silo space – often used as a gym – will now house 24 Sea Ceptors in what is dubbed “the mushroom farm” due to the black caps on each missile launcher.
The statement is somewhat contradictory to MOD's announcement of the new launchers being "in front" of the Sylver, as we commonly understood the reserved silo space (aka Mk41 gym) to be the spot in between the Sylver and the bridge.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
No, we didn’t… we always understood that space to be in front of the Sylver silos, exactly where the mushrooms are going…
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Why would the gun need to rotate through 360 degrees?Jdam wrote:
That a modification of this picture which brings another question to my mind. If the farm is going in front of the current launchers, it looks they will needs to add a section, is there any need for the 4.5-inch gun to rotate 360 degrees?
The only reason I could think of is if it were engaging a target at, say, RED 120 and then had to suddenly slew to engage a target at, say, GREEN 150. In which case 360 degree freedom would theoretically allow it to engage the second target a little bit quicker by rotating anticlockwise rather than clockwise.
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
In order to traverse through 360 degrees they could simply elevate the gun above the missile silos!
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I know its not a 16 inch main gun but surely you don't want to be firing towards the bridge/mast/superstructure anyway.whitelancer wrote:In order to traverse through 360 degrees they could simply elevate the gun above the missile silos!
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3236
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Sometimes when running through heavy seas the turret will be rotated through 360 to reduce the possibility of strain on the barrel and mounting.J. Tattersall wrote:Why would the gun need to rotate through 360 degrees?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5570
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Anyway, still much more space left, compared to T23's gun. So, clearly, zero problem.Timmymagic wrote:Sometimes when running through heavy seas the turret will be rotated through 360 to reduce the possibility of strain on the barrel and mounting.J. Tattersall wrote:Why would the gun need to rotate through 360 degrees?
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
All I was doing was pointing out what I thought was obvious that elevating the gun solved the problem of traversing through a full 360 degrees. As for firing into the superstructures I think you will find they have cut-outs to prevent that.tomuk wrote:I know its not a 16 inch main gun but surely you don't want to be firing towards the bridge/mast/superstructure anyway.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I think this upgrade pretty much guarantees the T45's will get at least one life extension to their (long fictional) out of service dates..
With this and the propulsion upgrades, they'd be spending the best part of £1bn for the 6 ships to only have another 8-10yrs service life out of them, before both upgrades are finished on all 6.
I just don't see that being acceptable return on investment to the RN and the bean counters.
That and the fact the chance of their planned replacements, the Type 83, being on time and on budget, is practically zero.
With this and the propulsion upgrades, they'd be spending the best part of £1bn for the 6 ships to only have another 8-10yrs service life out of them, before both upgrades are finished on all 6.
I just don't see that being acceptable return on investment to the RN and the bean counters.
That and the fact the chance of their planned replacements, the Type 83, being on time and on budget, is practically zero.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Huh? It's the same missile dude. Take off the booster and you can't tell them apart.Timmymagic wrote:This is the key question. No mention of the Aster 15 being re-lifed to Aster 30 standard. If we are...its a massive development.Ron5 wrote:Aster 15 is identical to Aster 30. Only the booster is different. Unbolt one booster and replace with a bigger one
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Type 26 launchers are mushrooms!Jdam wrote:I wonder if it will be mushrooms or the type 26 style launchers maybe?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Huh? It's the same missile as the Aster 30 dude. Nothing is going to get "binned" except maybe the Aster 15 boosters.tomuk wrote:From the press releases it is clear that Aster 15 is being binned
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
The question I want to see answered is whether at least some Aster 30s are being upgraded to Block 1NT, to give the ships some ABM capability…
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
tomuk wrote:From the press releases it is clear that Aster 15 is being binned
I was intrigued by this but my google can't find a picture although it did find a T45 in rough seas ..Timmymagic wrote:Sometimes when running through heavy seas the turret will be rotated through 360 to reduce the possibility of strain on the barrel and mounting.J. Tattersall wrote:Why would the gun need to rotate through 360 degrees?