Great Britain: Don't Dare mess with us (HMS Daring billed as world's most advanced warship)

The Sun (U.K.) ^ | January 30, 2006 | TOM NEWTON DUNN

[JasonC]

Fair enough, I was thinking of the overall firepower. A Burke DD carries 96 standard missiles, this apparently carries only 48. The Kidd carried 48. If it has the phased array radar and electronics and fire control of a Burke, then it is intermediate between the two US classes in combat power.

[Brit1]

Hi, I'm a bit late I know but Take a look at the story of HMS Jervis Bay..Convoy HX84 November 1940. I just read the story of the USS Hornet in WW2.

No doubt the two best Navies in the world.

[Tribune7]

A 7,300 ton warship would have been considered a cruiser in WWII.

[Brit1]

Fear not your British sons, fathers, and brothers are not gay. As we say in England 'an empty barrel makes the most noise'.

[Jeff Head]

I do not believe the Daring will be superior...certainly not to the Flight IIA Burkes, or the Ticonderoga, also, not superior to the new Korean Sejong AEGIS vessel (which has more fire power than the Ticonderoga) or the Japoanese Atago class AEGIS vessels.

The Daring and the Horizon class will be powereful and very modern and they will be an absolute compliment to us as allies and essential to those nations (UK, Italy, and France) for their own defense.

Anyhow...time will tell.

I have a site that compares all the AEGIS and AEGIS-like vessels. You may find it of interest.

AEGIS and AEGIS-like Vessels of the World.

[miliantnutcase]

After years of such funding cuts for the British Navy I don’t see them building another one of these things. Looks like at that cost there might be a Seawolf type thing happening with it.

[Jeff Head]

Well, they already have two in the water...launched...and a third slated for launching later this year. The fourth is well under construction and the fifth will start later this year.

Unfortunately, they are trying to make up for the budget issues (which are rediculous IMHO and represent your typical liberal/socilaist mentality cutting funding for essential defense), by short changing the weapons and sensor fit on the first vessels. There will be no anti-surface capability at all outside of the 114mm gun, and they are not going to install the major sonar systems, relying on the single embarked helo as I understand it.

DARING TYPE 45 DDG

This will severelly limit their operational capability in any multi-role/threat environment until those systems (which the vessel is designed for) are fully installed and operational.

[Stoat]

After years of such funding cuts for the British Navy I don’t see them building another one of these things. Looks like at that cost there might be a Seawolf type thing happening with it.

In addition to the multiple vessels in the pipeline as mentioned here, there is also this item which may be of interest:

Great Britain Brown £20bn nuke pledge (Promises massive new nuke arsenal, upgrade)

Although a politician's promise and a ship in the water are two entirely different things, it does appear that our British Friends are taking defense issues and the war on terror quite seriously, which is a great comfort.  If only we could get the Democrats to become as serious about National Defense as the British Socialists appear to be.....

[Stoat]

Although this is not a 'technical' article per se, I thought that you might enjoy reading it because it's a touching Memorial Day story that involves an AEGIS cruiser and her Captain...

Knowing that we have fine ships like these, and fine crews aboard them help me to sleep well at night   :-)

Bond of the Sea
The U.S. Navy has always faced unexpected threats.

OpinionJournal - Global View

(I'm not posting the text because Free Republic has always required draconian editing of WSJ articles.  Hopefully the link will be permanent.)

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Excuse me, but since when is a “destroyer” considered a “big ship”. I thought they were the SMALLEST class of oceanic war vessels, with cruisers, battleships, and aircraft carriers being larger.

This Destroyer looks to be quite a bit bigger than our NZ Frigates. That said, our Frigates “Te Mana” and “Te Kaha” cruise the Pacific Ocean no worries.

[Philistone]

a large red cross was placed on the White Ensign to differentiate it from the French ensign, which at the time was plain white.

The French: proudly displaying the white flag since 1702!

[PapaBear3625]

A 7,300 ton warship would have been considered a cruiser in WWII.

This ship is 152 m long, 21.2 m wide, and displaces 7350 tonnes

The WW2 Omaha-class light cruiser was 169 m long, 16.85 m wide, and displaced 7050 tonnes

The WW2 Pensacola-class Heavy Cruiser was 9242 tonnes. Considering how much of that displacement came from armor plate, this new ship should really be considered at least a light cruiser, and closer to a heavy cruiser

But I can see the Navy's point in calling it a destroyer rather than a cruiser. Cruisers were small battleships, mounting large numbers of heavy guns (just not as big as battleship guns). Destroyers generally only had a single mid-size gun, like this modern-day ship

[miss marmelstein]

This may very well be the deadliest ship ever built but what good is it when the Royal Navy orders young men and women to stand down when surrounded by enemy Iranians?

[Eye of Unk]

Even though the Cutty Sark was not a military ship its a piece of British history akin to our Old Ironsides and with this renewed naval upgrading there should be a concerted effort to rebuild Cutty Sark to its original glory, not restored to live on a concrete pad but completely seaworthy. I am a model boat collector and I have both ships, Cutty Sark was the Ferrari of the seas in her time, the pinnacle of extreme Clipper ships.

[Tribune7]

good point

[AppyPappy]

Navy launches deadliest and most expensive warship

How many cruise missiles will it carry?

[PapaBear3625]

How many cruise missiles will it carry?

Doesn't look like it carries any. Its primary role is to defend the other ships of the fleet against aircraft and missiles

[Stoat]

A little bit more detail from the builder's website, which may be of interest to all::

Products & Services - BAE Systems

Type 45 Destroyer

The Type 45 Anti-Air Warfare Destroyers will provide the backbone of the Royal Navy’s air defences for much of the first half of the 21st century.

Type 45 Destroyer

They will be able to engage a large number of targets simultaneously and defend aircraft carriers or groups of ships, such as an amphibious landing force, against the strongest future threats from the air. A versatile warship, the Type 45 will provide unprecedented detection and defensive capability and vastly improved living standards when the First of Class, Daring, enters service in 2009.

They will be capable of contributing to worldwide maritime and joint operations in multi-threat environments, providing a specialist air-warfare capability.

The Type 45’s main armament is the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS), a world-beating surface-to-air missile system developed under a trinational programme by France, Italy and the UK. This advanced weapon system will defend the Type 45, her consorts and other task force vessels against highly manoeuvrable hostile incoming aircraft and missiles approaching at subsonic and supersonic speed, individually or in salvoes.

Six of the class of up to eight ships are on order from BAE Systems. The First of Class, Daring, was launched in February 2006 by Her Royal Highness the Countess of Wessex. The other ships on order are Dauntless, launched on January 23rd 2007, Diamond, Dragon, Defender and Duncan.

*******************************************************************************************************

(also)

Systems Integration - BAE Systems

"Each Type 45 will be fitted with a PAAMS missile system and Sampson radar, which are tested at the MISC facility in Portsmouth before being fitted onboard.

The Type 45's radar can track multiple incoming threats simultaneously, prioritise them, assign countermeasures and deploy them to targets. It can even track a target the size of a cricket ball approaching at three times the speed of sound. "

 ******************************************************************************************************

For the benefit of fellow Yanks, a regulation-size cricket ball is between 224 and 229 millimeters (8.81 to 9.00 inches) in circumference (about the size of a baseball).

explanation

[PapaBear3625]

It can even track a target the size of a cricket ball approaching at three times the speed of sound

It needs to do better than that. A missile with stealth will have an effective radar cross-section much smaller than a cricket ball. For example, the F-22's radar cross section is comparable to the radar cross sections of birds and bees

[Stoat]

I sincerely hope that this radar specification as well as many others publlicly released grossly understate the full and true capabilities of the system.