Type 45 vs. F124

I annot believe that this subject has decended to this level. If both SeaLordLawrence and Neptune took a step back they would see that they are actually agreeing on 95% if the issue. Technology is designed to enhance the abilities of people yet those people must be trained to use it to realise this potential. A good example would be how Isreali M60 were able to defeat Syrian T72s back in 1982. On paper the T72 was far superior to the M60 but the training of the Isrealis was far superior. Another example would be how 4 RAF Jaguars were able to down 2 F15s at Red Flag in the 1980s with Guns!!!.

Today the US can put a force in the field that is well trained (for conventional warfare) with top of the line equipment and is pretty well unbeatable in a stand up fight, yet has great difficulty dealing with unconventional threats because it having to learn a new set of skills and doesn’t have the technology it needs.

So back to the topic. A type 45 with a RN crew is going to be a damn fine AAW platform. I am sure that the F124 with a German crew will also be but the Tech of the T45 is on paper better and therefore will have the edge in my opinion

If we’re going to have a technical comparison then compare the ships, not just the manufacturers claims of a radar. Seaworthiness, strengh, machinery reliability/ease of maintenance, stability etc. are at least as important as the weapons systems, as to be of any use a ship needs to be seaworthy and capable of operating in it’s intended role. I’m not really into this sort of comparison game, but if people are then look at the whole story. Personally I do find it pointless, but that’s just my opinion.

Good points by Kiel-Holthenau regarding the fact that the systems should be judged according to their suitability for the operations of their respective customers, ops which will be very different in key areas.
And if we want to get technical, why not discuss;

-which design has the best stability, with top weight a big issue on modern warships stability reserves can be very close to critical margins. Has anybody here seen a set of GZ curves for a F124 or T45? How much reserve buoyancy do they have?

-damage control, what is the sub division like, water tight arrangements, fire fighting systems etc.

-strengh, what is the hull strengh like? Are the hulls suitable for use in their intended roles? What steel grades have been used for construction, what sort of QC has been applied in construction?

-How much space for upgrading and future capability improvements?

-What is hull motion like and how do the vessels perform in heavy seas? Are they stable platforms (a totally different question to their stability in nav arch terms)? Can they maintain good speed in heavy seas or does their performance evaporate at first sign of a wave? (I’ve heard reports this is a big issue for the F100)

-What is endurance? How much fuel and consumables will they take?

-What is hull efficiency? What is machinery efficiency?

-How reliable are the engines? Are the engines installed such as to make maintenance at sea reasonable? What is the estimated mean time between failures? How much electrical capacity do they have, enough to allow for major machinery losses and still maintain full sensor/weapons capability? What is the cable and pipe work routing like? What are their vibration and noise signatures like? How responsive are the vessels to spped/load changes?

I could go on. All of this is every bit as important and critical to the performance of the vessels as a simple discussion of their radar and primary AA armament, but is almost never touched on. Why not? If people really want to discuss technical questions then why not discuss real technical questions rather than a simple discussion of radar and missiles based on PR handouts and a few magazine articles? There is one person here who seems well qualified to talk about APAR, but there is nobody here I see suitably qualified to discuss Sampson, making such a debate pointless.

PS. My comments about Nigeria are not racist,they’re based on observations over many years of visiting the country.

Here we go, technical comparison is now ok? :rolleyes:

I quite agree your comments were not racist, but those of the previous poster were.

Turbinia,
I don’t think they will ever publish any GZ curves of any warships…
I can however get you some interesting things on the M-class if you wish. Something very technical, above my head really, but it might be interesting to you I believe! It’s about slamming with a bunch of computer generated tests for the M-class, including the curves etc. I also have comparmentalisation plan of this ship.

I have indeed wondered up to which sea states they can effective operate. After seeing the Sovremenny (Admiral ushakov) in these harsh conditions in the barentz, with her radars turned off and the sonar coming out of the water once in a while, I think it was pretty useless at that moment. After being in a typhoon myself, experiencing the same trouble, not even seeing one (out of 320m of ship) in front of me, nor having any real reliable radar or AIS information, and sailing with the idea: “no one else is as stupid as us to try and sail here so a collision is unlikely” I started wondering how a regular frigate would fair in a rough sea.

Good points by Kiel-Holthenau regarding the fact that the systems should be judged according to their suitability for the operations of their respective customers, ops which will be very different in key areas.
And if we want to get technical, why not discuss;

-which design has the best stability, with top weight a big issue on modern warships stability reserves can be very close to critical margins. Has anybody here seen a set of GZ curves for a F124 or T45? How much reserve buoyancy do they have?

-damage control, what is the sub division like, water tight arrangements, fire fighting systems etc.

-strengh, what is the hull strengh like? Are the hulls suitable for use in their intended roles? What steel grades have been used for construction, what sort of QC has been applied in construction?

-How much space for upgrading and future capability improvements?

-What is hull motion like and how do the vessels perform in heavy seas? Are they stable platforms (a totally different question to their stability in nav arch terms)? Can they maintain good speed in heavy seas or does their performance evaporate at first sign of a wave? (I’ve heard reports this is a big issue for the F100)

-What is endurance? How much fuel and consumables will they take?

-What is hull efficiency? What is machinery efficiency?

-How reliable are the engines? Are the engines installed such as to make maintenance at sea reasonable? What is the estimated mean time between failures? How much electrical capacity do they have, enough to allow for major machinery losses and still maintain full sensor/weapons capability? What is the cable and pipe work routing like? What are their vibration and noise signatures like? How responsive are the vessels to spped/load changes?

I could go on. All of this is every bit as important and critical to the performance of the vessels as a simple discussion of their radar and primary AA armament, but is almost never touched on. Why not? If people really want to discuss technical questions then why not discuss real technical questions rather than a simple discussion of radar and missiles based on PR handouts and a few magazine articles? There is one person here who seems well qualified to talk about APAR, but there is nobody here I see suitably qualified to discuss Sampson, making such a debate pointless.

PS. My comments about Nigeria are not racist,they’re based on observations over many years of visiting the country.

Unicorn, yes I noticed the same, there was something about her that didn’t look quite right. There were a few show pony’s there as well. Ships that looked like they had never been to sea for real in their lives and were really just empty shells with little real equipment on board and skeleton crews. At least the RN ships looked like they could just fire up the engines and go and do a job of work at a few hours notice.

A friend of mine was on board HMAS Anzac during the Trafalgar 200 celebrations, with the Nigerian frigate Aradu tied up alongside at the pier.

His comments regarding the sanitary state of the ship below decks is unrepeatable, above decks she looked really good, until you realised they had painted over every surface with fresh paint (including rust, grease and moving parts).

Apparently the only weapons system on board that worked were the heavy machine guns, basically Aradu had deteriorated to the state that she was a 4000 tonne patrol boat.

Sad really 🙁

Unicorn

An obvious racist coment, I have no desire to continue discussions with somebody who holds such repugnant opinions and I hope the moderators will look into this.

I worked with some great guys that did lots of trading in Africa. They understood what things were like there more than anyone, and I’m sure they’d have laughed at that. Having dealt with Nigeria myself I can’t help but laugh either.

Perhaps the other user was being malicious, but I could imagine someone else being more well-spirited. Just like saying the British wouldn’t be any good because they’d say they had to take a cigarette break or clock off, rather than shoot down an incoming missile (or something).

Obvious choice: the US/AUS staffed ship, no matter what class, because ANY Nigerian crew would be too busy using the vessels computer systems to generate spam and fraud mails for the rest of the world.

An obvious racist coment, I have no desire to continue discussions with somebody who holds such repugnant opinions and I hope the moderators will look into this.

If disagreeing with you is racist, then yes, I am racist. If a joke about Nigerian spam mailers is racist, then forgive me, I wasn´t aware that there´s a Nigerian race. And I bet you didn´t either. :diablo:

If you´re trying to shove me in some “racist” corner to draw attention from my arguments, then you´ve failed. Procurement is most certainly done differently in different countries. A “what if we have to liberate the Falklands again” will not play a role in German or Dutch procurement. Neither will a “provide seaborne assistance for our troops in Iraq”. “Protect shipping lines” will more certainly play a role, “escort civilian vessels” will play a role as well. German and Dutch ships won´t have to be built to last in the Pacific – UK vessels will.

Hoewver, I have gathered from your previous posts that you are not at all interested in any academic discussion, you just want to be right. So be it – you are the greatest naval expert of all times, and I will continue discussions with other users who are more interested in sharing viewpoints than to prove themselves right at all cost, even at the cost of credibility.

Obvious choice: the US/AUS staffed ship, no matter what class, because ANY Nigerian crew would be too busy using the vessels computer systems to generate spam and fraud mails for the rest of the world.

Sealordllawrence (SLL), have you ever considered the roles these vessels, the 45 and Sachsen, are most probably going to play in the future? There will (hopefully, but also most probably) never again be clashes of England vs. Germany outside a football stadium, anyway. Both will not take on the US, or Chinese, or for that matter Japanese navy. A scenario that seems more likely is coastal ground troop support – troops are going in to secure peace in a place like Lebanon, and a Sachsen-class vessel will be somewhere off the shore to make Iranian Airforce commanders think twice about interfering. A civil war is going on anywhere in Africa, and while European civilians are being airlifted out of there, a 45 class will watch out that no rented Ukranian, or “Executive Outcomes” air force will get near that plane, and, if necessary, shoot it down, while being able to defend itself against seaborne threats.

Now you, SLL, tell me where in these scenarios does it matter what craft is “better”? All that matters is that it is good enough to carry out the roles the respective countries´ planners dreamt up for the ship to be most likely to encounter. It has been said on this forum that British and German sailors are both up to par, so the “crew” bit doesn´t count. It would possibly count with Nigerian scam mail sailors, or US trigger happy soldiers, but not with western European troops. Sorry to burst your bubble here, but your entire discussion seems futile to me.

Oh realy, so how do you think procurement is done? do you think defence ministries dont carry out such studies?
Why would which is a more technically capable boat not be a valid question and what is wrong with studying it?
And my bubble has not been burst as you have not actually said anything, and yes I have considered the roles of these ships- try reading the previous posts and you will realise that.
So you know everything that is going to happen in international politics in the next 50 years do you?- I think not. Have you ever heard of hedging in the context of defense procurement? if not let me know and I will explain it.

There were two primary questions in this thread,

the first being in the threads title, and the second being as to whether human or material factors are more important in determining the effectiveness of a weapon system.

If people wish to discuss the first question in the context of which ship offers better potential capabilities then they have every right and the second question is one of the most discussed in academia relating to war, so certainly far from futile. All you have actually done is produce a few random comments some of which could be found to be highly offensive and blatantly racist comments. Otherwise you have failed to actually explain what you were trying to say.

You had a choice, probably the most capable warships currently in service with a crew of Nigerians, or a good but limited design with nothing like the technical capabilities but with a first class crew. Which would you take? Your life depends on it, what are you going to trust, a good little escort frigate well operated or a very powerful destroyer that probably isn’t seaworthy and with a crew that’ll sh*t their pants at the first sign of a revolutionary guard speed boat. Which do you choose?

Obvious choice: the US/AUS staffed ship, no matter what class, because ANY Nigerian crew would be too busy using the vessels computer systems to generate spam and fraud mails for the rest of the world.

Sealordllawrence (SLL), have you ever considered the roles these vessels, the 45 and Sachsen, are most probably going to play in the future? There will (hopefully, but also most probably) never again be clashes of England vs. Germany outside a football stadium, anyway. Both will not take on the US, or Chinese, or for that matter Japanese navy. A scenario that seems more likely is coastal ground troop support – troops are going in to secure peace in a place like Lebanon, and a Sachsen-class vessel will be somewhere off the shore to make Iranian Airforce commanders think twice about interfering. A civil war is going on anywhere in Africa, and while European civilians are being airlifted out of there, a 45 class will watch out that no rented Ukranian, or “Executive Outcomes” air force will get near that plane, and, if necessary, shoot it down, while being able to defend itself against seaborne threats.

Now you, SLL, tell me where in these scenarios does it matter what craft is “better”? All that matters is that it is good enough to carry out the roles the respective countries´ planners dreamt up for the ship to be most likely to encounter. It has been said on this forum that British and German sailors are both up to par, so the “crew” bit doesn´t count. It would possibly count with Nigerian scam mail sailors, or US trigger happy soldiers, but not with western European troops. Sorry to burst your bubble here, but your entire discussion seems futile to me.

Obviously a US crew in an Arleigh Burke as it’s a much more powerful ship than a OHP. However a well crewed OHP would be better than a Nigerian Arleigh Burke, which I’m glad you’ve recognised.
Which brings us back to the original argument, in the case of the F124 and Type 45 (and the Arleigh Burke for that matter) their technical performance is pretty similar, in most respects the performance differentials should, on most analysis, be marginal, and so when comparing such designs the leadership qualities of the officers, fighting spirit of enlisted men, training, tactical doctrine, operating budgets of the owning navy, the skills of their engineers and weapons operators etc. will be massively more of a differential than any technical differences.

and that shouyld stop people fro making technical comparisons becouse?
I have always recognised that fact, hence why I was saying that both human and material factors are of equal importance and why I was talking about limiting factors 2 pages ago, if you read my posts you would realise that. 😉

Obviously a US crew in an Arleigh Burke as it’s a much more powerful ship than a OHP. However a well crewed OHP would be better than a Nigerian Arleigh Burke, which I’m glad you’ve recognised.
Which brings us back to the original argument, in the case of the F124 and Type 45 (and the Arleigh Burke for that matter) their technical performance is pretty similar, in most respects the performance differentials should, on most analysis, be marginal, and so when comparing such designs the leadership qualities of the officers, fighting spirit of enlisted men, training, tactical doctrine, operating budgets of the owning navy, the skills of their engineers and weapons operators etc. will be massively more of a differential than any technical differences.

You had a choice, probably the most capable warships currently in service with a crew of Nigerians, or a good but limited design with nothing like the technical capabilities but with a first class crew. Which would you take? Your life depends on it, what are you going to trust, a good little escort frigate well operated or a very powerful destroyer that probably isn’t seaworthy and with a crew that’ll sh*t their pants at the first sign of a revolutionary guard speed boat. Which do you choose?

Already answered but here we go again, in this EXACT scenario I would choose the US crew as in this example the crew is the limiting factor for the Nigerians as opposed to the ship being the limiting factor for the Americans, and now I will repeat my question to you again.

Would you take a USN vrew in an AB or in an OHP?

Also feel free to answer my above post.

You had a choice, probably the most capable warships currently in service with a crew of Nigerians, or a good but limited design with nothing like the technical capabilities but with a first class crew. Which would you take? Your life depends on it, what are you going to trust, a good little escort frigate well operated or a very powerful destroyer that probably isn’t seaworthy and with a crew that’ll sh*t their pants at the first sign of a revolutionary guard speed boat. Which do you choose?

Why do think the first people picked up sticks and stones when they were fighting?

Why do you think the first fortifications were created?

Why do you think humans have developed firearms, artillery, tanks, bombers fighters, missiles and all the material parafanalia of war?

Why do you think defence ministries all over the world hold procurement contests and one of the defining issues is technical capability?

Why was stealth technology developed?

Why do you think militarys hold simulations between their own equipment and that of their potential enemys such as the US agressor squadrons? and for instance why did Sukhoi completely redesign the Su-27 after studies found it to be inferior to the F-15?

The broad answer to all these questions is simple, becouse the material would offer the user greater capability and thus a potential advantage over his/her enemy. The equal combination of men and material produces the weapon systems.

When you look at the images of any army in combat today do you not ask yourseld what would happen if one side did not have all that material? Take the Falklands war, what would have happened if there were no aircraft carriers or SSN’s? or even no RN at all?

If there is no ship then the crew can not do anything in exactly the same way as a ship without a crew.

Yes the people can make the crucial difference, but so can the equipment, they are of equal importance.

What quote?

And yes a T-45 (well, if it ever succeeds in firing a missile, which it hasn’t done up till now) is the better AAW platform. It’s designed for it and most likely with the same level of training it will be a better AAW platform.

Crew is limited by the weapon, of course, but the weapon is a LOT more limited by the crew and that is what the point is here. A ship is a lot more dependent on its crew than the crew on its ship.

Still being arrogant I see, you know nothing about me and what I have done and you never will so I suggest you leave it at that rather than trying to make yourself out to be so wonderful becouse you claim to have done so much- does not wash.

I am not wonderful nor have I done much (if that was what you wanted to hear), but for the little things I did do, I have figured out that the crew of a ship is much more important to its operations and capabilities than the ship to its crew in regard of such operations. If you call such a statement arrogance, then so be it, most people call it reality. Why do you think I never, or hardly, come into aviation forums (except when i’m curious about something or want to find pictures)? Because I don’t know things about that. And yes, I do know some internet statistics about missiles and airplanes, but does that make me knowledgeable? no it doesn’t, I’d be wasting my time there. About shipping I do know some things and if I can help people by explaining these few things, then I’m pretty happy with that. If I’d have to answer by copying some internet sites and statements of “unknown sources”, then I’d be pretty sad, and I even prefer to say I don’t know then fetch up some of those answers. (and sometimes I even pose questions myself)

Why did the MoD even bother with the type-45 as you seem to think that the Type-23 is perfectly adequete?

I didn’t say it was adequate, but if necessary in a certain occasion you’d be pretty happy to have it capable by its crew rather than seeing it sail away or finding it unable to get a missile out.

If you really want that answer, I know Turbinia’s credits and education, hence I said that. Hadn’t much to do with anything else and honestly, we, people with experience, can very rapidly see which people have, or don’t have, experience or work in our branche. And yes, Turbinia has worked in my branche and we do know and share our points of view here.

Making rediculous remarks and covering yourself up with “slighly less trained crew” isn’t solving your problem. There is a huge difference in certain training schedules and indeed a possibility of only a slight difference (but most likely unknown to anyone over here, including myself) can still make a huge difference.

Make a short range missile hit get that range, no it can’t, it can however get a longer range than used by someone else. But as I mentioned there are other ways of defending yourself.
As I have mentioned before, some things can’t be changed. If that Sniper has to kill his target and only gets an M-16A4 to do that, then the people who gave him the assignment will have to wait untill he gets closer, as simple as that, time critical target or not. The human mind can solve a lot of problems and technology or no technology, he will succeed in that, even if he has to use old technology in a way that it was never meant to be used.

So if you called the above a “rediculous suggestion” , then I think you should start living in reality and see that, even if you keep stubbornly stating your opinion, changing about every question given to you to fit your theory, it will still not make the reality.
Who, in his right mind, would ever send an amphibious assault to a shore with only a type 23 as defence? And even if that type 23 was the only unit remaining to defend that group, then it will do so. Even if that means they have to move their ships closer or do other manoeuvres. A realistic area defence? No, it isn’t, but if it is the only thing there, you’ll be very happy with your good crew that extends its defences…

If you have failed to see that that was just an indication of what I meant, then I feel sorry with you. The others did seem to get it. Using the extreme is sometimes a way to make people see your point very clearly and rapidly. Most people over here know that I meant an “incapable” or “less capable” radar operator by saying deaf and blind… You obviously didn’t…

Other people seem to agree with me… I guess I’m not the only one avoiding questions then?

Still being arrogant I see, you know nothing about me and what I have done and you never will so I suggest you leave it at that rather than trying to make yourself out to be so wonderful becouse you claim to have done so much- does not wash.

I will say this again as you have failed to answer the question, can a crew make a 15km missile go 90km? no, so in order to shoot something down which is that far away they need a 90km missile, EQUALLY they need to be able to use it. Thus the Human and Materail factors are of equal importance, of course you can take it even further, the soldier needs to eat, they rely on food- material, need clothing- material, to even be able to go to sea they need a boat- all material. A group of people weith no material is next to useless as material without personel- everything people do in war involves material from looking at a map to shooting down ABM’s. You can not argue with it a person relies upon material to fight and the material relies upon people. They work together.

As you said the crew can not make the missile go further than it is capable of going, so they are limited by the weapon are they not? therefore if equiped with a longer ranged weapon would they not be able to engage targets further away?

Why did the MoD even bother with the type-45 as you seem to think that the Type-23 is perfectly adequete?

Please answer this question directly- which would be the more effective vessel to defend the task group- the type-23 or the type-45? (both with RN crews ie selected and trained to equal standards)

Oh and that qoute is far from a demonstration of disagreement.

If you really want that answer, I know Turbinia’s credits and education, hence I said that. Hadn’t much to do with anything else and honestly, we, people with experience, can very rapidly see which people have, or don’t have, experience or work in our branche. And yes, Turbinia has worked in my branche and we do know and share our points of view here.

Making rediculous remarks and covering yourself up with “slighly less trained crew” isn’t solving your problem. There is a huge difference in certain training schedules and indeed a possibility of only a slight difference (but most likely unknown to anyone over here, including myself) can still make a huge difference.

Make a short range missile hit get that range, no it can’t, it can however get a longer range than used by someone else. But as I mentioned there are other ways of defending yourself.
As I have mentioned before, some things can’t be changed. If that Sniper has to kill his target and only gets an M-16A4 to do that, then the people who gave him the assignment will have to wait untill he gets closer, as simple as that, time critical target or not. The human mind can solve a lot of problems and technology or no technology, he will succeed in that, even if he has to use old technology in a way that it was never meant to be used.

So if you called the above a “rediculous suggestion” , then I think you should start living in reality and see that, even if you keep stubbornly stating your opinion, changing about every question given to you to fit your theory, it will still not make the reality.
Who, in his right mind, would ever send an amphibious assault to a shore with only a type 23 as defence? And even if that type 23 was the only unit remaining to defend that group, then it will do so. Even if that means they have to move their ships closer or do other manoeuvres. A realistic area defence? No, it isn’t, but if it is the only thing there, you’ll be very happy with your good crew that extends its defences…

If you are going to compare “deaf/blind” people (your words from an earlier post) with some of the most highly trained personell in the world I can compare sticks and stones with Patriot and Aster systems.

If you have failed to see that that was just an indication of what I meant, then I feel sorry with you. The others did seem to get it. Using the extreme is sometimes a way to make people see your point very clearly and rapidly. Most people over here know that I meant an “incapable” or “less capable” radar operator by saying deaf and blind… You obviously didn’t…

Too bad that’s not one of the choices Turbinia outlined to you.

Other people seem to agree with me… I guess I’m not the only one avoiding questions then?