-Could the design be more versatile with SSM, TLAM, 155mm gun etc? Yes.

-Could the design end up doing far more than air warfare duties? Yes.

-Did the RN have the money to include everything they wanted and still get anything like the number of hulls needed? No. They can’t get the 12 originally promised and it’s unlikely the lowered target of 8 will be bought, although I still hope the extra two will be ordered.

This then asks the questions;

-what is the primary role of the ships?

-if money is not available to build the “perfect” destroyer (and there is no such thing as a perfect destroyer anyway) then where do you compromise?

The primary tasking of these ships is air warfare. If Sampson works as advertised and Aster is anything like as good as claimed then the ship has an air warfare system at least as good as anything else in the world, arguably better than just about anything the RN could order today, never mind when the ships were ordered. So the ship should meet it’s primary mission very well indeed. The design has enough free space, stability/buoyancy reserve, strengh etc. to take major additions, few ships out there at the moment have anything like the growth potential of the T45. This means that if/when money is available, if/when it is deemed neccessary to upgrade the ships it is a straightforward job to do so, some of the extra systems are already pre-prepared for installation and wouldn’t even need a naval dockyard to fit. If TLAM/naval Storm Shadow and all of the other desired equipment was fitted now then it’d either mean reducing investment in the primary mission equipment or even lower numbers, and to me an excellent air warfare destroyer easily upgraded is far better than a compromised air warfare destroyer or two or three gold plated ships. If the air warfare system is compromised to keep cost down it would be extremely difficult and expensive to change later, as opposed to an easy and straightforward upgrade to the T45 as built. Ideal? No, but what is the alternative? And be realistic, it’s no use saying they should have been built with everything unless you accept an even smaller production run, the RN has a budget to invest in new equipment determined by the treasury and that is what they have to try and live within. The approach taken in the T45 is the least bad option, they’re getting a first class air warfare destroyer with huge growth potential they can exploit if/when funds are available, far better than a second rate air warfare destroyer with a lot of ASW, land and surface attack capabilities or two or three hulls with everything.

On this discussion, it’s a little sad that so little mention has been made of the propulsion/power package, the WR21 IEP is just as noteworthy as any of the radar or missile systems and lifts the design up a whole notch in terms of marine engineering innovation compared to contemporary designs.

The time will be far more accurate now it’s coming from Cumbria!:diablo: Same site as the RN VLF antennae, Anthorn just outside Carlisle.

You mean something like this;

HSE promotes concept of sensible risk management

In an effort to further counter misconception, and in some cases damaging mischief-making in parts of the media, the HSE through its Risk website has launched a set of key principles to define and promote what it means by ‘sensible’ risk management.

The HSC urges people to – ‘focus on real risks, those that cause real harm and suffering, and stop concentrating effort on trivial risks and petty health and safety’.

HSE says Sensible risk management is about:

Ensuring that workers and the public are properly protected;
Providing overall benefit to society by balancing benefits and risks, with a focus on reducing real risks – both those which arise more often and those with serious consequences;
Enabling innovation and learning, not stifling them;
Ensuring that those who create risks manage them responsibly and understand that failure to manage real risks responsibly is likely to lead to robust action; and
Enabling individuals to understand that as well as the right to protection, they also have to exercise responsibility;
but is not about:

Creating a totally risk-free society;
Generating useless paperwork mountains;
Scaring people by exaggerating or publicising trivial risks;
Stopping important recreational and learning activities for individuals where the risks are managed; and
Reducing protection of people from risks that cause real harm and suffering.
Comment:

“I’m sick and tired of hearing that ‘health and safety’ is stopping people doing worthwhile and enjoyable things when at the same time others are suffering real harm and even death as a result of mismanagement at work.

Some of the ‘health and safety’ stories are just myths. There are also some instances where health and safety is used as an excuse to justify unpopular decisions such as closing facilities. But behind many of the stories, there is at least a grain of truth – someone really has made a stupid decision. We’re determined to tackle all 3.

My message is that if you’re using health and safety to stop everyday activities – get a life and let others get on with theirs.” – Chair of the HSC.

“We want to cut red tape and make a real difference to people’s lives. We are already taking action to put the principles into practice. Last month we published, straight-talking guidance on risk management, but we cannot do this alone. That’s why I welcome the broad alliance of support for this initiative – organisations representing employers, workers, insurers, lawyers, volunteers, health and safety professionals and many others who have made positive contributions to our approach.

These principles build on all of this and will hopefully drum home the message that health and safety is not about long forms, back-covering, or stifling initiative. It’s about recognising real risks, tackling them in a balanced way and watching out for each other. It’s about keeping people safe – not stopping their lives.” – HSE Deputy Chief Executive

Unfortunately the media are nothing like as keen to publish stuff like this as they are dumb and misrepresented urban myths on safety

Yes, but not normally whilst doing their every day work unless they’re a medical professional or under taker in which case they have a psychological preparedness for dealing with death. A train driver or bus driver can end up losing their chosen job as a result of the trauma it can cause and suffer severe psychological distress as a result of suicides. Then there is stuff like a friend of mine who was lifting a BR class 47 locomotive off it’s bogies for overhaul in a maintenance depot and found the putrified remains of somebodies hand and various blood and gore from a suicide a couple of weeks earlier, not very nice.

My only suggestion would be if people do get to that point where they cannor go on, then at least do it in a private way to minimise the trauma for others. Having friends who are train drivers and having seen the affects on them of a suicide on the rails it is a ghastly thing to inflict on another person to step in front of a train or bus. Plus there is the expense of the clean up, delays to travellers etc.

Still won’t be enough to shut Fayed and the conspiracy nuts up. Seems that some people can’t grasp that driving at over twice the speed limit whilst drunk is inviting a crash, and if that crash results in hitting a concrete pillar at over 60mph and people aren’t wearing seatbelts then in all probability death will be the result. You don’t need to be a genius to work that out. However, i’m sure the Mohammed Fayed Daily, oops, sorry, I mean the Daily Express, aided by others will keep the conspiracy insanity alive and well:rolleyes:

The RAN won’t need new SSK’s for a long time, in the Collins class they have a superb SSK ( a lot has been made of problems in the class but realistically they were no worse than you’d expect in a project of that nature, sad to say) and in capability terms when they’re fully up to speed they’ll be a lot more capable than most other SSK’s out there, except the big Japanese boats.
When the RAN does look at a Collins replacement I think there would be a good argument for them looking at SSN’s, OK SSN’s are expensive, but the top end SSK’s are hardly cheap and given that the RAN operates over vast stretches of Ocean in the Pacific, Indian and Southern Oceans the performance and endurance of an SSN would be a genuine assett to them.
On the fall out between DCN and Navantia with both companies going seperate ways with Marlin and S80 I suspect it’s more to do with commercial rivalry, these alliances usually do split up like that once both companies have got what they want out of the partnership.

A hangar on a ship the size of a Visby will seriously eat into available volume. Given that the Swedish Navy mainly operates in the Baltic and litorral zones would it be worth the sacrifice?