SteveOYes I do, but I’m not clever enough to work out how to attach an image to my reply! Help!!
Click on Go Advanced in the Quick Reply box then click on Manage Attachments in the Additional Options box then follow the instructions.
SteveOWhy is one chopper a problem for an AAW ship?. Especially if that one chopper is a Merlin?. A Daring isnt going to be sub hunting all on its lonesome – we have Type23’s for that sort of thing and very good they are at it too. A Daring will be able to lend its chopper to task force ASW potential or it can be used for high endurance ASuW/ASW patrolling in support of its parent vessels AAW operations. Seems like a good capability fit to me.
The ship is designed to be retrofittable with antiship missiles but, for the immediate future, theyre hardly a priority – Type23’s have Harpoon, Lynx still carries Sea Skua and, it has to be said, the Red Banner Fleet is not likely to rush the GIUK any time soon.
A hangar for 2x helos would be far more useful than 2x boat houses for RHIBs and just because you have a hangar for 2x helos doesn’t mean you have to sail with 2x helos.
The T45 will rarely (if ever) need to use it’s full AAW capabilities, so it’s wrong to build a warship that is good at one thing and mediocre at everything else in this day and age.
I meant land attack cruise missiles when I mentioned SSMs, the RN is more likely to fire these than SAMs in the near future.
SteveOI though it had two CIWS. One on one side is plain stupid. Still this is the same country that gave you the charge of the Light Brigade and tried to axe manned fighters in the 1960s. Please tell me we’ve learnt something from history.
Sorry Phil, it does have 2x CIWS one on each side, placed amidships. They can only cover one side of the ship each.
SteveOIndeed. Plus there is room for a torpedo-system as well as Harpoon launchers to be fitted at a later date, if necessary. Better to have got the ships being built with the option of adding more later, than try to ask for what we don’t really need right now and have them held up by years, if not put on the shelf.
I can accept that the weapons fit can be relatively easily improved but the basic layout of the ship isn’t very impressive.
Take a look at the hangar, why would you need 2x enclosed (stealthy) small boat houses on each side of the ship instead of a single large hangar that can provide facilities for 2x Merlin/Lynx or any number of small craft!!??
It’s these silly little details that spoil the T45 for me 🙁
SteveOI read on another forum that there is no technical reason why the Brimstone couldn’t be fitted to the Apache Longbow, it’s just that the Brits bought a whole bunch of Hellfires at the same time as the helicopters and so don’t want to spend extra replacing them. Maybe after they’re all used up or past their use-by date?
I hope they do buy Brimstone after the MMW Hellfire’s are used up, I wonder if a laser guided variant of Brimstone could replace standard Hellfire’s too?
Maybe Brimstone could be fitted with the laser guidance fins from the APKWS to make it a dual mode weapon?
APKWS (Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System) thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=44890&highlight=APKWS
SteveOIts easily the most powerfull DDG in Europe and is likely to remain so for a very long time, people who criticise the armament are either expecting to much or just plane uninformed. Just compare these ships to what they are replacing.
The T45 may have greatly improved crew quarters, engines, radars and SAMs but it still repeats all the design flaws of the T42 (1x helo, main weapons placed all together, no SSM and CIWS that can only protect one side of the ship).
For £600+ million I would expect a better thought out design!
SteveOThe problem with wave avoidance is that these rogue waves apparently appear – and disappear – very suddenly. At the speeds at which the WIGs travel, there may not be enough time to spool up the extra engines needed to get the power for OOGE flight.
I don’t think you would need extra engines to avoid a rogue wave, aerodynamic lift should be enough to get a Ekranoplan to a safe height quickly.
SteveOThat harrier is loaded for bear !!!!
So it will work with an Apache. Sounds like it might be money well spent.
They don’t mention it but would it work with the Hawks in its secondary ground attack role ?
If Brimstone is fitted to all our fast jets and helicopters it will be money well spent but I’m not certain this will happen 🙁
Brimstone is suitable for Hawk (see my previous post).
SteveOI have read several sources that state that Brimstone was specificaly designed for fast-jet operations. Sometimes even saying “ONLY” for fast-jets. That would imply that it cant not be launched from helicopters. Which contradics the above statement. So which is it? Can Brimstione realy be launched from Helicopters? Does Brimstone have a minimum platform launch speed? Or is the Apache statement just a sales pitch? Can someone clarify this please?
Launch Platforms http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=97
BRIMSTONE has been designed to operate from all fast jets aircraft, such as the Harrier, Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16, F/A-18 and Gripen. It is also suitable for operation on light attack aircraft such as the Hawk, F-5 and L-159.
BRIMSTONE is suitable for operational deployment on helicopters, armoured vehicles and ground-based launchers. These launchers can be adapted to carry a mix of both BRIMSTONE and Hellfire missiles. Such a deployment is being offered to the British Army on the TRACER reconnaissance vehicle programme
The first tests of Brimstone were from a fixed ground launcher, Brimstone is basically a Hellfire modified for high speed external carriage so it can be launched from almost any platform. Here is the pic http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/brimstone/c701363.html
SteveOHere it is, the Beriev VVA-14 Experimental VTOL-amphibian http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/bartini/vva/vva_e.htm
Designed by R.L.Bartini, it wasn’t a true WIG but used ground effect to aid take off.
SteveOBartinni something?
That’s got to be one of the most bizarre aircraft ever made, I think it was supposed to be VTOL capable too!
SteveOFrankly I dont trust BAe when they say things like this, usually if the MoD can see a way to save money they take it.
It may be the case that BAE Systems is singing the praises of it’s own product but they may have a point when senior T45 people say things like this http://frn.beedall.com/daring1-3.htm
Cdre Philip Greenish, the Director of Equipment Capability for above-water programmes has said that the Type 45 is now too far ahead for any major innovations to be included. He stated: “I accept that if we were to start today on Type 45 we wouldn’t do it this way in its entirety but we have historical constraints on us. We urgently need to replace older ships as they approach the end of their lives and we have to crack on.”
The LRR was part of the failed Horizon program, so maybe the RN had already committed itself to the LRR and couldn’t back out of the contract when the T45 program replaced Horizon.
If you look at the proposed T45 variants none of them feature the LRR, mind you they are BAE Systems proposals 😉
SteveOBut operating over the ice, Can they land on the ice? or take of from ice/solid ground?
To my understanding there is always considerble risk of engine failure eg other emmercy need for land the WIG thing onto water, but doing this on surface of the ice…it would propaply require more dedicated landing gears…
With a air cushion landing gear they could land on almost any relatively flat surface. The pic shows a DeHavilland Buffalo STOL test aircraft, from here http://www.combatreform.com/c130.htm
SteveOThe idea is attractive, but has drawbacks. The most obvious one is cost: they are effectively aircraft (somewhat underpowered or overweight, depending on your viewpoint) and cost as much as aircraft to run. In fact, they are probably more expensive to buy because they have to be protected against the corrosive marine environment, like a flying boat.
Then there is the problem of rough seas. The ‘rogue wave’ phenomenon is gradually being understood. In any rough sea, you will occasionally get one very much larger wave being formed. Most ships can survive these (albeit with some damage) although they might account for some of the many ships which ‘go missing’. But a WIG flying low enough to benefit from ground effect would just get slapped out of the sky. So, like hydrofoils, they are best used in calm waters, which does rather limit them.
Those are all good points but I think they are problems with solutions.
Cost and corrosion are areas that can be reduced with careful attention to design and materials, while running costs are a matter of opinion, by that I mean is the capability worth the extra cost compared to a possibly less survivable but cheaper alternative.
Sea conditions are a major concern but the ability to fly out of ground effect and maybe a laser radar wave avoidance system/auto-pilot can combat rogue waves.
SteveOI was reading up on the T45 at Richard Beedall’s Navy Matters website http://frn.beedall.com/t45main.htm when I came across this interesting comment in the SAMPSON Multi-Function Radar section http://frn.beedall.com/sampson.htm
BAE Systems maintains that on the Type 45 destroyer, the Alenia Marconi Systems/Signaal S 1850M long-range 3D radar that is designed to work in partnership with SAMPSON “really is superfluous and is not needed to perform the mission of the ship”. The company suggested that the reason the large volume search radar has been incorporated in PAAMS is “more of a historic nature, associated with work sharing issues” that were such a problem during the trilateral Project Horizon.
What do think? is the long range radar unnecessary? could money have been saved?
Sign In
