Read the forum code of contact
By: - 19th July 2007 at 07:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
She indeed looks stunning, especially compared to Orrizonte :p
By: - 19th July 2007 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't see any Phalanx mounts at the moment on her, I presume they are customer provided.
By: - 19th July 2007 at 13:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice pics, nice looking ship.
But when is she going to be mothballed to save money?
curlyboy
By: - 19th July 2007 at 13:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks alright not that great, Whats the big radar look a like thing? And will it be able to carry merlins on it or Westland Lynx Mk95?:confused:
James
By: - 19th July 2007 at 14:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I like her looks as well, is it just me or does the large windows on the brigde make it look smaller than it actually is?
Considering she has a displacement between 7 and 7.5 k/tons she is not a little ship.
All the other destroyers that the RN have at the moment are appx 3 to 3.5 k/tons.
IMHO I think she looks the doggies danglies!
Bomberboy
By: - 19th July 2007 at 15:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's lovely to see her fitted out at last. This picture gives another good shot of her.
By: - 19th July 2007 at 20:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats the piccy that really shows her size to best effect :)
By: - 19th July 2007 at 21:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Trident,
Yeah a few people have picked out the bridge glazing as somehow looking 'wrong' and out of scale. Personally I like it aesthetically and think that, from a ship-handling standpoint, the clearer the view you can get the better. Wont be many excuses from the OoD slamming into a rock or small craft that he 'didnt see' from that bridge!.
The pic below (credit: Barry Watson) shows the glazing quite well - gives the ship a sleek aspect, like the old Amazon-class boats, I think!!!
Fedaykin,
The Phalanx guns are obviously not mounted yet nor, from what I can tell, are the DS30's. Just a case of neither system being critical during sea trials and neither being a difficult or integral system to fit out at a later date.
James,
Which radar looking thingy? :-)
The spherical array atop the foremast is the BAE SAMPSON multi-function radar (MFR) and the black array on the mainmast is the S1850 Volume Search Radar (VSR) which is essentially a knockoff of Thales SMART-L set.
The flight deck has been designed to ake choppers up to and including Chinny size and, I believe, the hangar can accomodate Merlin though FLynx/HMA8 is far more likely to be seen embarked.
By: - 19th July 2007 at 21:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice pics, nice looking ship.But when is she going to be mothballed to save money?
curlyboy
It's funny you should ask, I was just thinking the same thing. :p
But seriously, she's pretty and huge compared to a Type 42.
"You've all done very well!!"
By: - 19th July 2007 at 22:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering she has a displacement between 7 and 7.5 k/tons she is not a little ship.
All the other destroyers that the RN have at the moment are appx 3 to 3.5 k/tons.IMHO I think she looks the doggies danglies!
Bomberboy
pardon not to nit pick but the t42 are 5.5k the t23 5.6K and the t22 5.2K
By: - 20th July 2007 at 10:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here some pics
And more pics here:
http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=23&num=10&orderby=dateD&pos=30
http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=23&num=10&orderby=dateD&pos=40
By: - 20th July 2007 at 10:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks good! The only thing I would say is that I still think the Mk41 VLS would have made more sense, especially if they could have had a good number of cells. I have nothing against the Aster 30 at all, though I do have a problem with the A15, I just feel that the Mk41 would have been much more flexible.
As for the numbers, lets just hope that sense prevails, and they order another six to replace the final T42s and the extant Block 3 T22s. Add in a follow on order for a further twelve, without the expensive radar fitout, to replace the T23s in a few years time, and the fleet would be doing very well! All they need to do then is to replace the existing minehunter fleet with something along the lines of the GD LCS design, and the RN would be back to actually having a proper size fleet (i.e. 36 warships).
By: - 20th July 2007 at 11:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AWD IN THE RN
Yes the Daring is a big ship, but like many things in the UK MOD, fitted for but nor with, just to keep it cheap! Should have had a big 155mm gun and a SSM fit of Harpoon and of course there is lots of space for a long range SSM fit but will we ever see it???? God forbit we have a truely multirole and capabile ship at sea as the RN, just not PC. Yes we are haveing fewer but then in the 60's- 70's before the T42's came on line we only ever had 8 County Class DDG's anyway. Lets hope that Daring and her sisters really do mark an improvement when they get all the fit once promissed. Oh the Flight Deck can take up to a Chinnock if needed.
By: - 20th July 2007 at 13:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T45
The RN will get a total of 6 T45's, (12 was asked for)and all vessels have a general purpose roll and these units are of such a size that they can support the larger fit of weapons so with all due, if you have ever been to war then you would understand that you want to hit them as far away from you as possible and although the 4.5 is a good weapon it is a little on the light size for sustained use against the shore targets and the larger unit would also have the new high tech ammo coming on line soon. So as we have so few ships these days all RN ships are general purpose and multi role, fitted for is the way the Chanceller like it so is the PC way OK.
By: - 20th July 2007 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks good! The only thing I would say is that I still think the Mk41 VLS would have made more sense, especially if they could have had a good number of cells. I have nothing against the Aster 30 at all, though I do have a problem with the A15, I just feel that the Mk41 would have been much more flexible. ....
The Mk 41 is more flexible (can take quad-pack ESSM, as well as bigger missiles), but that flexibility is often exaggerated*, & there's a trade-off. It can't take Asters, so you have to use Standard & ESSM, & a lot of people reckon Aster is a better missile. Mk 41 is bigger & much heavier than Sylver, so if you want to maximise your long-range SAM load, you can carry more by filling the available space with Sylvers than Mk 41s. And since Sylver is much lighter, you have weight to play with, so as long as there's space have more scope to fit boxes for short-range missiles such as RAM, VL Mica, VL Iris-T, etc.
*You need strike-length for Tomahawk. Because of its size, weight, & cost, it's extravagant to fit a battery of all strike-length Mk 41, when you know that you'll usually have SAMs in most of them. Better to fit mostly tactical length - and there goes some of that flexibility. Type 45, IIRC, has space for for some - maybe 16 - more VL launchers, which could be Mk.41 strike length or Sylver A70, & since the ship already has Aster, A70 would be more flexible than Mk.41, as the Mk. 41 could carry only Tomahawk, & A70 could carry Scalp Naval or Aster.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 19th July 2007 at 05:12 - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 11:40
Not seen this in any of Tango's excellent and thorough briefings yet and, to be honest, I just wanted to post these pics somewhere. Call me biased but she is a real looker and thats from someone who dislikes the modern, slab-sided, sig-attenuation design with a vengeance!.
Pic Credit to www.inverclydenow.com with further photo's at their site worth a look