Talk:Type 45 destroyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

Contents 1 Trivia 2 Largest? 3 Missile Control 4 Other Radars 5 Build Method 6 Guided Missle Destroyer/Cruiser 7 Tomahawk and Sylver 8 Commission Date 9 Images

[edit] Trivia

I think the following is too vague for the main article, just thought I'd put it here for anyone's interest.

The contract states that the Type 45 must protect itself and all vessels within a 6.5km radius against 8 anti-ship missiles arriving within x number of seconds. (where x remains classified). Mark83 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

...the Daring Class destroyers represent the largest escorts ever built for the RN, second only to the Tiger class guided missile cruisers of the post-Second World War era.

[edit] Largest?

Either they're the largest, or second largest, surely?

I changed the reference from golf ball to cricket ball as that is what the telegraph source says.

"...the Daring Class destroyers represent the largest escorts ever built for the RN, second only to the Tiger class guided missile cruisers of the post-Second World War era." should this read "...the Daring Class destroyers represent the largest escorts built for the RN, since the Tiger class guided missile cruisers of the post-Second World War era."

[edit] Missile Control

The SAMPSON article mentions that the SAMPSON radar is similar to the USN's SPY-1 system, which is a fixed phased array radar, and from what i understand the S1805M radar fills a purpose similar to the USN's SPS-49 radar that of a long-range Search radar. however, the USN's Aegis missile system needs a target illuminator (SPG-62) for guidance. My question is, does the Type 45 destroyer need this intermediate radar system too, or because the SAMPSON radar is different to the SPY-1 radar and/or because the Aster is different to the Standard, there is no need for a target illuminator like the SPG-62? 202.72.148.102 11:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• The answer is no, it doesn't need illuminators. One of the big advantages of the system is that the Aster missiles are active homing only, every missile has its very own radar in the nose. The SAMPSON radar is needed to track the target to provide midcourse updates to the missiles, but once they get close enough they home all on their own. BobThePirate 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Radars

By the way, will the Type 45's be fitted with Surface Search and Navigation radar(s), and/or a Gun Fire Control radar? Or can the SAMPSON et al radars handle these important functions too? 202.72.148.102 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• There will be an S1850M 3D air search radar fitted. Though I've read comments that the SAMPSON is so capable that they could actually leave the S1850M off without real difficulty. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if that was done eventually, to give more space for more missiles or other gear. BobThePirate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The S1850M is, like you said, an Air search radar - not surface search, so i wouldnt have imagined that it would be useful in a surface seach role - indeed the image of the Type 45 looks like it has a small surface radar on the front of the "pyramid" which isnt mentioned in the radars section. Going from what you said, the SAMPSON radar can be used to target the Gun as well (on both surface and airbourne targets?) - it would make sense if it could, however in the past there has (almost) always been a dedicated gun fire control radar. btw, thankyou for the prompt replies (above as well). 202.72.148.102 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • I found a web article saying the ship will have "Raytheon Pathfinder navigation radar". That's the only other reference to radars I can find. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a gun radar if that's normal RN practice. Wait and see, I guess. BobThePirate 16:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC

• • • • the most recent RN warhsips (Type 22 Batch 3 and Type 23) use Electro Optical Sensors instead of radars to control their 4.5" guns. Its quite likely the Type 45 will alsoThe useless one 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• listings of radars on warships often ignore Surface Search/Navigation radars, primarily because just about every government owned ship mounts at least one these daysThe useless one 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Build Method

"Block A is assembled at Govan and moved to Scotstoun where it is mated to the Block B/C, which is already fitted with the WR-21 turbines and machinery. Block D, also assembled at Scotstoun is fitted to these three blocks. The bow sections (E/F) are mated at VT's facility at Portsmouth and taken by barge to Scotsoun. This is the final block to be attached."

This is only true for the first ship - Daring. Blocks A - D of the remaining ships are all being constructed at Govan and then mated to VT's E/F for launch in Govan. Scotstoun is only to be used for outfitting and commissioning for ships 2 to 6.

[edit] Guided Missle Destroyer/Cruiser

Why is type 45 classed as a cruiser, if the royal navy are calling her a destroyer than shes a destroyer. The only mention of her being like a cruiser is in her tonnage and this is mentioned mostly by the press.Crusiers also only used to be classified by what inch guns they had 6" or 8". type 45 is also below 10000 tonnes which seems to be the tonnage of later cruisers so if anythings shes a large destroyer.Corustar 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Type 45 isn't a cruiser, and personally I don't know of any source that calls it one. Certainly the Royal Navy doesn't call it one, and neither does any part of this article. Possibly the news media does, but when it comes to military hardware the news media generally doesn't have more than the faintest clue what it's talking about, so I wouldn't sweat it. )Added - oops, just noticed that it does. I'll fix it) BobThePirate 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomahawk and Sylver

The article implied that the Sylver launcher could be used to fire Tomahawks, but i don't believe this is the case. Apart from questions of compatibility, the Type 45 has the Sylver A50, which hold missiles up to five metres long; a Tomahawk with booster is 6.25 metres long. Also, if you read the parliamentary answer, it's clear a new launcher would have to be fitted for Tomahawks.

I've altered the article accordingly. If i'm wrong, apologies, and we could do with a citation on the matter.

Furthermore, note that current Storm Shadow is 5.1 metres long, and that's an air-launched missile without a booster; it seems highly unlikely a surface-launched variant would be under 5 metres, and so would also not fit in the A50. There's an A70 model of Sylver designed for this. The RN, having a fine tradition of crippling its ships to save a few quid, did not fit this model to the Type 45. There are references to this in both the Tomahawk and Storm Shadow articles, which ought to be fixed.

-- Tom Anderson 2006-11-25 14:13 +0000

Tom Anderson, former ADAWS maintainer of YORK????

Well spotted, and well edited. :) Emoscopes ^Talk 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commission Date

Why in the world does Daring need two years to be commissioned, it's only a destroyer for goodness sake. US carriers take less time to be commissioned. why does everything take so long in the damn RN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.159.196.253 (talk • contribs).

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.

Templates can be and are removed regularly. There is no way the above comment is off topic - if true it is of genuine interest, why will it take two years? The last point is extraneous but the comment as a whole is valid. Mark83 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As per Help:Talk page, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. It really is not a place for general questions and discussion about the subject matter, however "on topic" they are to the subject, they are "off topic" for the talk page. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and a discussion as to what development will take place in those two years would absolutely "improve the contents of the article in question". Please don't let your interpretation of policy possibly rule out the inclusion of something which could add to the article. Mark83 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't read to far into the placing of a simple reminder notice, as you say it is my interpretation of policy, any user is free to ignore the reminder if they want to, it's not something to lose any sleep about. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The length of time for HMS Daring to be commissioned is almost certainly to do with making sure that a NEW class of vessels is working properly before commissioning them all. It also means they are able to thoroughly test them, not just slightly test them to make sure everything works for every eventuality, these vessels arent little speed boats, theyre some of the most advanced kits available all rolled up into one big piece of hardware. JonEastham 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The last part of the first comment ("why does everything take so long") is a bit naive. My point all along is that it would very much be of interest to explain what will go on during commissioning as it is, I would suggest, the most complicated warship the RN has ever introduced. And I apologise if I read too much into the template. Mark83 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, in hindsight the tone of that template could be done with being more "friendly" or "welcoming", it was not my intention to sound like I was giving a rap on the knuckles. Emoscopes ^Talk 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who made the unsigned comment, I just believe that there's way too much hype about this new class of Destroyer in general, and with this article in particular. And I don't believe me saying this is off topic or not constructive to the article, I think it's too long, it needs to be trimmed down, until thie ship is atleast completed there shouldn't be half the amount of space devoted to it here. While I can't fault the RN fans here alone (the Zumwalt Destroyer article is wayyyy too long, and so is the talk page), I think that there needs to be more objective and well sourced information regarding articles of this type and not just Government propaganda trying to justify their Defense spending. For being over 150 meters long and weighing in at nearly 7300 tonnes this ship doesn't pack any type of real punch, a single 4.5 inch gun, and only 48 PAAM missiles, similar US ships are less than 1500 tonnes heavier, less beamier, and about the same length or shorter and have damn near enough space for 100 Air Defense missiles plus cruise, hangar space for two heavier helos etc. Hype, all hype. 12.199.96.253 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I uploaded both of the images to the right. However in hindsight using two fair use images is a bit much, particularly when they both convey similar information. Anybody agree/disagree/have suggestions to which one to delete? I'm inclined to delete the bottom one (at sea). Mark83 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - delete the bottom one. There will be better pictures of the T-45s soon enough, when HMS Daring begins sea trials next year. John Smith's 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it at images for deletion. Thanks for the comments. Mark83 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)