|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mister James |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mister James
I want to believe!
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :  
|
 Posted: 13:15 - 01 Feb 2006  Post subject: HMS Daring launch |
 |
|
As some of you may know, the Royal Navy's most advanced warship is going to be launched this afternoon on the Clyde. I've been following the progress of this project since it was announced, I'm surprised that it hasn't been cut or neutered by good old Gordon Brown, especially at a cost of £650 million per unit!
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4666906.stm
The PAAMS radar system and ASTER missiles do wee-wee all over the american AEGIS system, giving us the most advanced and powerful air defence naval platform in the world. It's also the first major surface combatant to employ a fully electric drive system.
____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you... |
|
| Back to top |
   |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| carvell |
This post is not being displayed .
|
carvell
Scuttler
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| tribal_tiger |
This post is not being displayed .
|
tribal_tiger
World Chat Champion
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Mister James |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mister James
I want to believe!
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Mister James |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mister James
I want to believe!
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 13:23 - 01 Feb 2006 Post subject: |
|
|
| tribal_tiger wrote: | | BBC wrote: | "When she comes into service in 2009, we're going to have the most advanced warship in the world.
|
What's it going to do until then?????
Looks cool, but it seems really tall for it's length looking at those pics! |
Fitting out - ie. adding the weapons, internals, computers, fire control, beds, furniture etc.
Then contractor's sea trials to make sure she's fit for service, then the Navy plays with it some, trains a bit, plays some more, tries to break it, then accepts her into the fleet.
With regards to the tall mast - the higher up the radar, the further over the horizon it can see. When you are defending high-value units such as a carrier or assault ship, every extra second you can grab to intercept a missile or aircraft is precious.
The closer a missile gets to the fleet, the more likely it is that even if you destroy it, the supersonic debris shreds your radar and weapons and effectively mission-kills you.
____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you...
Last edited by Mister James on 13:25 - 01 Feb 2006; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| carvell |
This post is not being displayed .
|
carvell
Scuttler
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kickstart |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kickstart
The Oracle
Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 14:09 - 01 Feb 2006 Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Twenty odd years ago, after the Falklands, they were talking about the lessons from that war. One major problem with the type 42s (and the like) was that they were found to be poor in heavy seas. The proposals at the time were that their replacement would be much broader to help their stability. Seems that they have gone for this a bit, but not as much as they talked about at the time.
How does the electric drive system work? Are they using a gas turbine to generate electrical power for the drive system?
All the best
Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| map |
This post is not being displayed .
|
map
Mr Calendar
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:14 - 01 Feb 2006 Post subject: |
|
|
Looks interesting but with all those flat surfaces IMO it looks like it's hardly invisible to radar itself.
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger?  |
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Mister James |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mister James
I want to believe!
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:26 - 01 Feb 2006 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Hi
Twenty odd years ago, after the Falklands, they were talking about the lessons from that war. One major problem with the type 42s (and the like) was that they were found to be poor in heavy seas. The proposals at the time were that their replacement would be much broader to help their stability. Seems that they have gone for this a bit, but not as much as they talked about at the time.
|
Aye, I remember the designs for a 'fat' frigate when I was a kid. Model tests showed that it would make a stable weapons platform under some conditions, but I seem to remember that having a wider beam and shorter length caused other performance problems. Weapons systems became more sophisticated and morecapable of self-stablising, and the tried and tested nature of conventional 'long hulls' meant that their supporters found it easy to just stick on stabilisers and increase the beam ratios, while the radical designers had to try and design a total departure from the norm to compete. In the end, they couldn't prove their case enough to persuade the government to take the risk.
To be honest, the fact that no government in the world has built a model that mirrors the original 'fat' concept suggests that further tests/simulations showed it wasn't as good as they first thought.
Our MV Triton trimarine is probably the closest thing around, and has attracted a fair amount of interest from other navies. There are some pretty cool concept sketches for it's possible influence on the design of our FSC - the replacement for our frigate fleet, I'll attach a couple at the bottom.
| Quote: | How does the electric drive system work? Are they using a gas turbine to generate electrical power for the drive system?
|
Yup. As I understand it, there is a turbine system providing the power for the ship as normal, but the prop shafts are directly connected to electric motors. It's apparantly much more efficient, as you have total control without needing reduction gearing from the turbines, which are effectively ripped out of jet planes.
| map wrote: | Looks interesting but with all those flat surfaces IMO it looks like it's hardly invisible to radar itself.
|
If you look at the angles, you'll notice most of them direct the radar beams away from the transmitting unit - effectively reducing the radar signature of the ship. I assume that'll be used in conjunction with Radar Absorbing Materials on awkard parts of the ship.
____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you... |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| tribal_tiger |
This post is not being displayed .
|
tribal_tiger
World Chat Champion
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kickstart |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kickstart
The Oracle
Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:40 - 01 Feb 2006 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister James wrote: | Aye, I remember the designs for a 'fat' frigate when I was a kid. Model tests showed that it would make a stable weapons platform under some conditions, but I seem to remember that having a wider beam and shorter length caused other performance problems. |
Interesting. I can see that it would have speed issues, but not sure how relevant they would be on a picket ship.
One of the other things I remember was that they were talking about having multiple vertically mounted weapons launchers, mounted below the decks. Presume they gave that idea up with improvements in the time to reload.
| Mister James wrote: | Weapons systems became more sophisticated and morecapable of self-stablising, and the tried and tested nature of conventional 'long hulls' meant that their supporters found it easy to just stick on stabilisers and increase the beam ratios, |
From (vague) memory part of the problem was that to keep the type 42s seaworthy (let alone as a good weapons platform) they had to play around with the fuel tanks for ballast (from even more vague memory, flooding some of them with sea water when empty which caused other problems afterwards).
| Mister James wrote: | To be honest, the fact that no government in the world has built a model that mirrors the original 'fat' concept suggests that further tests/simulations showed it wasn't as good as they first thought. |
Quite probably true, although also how many new designs have gone into service since then? Takes a hell of a long time to design and build any new military equipment these days.
All the best
Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Mister James |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mister James
I want to believe!
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:54 - 01 Feb 2006 Post subject: |
|
|
| Kickstart wrote: | | Mister James wrote: | Aye, I remember the designs for a 'fat' frigate when I was a kid. Model tests showed that it would make a stable weapons platform under some conditions, but I seem to remember that having a wider beam and shorter length caused other performance problems. |
Interesting. I can see that it would have speed issues, but not sure how relevant they would be on a picket ship.
|
Any blue-water navy such as the RN needs escorts than can keep up with carriers, which steam at around 30 knots. I guess they went for the compromise - both the types 45 and 23 show wider beams than a 42 or 22, in relation to their length.
| Quote: |
One of the other things I remember was that they were talking about having multiple vertically mounted weapons launchers, mounted below the decks. Presume they gave that idea up with improvements in the time to reload.
|
The 23's already have these to launch their seawolfs, a group of 32 vertical launch tubes between the bridge and the 4.5" gun. The 45's will also have them, and should be able to fit modular packs that let them launch various missiles in addition to their standard issue Asters.
| Quote: |
From (vague) memory part of the problem was that to keep the type 42s seaworthy (let alone as a good weapons platform) they had to play around with the fuel tanks for ballast (from even more vague memory, flooding some of them with sea water when empty which caused other problems afterwards).
|
Aye, sounds about right. After the Falklands conflict there was a panic-stricken rush in every major navy to take on-board the various lessons learnt by the RN. Metal ships can burn, missile only weapon-fits are a bad idea, type 21's fall apart if they are put under any stress, that kinda thing!
| Quote: |
Quite probably true, although also how many new designs have gone into service since then? Takes a hell of a long time to design and build any new military equipment these days.
|
Definitely. There is a lot of inertia in the so-called military/industrial complex, and often convenience has to come first. As you point out, sophisticated weapons platforms can take decades to develop and build - who is going to seriously consider risking a radical departure from accepted wisdom on ship dimensions?
I still stick by my earlier comments, aside from the trimarine concepts, even the wackier american concepts do not go that far in addressing the beam issue, suggesting to me that they eventually decided it was not worth the hassle for some reason.
____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you... |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Hex |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hex
Party Boy
Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| ZRX61 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
ZRX61
Victor Meldrew
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| zaknafien |
This post is not being displayed .
|
zaknafien
Joined: 25 Mar 2002
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:40 - 01 Feb 2006 Post subject: |
|
|
And we have a grand total of...
Wait for it!
1 and it wont be ready for another 3 years. 
BTW, if you go on google earch and visit portsmouth you can see the triton docked.
____________________
02 Firestorm. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| zaknafien |
This post is not being displayed .
|
zaknafien
Joined: 25 Mar 2002
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Mister James |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mister James
I want to believe!
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Mister James |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Mister James
I want to believe!
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Jman |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Jman
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| killa |
This post is not being displayed .
|
killa
Won't Shut Up
Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Karma : 
|
Posted: 09:32 - 28 Feb 2006  Post subject: |
|
|
Why don’t we just make the biggest battle ship ever so it holds the most guns?
Why can’t we make force fields yet?
Does that new ship have an oven?
____________________
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
Bike:- Yamaha TRX850 | Killas Biking History | Killas Gaming History | Killas autmotive history |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| killa |
This post is not being displayed .
|
killa
Won't Shut Up
Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| zaknafien |
This post is not being displayed .
|
zaknafien
Joined: 25 Mar 2002
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| McGee |
This post is not being displayed .
|
McGee
O RLY?
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| zaknafien |
This post is not being displayed .
|
zaknafien
Joined: 25 Mar 2002
Karma :
|
Posted: 19:27 - 28 Feb 2006  Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 18 years, 84 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating