Talk:Type 45 destroyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sea Viper[edit]

I saw your edit to the Type 45 page. It was my understanding that they did not yet have their weapons systems, particularly after the last test failure of the missile. The latest article I can find, (April 10) suggests that the ships do not yet have Sea Viper fitted and this was to be delivered in 2011. As such, the text was correct as far as I can tell. Do you have any links to suggest they have been fitted with Sea Viper? Woody (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woody, I'm not quite sure where this has come from. Sea Viper consists of the entire system, from LRR & Sampson, through the Combat System and the SYLVER launcher, to the missiles. It's a bit odd to say that Sea Viper isn't fitted to Daring and Dauntless - even if the missiles aren't on board, it's a bit like saying that HMS Manchester isn't fitted with Sea Dart, just because she's de-ammunitioned her missiles. Perhaps I'm missing something? Shem (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, more accurately my point should be that she is not currently stocked with Aster 15 and 30 missiles. I have been reading too many articles that use Sea Viper in place of Aster I suppose. The page should be edited to reflect the point that the ships do not yet have missiles in my opinion. Woody (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better just to state that Sea Viper is not yet fully operational - who knows whether the ships have got Aster missiles on board yet, and how would we know when that changes? Shem (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of WP:OR on my part... ;) but I don't think that would wash! More to the point this article makes it clear that they have not yet been delivered. Other articles in Janes state it will be 2011 when they are delivered. As for when they are delivered there will undoubtedly be a press release, particularly when Dauntless does the first test firings. Woody (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, and back to the original point, it is again my understanding that parts of the system itself are not yet delivered, or operational. The Sea Viper system as a fully operational unit has not been delivered to the Royal Navy and this isn't expected until 2011. Woody (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think the article should say? I'm keen that the facts should be correct, but also that the tone should not deceive the uninitiated - hence my edit. It already says "The Sea Viper missile system has not been delivered due to repeated unsuccessful trial firings". Does that not do it? Shem (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with the article at the moment is that it states this stuff in the lead without elaborating on it in the text, the opposite of what a Lead should do. It probably needs a capabilities section or the like: the whole of the third para of the lead isn't covered in the rest of the article. In the new section, then we could talk about the system not being operational, test failures of the missiles etc.
As an aside, would you disagree with moving this debate to the T45 talkpage? Regards, Woody (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the Type 45 Destroyer page rather frustrating; all sorts of editors want to add their own stuff, but no one wants to look after the page as a whole. Any re-write is bound to attract controversy, so I tend to stick to simply removing the obviously incorrect and unreferenced.
There are a number of other bits in there that don't bear close scrutiny - for example the statement that she has double the range of a Type 42, and is therefore more fuel efficient (my car goes twice as far as my motorbike, but I wouldn't say it was more efficient - how big is the tank?) The bit about "Space and provision for a further three 8-cell blocks to be fitted at a later date without need for a major refit, giving a total of 72 cells" does my head in - space and growth margins don't mean you can just slot launchers in whenever you feel like it! Enough ranting - maybe I'll get round to doing something about it one of these days. Shem (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied to Type 45 Talkpage by Shem (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Page reports that MBDA say recent tests were fully successful, and "once [Type 45 ships] magazines can be filled with new re-designed Asters, will finally be judged combat-worthy later this year." Is it worth inserting this? I'd suggest waiting for this to happen? Rwendland (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's important that the key points of this article are incorporated. If Lewis Page (author of Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs) says they work, that carries a lot of weight - he's normally very critical of defence procurement and related subjects. I don't think we should wait for the missiles to be installed - these things are not normally reported in the press, and we could be waiting forever. Shem (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion[edit]

I've done a rewrite on the propulsion section that uses a couple of really useful sources. The hard comes now in writing the article on Integrated Electric Propulsion. Any offers of help, or criticisms of the T45 propulsion section, gratefully accepted ... Shem (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "innovative" the best way to describe a propulsion system first used in warships by the Royal Navy in WWII Captain_class_frigate#Machinery --Thefrood (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive difference between Combined Diesel Electric and Steam (CODLAS?) and IEP. While there have been electrically powered ships for well over a century, the way that Type 45 and other IEP ships (like QM2) generate, distribute and control power is indeed innovative. That's not to say it's better, mind you! Shem (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Type 45 destroyer, a turbine driving a generator that powers electric motors - Captain Class (Buckly), a turbine driving a generator that powers electric motors... Not that much of a difference as far as I can see but I'm no engineering expert hence posting to the talk page and asking questions.--Thefrood (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Buckley and her subclass, but I should imagine that the hotel services were separately supplied - it's very difficult to supply ship's electrical load from the same power source as the main engines. Type 45 does this by using high voltage AC, which is then carefully filtered and transformed, while I'm guessing that the Buckleys used DC for their electric motors (like a WWII submarine). When you only have to run one gas turbine (or DG) for all your electrical load (propulsion, weapons, sensors and hotel services) then you can achieve considerable savings in fuel, engine running hours, and the like. Nevertheless, I'm not saying that the complicated propulsion system in Type 45 is better than the arrangement in the Buckleys, just that it's more complicated, using HV electrical control systems which are indeed innovative. Shem (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case "innovative" might indeed be the best way to describe the power distribution system, one last question which hopefully someone can answer; Is this the first class of Royal Navy warship to have an all electric drive-train since the Captain class?
Sorry for being a pain but there was an article over at theregister.co.uk today claiming that the T45 was the first Royal Navy warship to have an all electric drive-train (which is not the case). I'll also check on the Captain class about the power for the ships ancillary systems but I suspect you may well be right. -- Thefrood (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a pain at all. The Register is a notoriously unreliable source, by the way. Could be worse though - I've seen a few sites saying that Type 45 is the first electrically-powered warship! In answer to your question, the Auk-class minesweepers (Catherine class in RN service) were electric drive, and there may have been others. Shem (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion but given that the engines and drive-train are direct-line descendents of those used in WWII by Captain and Catherine class ships perhaps the article could be reworded to make it clearer where the "innovation" lies (i.e. the power distribution and the complex management of the use of both diesel and turbines (perhaps a rewording to fit the article of what you wrote in your first reply to me)), also as it appears that these are the first Royal Navy large surface warships since WWII to use an all electric drive-train would it also be worth mentioning that? (once again thanks for your patience the T45 is somewhat out of my era of naval knowledge). --Thefrood (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To describe the engines as direct-line descendents of the WWII ships is a bit like describing the i-phone as a direct line descendent of the rotary-dial telephone - true, perhaps, but misleading in character. I wouldn't swear to the fact that the Captains and Catherines are the last electric-drive ships, or that there haven't been any since WWII - which in any case would be hard to find a reference for (it would be Original Research). On the other hand, your suggestion that I make clear where the innovation lies is an excellent one. Thanks Shem (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I suggested mentioning the WWII thing is that we have both independently come across incorrect suggestions that the T45 is the first Royal Navy warship to employ an all electric drive-train, perhaps there is some other way to make the situation clear? As to the direct line relationship - diesels, turbines and drive systems I would of thought that the changes to the mechanical bits have been nowhere near so dramatic as those in the phone industry (I think the big change has been that modern electronics allow far more fine grained control leading to greater reliability, economy and performance) (but hey, as previously stated I'm no expert). Anyway I'm glad we have been able to clarify a few things. --Thefrood (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just re-read the article and see you changed things to make the area of innovation clearer, I think linking to a Royal navy ship or ship class instead of a US Navy ship would clarify the issue of this not being the first Royal Navy ship with an all electric drive-train. --Thefrood (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thefrood, just go ahead and make the changes yourself - after all, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Shem (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I was sure of my footing I would but as I have previously said this is not my era of expertise hence the possibly stupid questions and possibly even more stupid suggestions here on the talk page. --Thefrood (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance off contract, commissioning & "in service"[edit]

Time and time again there is confusion about the various stages of progress from build to service for new build Royal Navy ships. This is how it works:

  • Acceptance off contract is the bit where BAE hands the ship to the Royal Navy, and the white ensign is flown for the first time. Stage 1 trials are complete, and stage 2 trials commence. This happened to Diamond on 22 September 2010, on the day she arrived in Portsmouth. ("Diamond Enters Portsmouth Naval Base for First Time". RN. 22 September 201. Retrieved 24 September 2010.)
  • Commissioning is a purely formal ceremony at which the cake is cut, everybody gets a cup of tea, and technically the ship goes from being a non-naval vessel to a Royal Navy commissioned warship. Stage 2 trials are on-going. This happened to Dauntless on 3 June 2010. ("Royal Navy on Crest of a Wave". Royal Navy. Retrieved 3 June 2010.)
  • In service means the ship has completed all her trials and is ready to deploy. This happened to Daring on 31 July 2010. ("HMS Daring Sails Into Service". Royal Navy Website. 2010-07-31. Retrieved 2010-09-23.)

So, although Dauntless has been commissioned at the time of writing, she's not in service, and is still undergoing her stage 2 trials. Shem (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit sidebar[edit]

I saw a couple of typos in the sidebar on the right. In the Armament section it refers to 'kms' as the plural. This is incorrect - in metric the plural of 'km' is 'km'. I tried to change this but was mystified by how to go about it. How do you get to edit the sidebar? Blaise (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit the article page, you'll see that the relevant part of the infobox comes from Template:Type 45 weapon fit. I've corrected that. David Biddulph (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Register[edit]

I can see there's a bit of an edit-war going on over this. Although I'm happy to keep the factual comment about the limitations of the Type 45, the fact the Register - i.e. Lewis page - complains about numbers of missiles carried doesn't mean it must be mentioned. Trying to compare the Type 45 to the Arleigh Burke is a matter of apples and oranges. After all even the Arleigh Burke doesn't carry as many missiles as the Kirov class cruiser. Does that make the latter a better ship? John Smith's (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JS, thanks for the intervention here. Not so much an edit war, rather an anon IP who keeps removing the whole section with no reason, and a series of editors (including me) who just put it back in again. I'm not sorry to see the Register section go, though. Shem (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Oversight[edit]

Since the Arleigh Burke article makes a "See Also" to this article for some unknown reason, just thought this article should reciprocate. Don't want people confusing this as being "the" destroyer, it's just "a" destroyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any obvious reason to add this to the "see also" section, so I've removed it, and addressed the Arleigh Burke article too (whose "see also" section listed all but one of the Arleigh Burke derivatives, plus, confusingly, Type 45). Shem (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither - but if you delete anything on Wiki, you're accused of vandalism, so I just added the Arleigh Burke "see also" here to maintain symmetry. Yours is a more elegant solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gun[edit]

Should this article mention the proposed 155mm gun since HMS Daring was laucnhed without it? Will the gun ever a replacement of the 4.5 inch guns?Foxhound66 (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It already does. Under Guns it says "The Darings are designed to accommodate a 155 mm gun upgrade currently being studied by the RN". FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really currently being studied? That source is oldFoxhound66 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. You asked if this article should mention the proposed 155mm gun and I said that it already does.
I have no information on the current status of that proposal but if you can find some feel free to add it. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's and old article and the SDSR did not mention any 155mm gunFoxhound66 (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference to trials for this in CORDA (UK)#Fitting 155mm guns to warships. The only recent reference to this program is a 2010 Trade Union submission to SDSR advocating that it be part of future programmes. This implies that a programme to manufacture 155mm guns for Type 45 had not yet been adopted.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated this as far as I could. Yes there was a 155TMF programme that got to the demonstrator stage before getting canned in the SDSR - see this PDF and navweaps.com for details and pics. The main driver is the T26 rather than the T45, which will just get whatever is selected in mid-2012 for the T26 under the Maritime Indirect Fire System. Right now that's looking like the OTO 127mm. A 155mm gun would actually work out cheaper in the long run because of the commonality of ammo with the Army - there's plenty spare thanks to the mothballing of the AS-90s. Reviving 155mm option was considered for MIFS - but right now the RN is terrified of taking on any kind of development risk, and to be fair the TMF 155 is a bit of a fudge. Shame, it looked like a really cute option for getting a significant extra bang for not many bucks.82.31.1.92 (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter[edit]

The shipbarod Helicopter is actually the Wildcat--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW159 not just the Lynx. See the SDSR http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf?CID=PDF&PLA=furl&CRE=sdsrOther dictionaries are better (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet it isn't - the Lynx Wlidcat isn't in service yet!Nigel Ish (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I knew these were futuristic ships but this is ridiculous! Benea (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes but the Lynx has been retired--http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1131-trusty-lynx-makes-its-last-appearance-at-sea.aspxOther dictionaries are better (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That ref doesn't say that the Lynx has been retired; only the Mk3. The Mk8 is still going strong, and of course the Merlin is also available.. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Magazine Size[edit]

Regarding the ship's armament: The Lynx helicopter can carry 4 Sea Skua anti-ship missiles at a time - any data on how many such missiles the ship can carry? What data is there on support for other helicopters, and their missiles? (E.g. Apache & number of Hellfires that can be carried by the ship, or NH90 & number of air-launched Exocets that can be carried by the ship.) 82.25.150.93 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Mike Wheatley82.25.150.93 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any data on that available to the public, besides, the ship won't carry the Apache or NH-90 anyway. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any firm data regarding Quad-Packed misiles for Sylver A50?[edit]

Is there any data on quadpacked missiles for the A-50 launchers on this ship? There is firm data that the VT1-VL missile can be quadpacked on the Sylver A-43, but I've not been able to find data for the A-50. Likewise, is there data on quadpacking the CAMM missile into the A-50? 82.25.150.93 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Mike Wheatley82.25.150.93 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, not yet. Wait for CAMM to come close to introduction and there may be. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that anything that will fit in an A43 will fit in an A50, so you may struggle to find an explicit source saying that VT1 will go in A50. However, neither VT1 nor ESSM will be going in the T45's A50 tubes - the RN's "quad-pack missile" will be CAMM when it comes in. However it won't arrive in its dedicated launchers on the T23's until 2016 so I'd guess you won't see quad-packed CAMM in Sylver until 2019 or so. From memory the CAMM article has a reference for quadpacking it in Sylver though. 82.31.1.92 (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daring names section[edit]

Please let me know if we're missing the point, but I don't see that the section entitled "Daring names" has any encyclopaedic value. If we discussed the use of names for a class of ship at every class article, we'd never stop, and we don't do it because it's not WP:NOTABLE. Unless someone gives me a good reason to keep it, I'll remove it in due course. Shem (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shem: The Type 45s are also known as the Daring Class, which revives a famous postwar class name of 1949: indeed the first line of the Type 45 article warns the reader not to confuse this with the Daring Class (1949) entry. The previous Daring-class of 1949 included the inappropriate Dainty, Delight and Decoy, and the potentially contentious Diana and Duchess. The selection of Dragon and Dauntless from the D-class cruisers is therefore an astute move.
Many people might presume that all six of the new Daring names were used by the preceding class, but my entry explains that although only three of the new names featured in the 1949 Daring series, the remaining names were used for earlier D-Class destroyers in 1930 and also for the earliest destroyers of all in the 1890s. The heritage of ships' names is of great significance in Naval history, and names are very carefully selected from past sequences. (My interest in this issue arises from having taught naval history at the RN college in Manadon and at the Staff College in Greenwich, and working in the Naval History Branch in Whitehall in 2001, where my Captain was on the ships' names committee choosing the new aircraft carrier names). Rupert Nichol (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the ships names would be better added to each of the ships articles not the class article.Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert, firstly, please stop changing the red link for Diamond to a WP:EASTEREGG. If you need to understand why, read WP:REDLINK. Secondly, encyclopaedias are not there to address what "many people might presume" otherwise every article would deal with every possible angle on a subject. WP:NOTDIRECTORY explains this at some length. The use of the ship name Daring is already explained at the article HMS Daring, and so on for the others. It does not need repetition here. Shem (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK section now deleted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

neutral tone[edit]

In an "intensive attack" a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five

I still have a 1980 pamflet where it says the same about the 42s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.118.128 (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most Advanced Air Defence Destroyer?[edit]

The link which leads to this claim does not really say that

And the link saying that Type 45's PAAMS system interrupted the joint US-Uk Naval training is dead as well.

Over patriotism aside please, and keep it as neutral as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.188.204 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DISCRIMINATE indeed[edit]

None of the problems of this lemon class are being recorded. That sounds very discriminate indeed. Hcobb (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The stuff about a contractual disagreement between two sub contractors ending up in criminal proceedings for an individual has nothing to do with the subject (the T45 destroyer). None of the reports suggest there's anything wrong with the deck insulation, merely that one contractor might or might not owe another £750k. It sounds like you have a POV to share about this subject - please don't. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out the consistent and persistent campaign to exclude all problems with this class, as none of the above examples get the slightest mention. (Compare to say the American LCS.) Hcobb (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but there's no campaign that I'm aware of, just a commitment to maintain Wikipedia's standards. Am I missing something? Is this commercial dispute (and subsequent possible criminal proceedings) about the Type 45? It seems clear cut to me that it isn't, so if you think I'm missing something, please explain why. Thanks. Shem (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about the engine failures? Are those unbecoming of WP standards? Hcobb (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The class is not known to suffer persistent engine failures. I assume you are referring to the one-off incident regarding HMS Daring? Perhaps it is better to mention this on her article page, under operational history? Likewise, HMS Dauntless and the blown fuse. Whats the issue? Are not fuses supposed to blow for safety reasons? Lets not make a big deal out of very little.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The class is notorious for engine failures! You and I both KNOW it, but we can't WRITE it. Writing it would indeed be "becoming" - if it can be properly referenced, since the core sourcing policy is "verifiability, not truth". Furthermore, you can't synthesise a statement that the class suffers persistent engine failures from one or two (or even a dozen) newspaper reports about isolated engine failures (all new ships have occasional failures, and old ones too). To make that statement you need a good source that says the class suffers from persistent engine failures. Maybe the reason that isn't already in the article is that such a source doesn't exist - and that isn't a campaign either. Once you've been assimilated, you'll come to love Wiki policies too. Shem (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/providing-anti-air-warfare-capability-the-type-45-destroyer/ The problems arose because of over-optimism about what could be achieved, inappropriate commercial arrangements and, in the early stages, poor project management.

So we say that the "commercial arrangements" are non-notable, because we know better than the National Audit Office? Hcobb (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Development section says:
The Type 45 project has been criticised for rising costs and delays, with the ships costing £6.46 billion, an increase of £1.5 billion (29%) on the original budget.[17] The first ship entered service in 2010,[18] rather than 2007 as initially planned. In 2007, the Defence Select Committee expressed its disappointment that the MoD and BAE had failed to control rising costs.[19][20]
so there is clearly no intent to hide the problems that this project has had.
Any "commercial arrangements" that led to delays in the project are clearly notable. However any "commercial arrangements" that have not had an impact on the project / ships are clearly not notable in this article.
As Shem said above None of the reports suggest there's anything wrong with the deck insulation, merely that one contractor might or might not owe another £750k. The effectiveness of the ships will not be affected one whit whether one firm is ordered to pay the other some money or not nor whether someone is sent to jail or not.
The other two points that you linked were not trivial to the specific ships (losing power for two minutes in a war situation could well cost many lives). However as they stand they are not proof, or even indicative, of systemic problems in all of the T45s.
You could raise those two points on the specific ship articles.
If, as Shem also says in a different place above, it is true that The class is notorious for engine failures, then I am surprised that this has not been commented on in a reliable source. As someone with a scientific background and an interest in this area but no specialised knowledge, my understanding is that quite serious 'teething problems' are common on new warships / warship types. On that basis I wonder if the number of problems is no more than experts in this area might expect.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter how many problems are found with these ships and by whom...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/23/type_45_cpac_slammage/print.html parliamentary committee saying it's "disgraceful" that they will enter service without their French-supplied primary weapons ever having been fired from the ships.

Any such information will never rest peacefully in this article without being instantly ejected. (If only the ships themselves were so invulnerable!) Hcobb (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Register is a notoriously unreliable source, and this particular article dates from 2009. Clearly the ships have entered service, and clearly they have fired their weapons. Which came first, I don't know, but I wouldn't trust The Register if I wanted to find out, and in any case it now has little bearing on whether they can defend themselves or not. You clearly have a strong POV here - so perhaps you're better off editing somewhere you can be neutral ... you don't want to upset the Cabal. Shem (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good new reference[edit]

This article in the US Naval War College Review provides an interesting reference on what went wrong with the program to originally build 12 Type 45s: http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/8c48e9ba-b7ca-42f1-868b-451f9ac72cd0/The-Type-45-Daring-Class-Destroyer--How-Project-Ma.aspx Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/8c48e9ba-b7ca-42f1-868b-451f9ac72cd0/The-Type-45-Daring-Class-Destroyer--How-Project-Ma.aspx. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Shem (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newshms-daring-to-participate-in-ballistic-defence-trials-with-us
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self made claims?[edit]

"After the launch of Daring on 1 February 2006 Admiral Sir Alan West, a former First Sea Lord, stated that it would be the Royal Navy's most capable destroyer ever, as well as the world's best air-defence ship."

The World's Best Destroyer? A personal opinion and of a citiation link that does not load? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.219.85 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whats this nonsense in the infobox?[edit]

"Failed to render property ship class: Property not found for label 'ship class' and language 'en'"

Tried to find the cause. No success.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, its being dealt with. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Wikidata .E2.80.93 again

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016 electrical problems[edit]

None of the sources has been very informative about what modifications will be done. Will it be an extra diesel engine or an extra gas turbine or will the two diesel engines be replaced by one extra gas turbine? I think the last is most likely because how else would they find the space? I'm also puzzled as to why there is a problem anyway. If electrical demand exceeds supply, all they have to do is slow down a bit to bring them into balance. Biscuittin (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it might be a problem with keeping the four generators synchronized. If they are overloaded, the generators will slow down. If one slowed down more than another, they would go out of synchronism and that would put a (metaphorical) spanner in the works. Biscuittin (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Useful paper here [1] Biscuittin (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a problem with harmonics. I'm just throwing in a few ideas for people to think about. Biscuittin (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read the main problem is the intercooler / heat recovery system but it is an issue with the whole system not working together rather than one part being solely at fault. Turbines are normally only efficient when they are running flat out, hence older designs had two turbines per shaft - a small one for cruising and a larger one for accelerating & sprinting.

The WR21 GT has a complex intercooler / heat recovery system that was intended to enable it to operate efficiently over a wide range of operating speeds. The diesels are there principally to supply power for the ship's systems and not to drive the ship. The diesels are c. 2MW each and the GTs c. 20MW each. When (rather than if!) the WR21 fails, far too much is demanded of the diesels and so (something like) a circuit breaker trips to stop more serious damage. Even if they reset things the diesels would only move the ship at very low speeds, under (maybe well under) 10 knots.

I read that there are serious, unrepairable problems with the WR21 engines and the plan is to upgrade the diesel engines - if this is correct then Type 45 has been a very poor purchase for the UK taxpayer!92.23.31.7 (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the WR21 was intended to stay in place for the ship's life so no provision was made in the design to be able to easily get in and replace it. Hence what I think will be fitted is more / more powerful diesels that, when the WR21 fails, can keep the ship powered and moving at a moderate speed, over 10 knots, maybe 15 knots.

There is no prospect of adding another WR21 if that is what was meant by "an extra gas turbine", there are only six in the world. FerdinandFrog (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was seven? This letter is a useful source if someone wants to incorporate it into the article, it's a public letter from the SoS that gives as much detail as you'll ever get in unclassified sources on the problems and a timeline of the MoD's hapless efforts to track down the problems. 2.97.164.83 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course it is neither six nor seven as there are two per ship, so there must be at least 12! I just forgot that when I wrote six.

I have heard about a 'spare' one in the form of a land-based development / test rig, which may be what you were referring to. However I have also heard that once the work this was built for was over it was converted into a system for one of the last ships. Even if there is a single spare, that won't go very far when all 12 are performing well under spec. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcat Helicopter Dipping Sonar, Torpedoes and Depth Charges?[edit]

Are we sure the RN Lynx Wildcat has a dipping sonar as claimed on the page, and if so which one? I'm not sure Lynx even had sonobuoys in RN service. It did have a dipping sonar as used by some foreign navies. Likewise, does it retain the capability to carry Stingray torpedoes and DCs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.17.7 (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No they do notCantab1985 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues?[edit]

I think the entry as it stands does not reflect a NPOV. We are deluged with statistics of its world-beating performance but very little about power issues, cost escalation and breakdowns when at sea. My recent edit about HMS Duncan's recent difficulties has been reverted twice, but I think without good reason. The article already mentions at least two points about the (excellent) aspects of performance of at least one of the ships. Surely info about negative performance should be included for balance, not hidden away in individual ship's entries? And sometimes they are not even there. I'd like to hear other people's views on this, I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone. Might have a power failure : ) TonyClarke (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a better way of putting it, and more in-line with the sort of content you should find on a ship-class article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the language in that confirms the truth of my POV remarks: 'grabbed media attention...'. Do you not see that that phrasing represents a judgement rather than a fact? What if some one said: ' Media usefully recorded that ...' And what or where is the justification or rules for 'the sort of content you should find on a ship -calss article? Other than your own views, of course. I see neutrality disputes have been an issue through the history of this entry, looks like they are embedded now. The article sounds like a commercial promotion for the class, rather than a factual account of the pros and cons. Come on, be honest.

TonyClarke (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Tony: a reader would get the impression of a brilliant new class of ships when in fact there are serious problems!92.23.31.7 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it WP:WEASEL?[edit]

This

I do not believe it so. Type 45 was designed with lessons learned from the Falklands War, and the shortcomings of the Type 42 in it. Most notably, the ability to engage high-speed low flying air targets (a tactic employed to much success by Argentine pilots) and no CIWS. A warship designed to replace a class that saw action, and which aims to address shortcomings due to lessons learned in that action, is a meaningful and relevant point in my book. Although I think the current wording is both vague and poor, and probably why User:Roger 8 Roger removed it in good faith, missing its relevance. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put that way, then yes, I think reference to the Falklands is relevant. As you say though, the wording was not ideal and it read as if attention was being drawn to the war for no reason other than drawing attention to the war. Perhaps you, or another editor, might want to re-arrange the wording to clarify the point you have made? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power supply[edit]

I assume the 440 volt supply is three phase and the 115 volt supply is single phase. Why did they not use the European standards of 400 volt three phase and 230 volt single phase? Roberttherambler (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather late but what the heck. The 440 volt supply is indeed three phase and intended for the larger loads which use all three phases. The 115 volt supply is for smaller domestic loads (usually described as 'hotel loads') such as lighting and appliances fed via a socket. This is in fact distributed as 200/115 volts three phase, but the use of all three phases by a load on this circuit is rare. Marine electrical standards are largely (and loosely) based on US standards even to the point of being 60 Hertz. Cruise ships will often supply 230 volts as a convenience to their customers (though still at 60 Hz), but not war ships.
There is no European standard of 400 volts three phase nor 230 volts single phase. Indeed no European country uses either. European distribution is nominally 400/230 volt but most of Europe is 380/220 volt and the UK is mostly 415/240 volt with a few pockets of resistance at 440/250 volt. All fall within the +/- 10% tolerance of the nominal 400/230 European so called standard and thus conform. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons, countermeasures, capabilities and sensors[edit]

At the subheading Guns the article lists "up to 6× FN MAG General Purpose Machine Guns" however as of 2018 (probably earlier) at least the HMS Duncan is equipped with one or more M2 .50 caliber machine guns. I can't absolutely say whether these are in place of or in addition to the 7.62mm FN MAG machine guns. I do know that at least some of the 7.62mm FN MAG machine guns are retained. I don't have a text-based reference to document the M2 machine guns, but at least one of the M2 .50 caliber machine guns is clearly visible in the video for Episode 4 of the documentary "Warship: Life at Sea" which was filmed aboard the HMS Duncan during Royal Navy operations. The M2 machine gun is featured in the video at about 25 minutes from the beginning of the episode. https://www.channel5.com/show/warship-life-at-sea/ While neither the FN MAG nor the M2 machine guns contribute to the Type 45 destroyer's fleet air defense mission, these guns are important to the close in defense of the ships against small craft, especially while at anchor or maneuvering in confined areas.--N4aof (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Type 45 have in the way of Electronic Counter Measures (ECM)?[edit]

Does the Type 45 have any ECM? If so, it doesn't say in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does IDS300 stand for?[edit]

See the headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.76 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo-electric Drive[edit]

I have eliminated the statement that historically, ships with turbo-electric had DC motors. This is not correct. Diesel-electric ships usually used DC motors, but turbo-electric drive was usually AC. In the steam era the U.S. Navy was the primary naval user of T-E drive, and it was all AC (including USS Langley, mentioned in the passage I removed, and destroyer escorts like USS Buckley, mentioned on this discussion page). The turbo-electric battleships and carriers built in the World War I era and early twenties all had AC motors, as did World War II-era ships like the Buckley class and the T2 tankers, as well as non-U.S. ships like the French liner Normandie. There are many sources for this, but two I can cite is CDR S. M. Robinson, "Electric Ship Propulsion," and the c. 1970 USN text, "Principles of Naval Engineering," which covers the destroyer escorts. Keacla1 (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement[edit]

Should we include a section on their upcoming replacement vessels? Imperialpeace (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reversion 1043753117[edit]

19:58, 11 September 2021‎ "Undid revision 1043729373 by 2A0B:89C1:3:0:0:0:0:A36D (talk) getting into original research and editoralising. Best discussed on talk page"


@GraemeLeggett:, @Kleuske: Alleged OR can be corroborated with the manufacturer's own statement:

"Current Aster 30 Block 1 missile with Ku-band seeker allows for neutralization of 600 km range ballistic threats (Scud class) "

https://www.mbda-systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-01-What-the-Aster-B1-NT-brings.docx.pdf

The editorializing comes about through trying to balance the biased sources' statements: they provide no additionnal info it's just boosterism, it would be better to delete them... which I've done in my first edit before it is was reverted.

From WP:NPOV:

Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.

At the very least it should be mentioned that these statements were made in 2008 and 2012 (again, before SM-3 and SM-6, they are outdated) from domestic newspapers/journalists like it is suggested in WP:BIASED:

"Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". "


May be relevant too:

"A THAAD interceptor flies at Mach 8—more than three times the speed of a rifle bullet—and can hit target up to 150 kilometers high. However, this is still not fast or far enough to reliably hit ICBMs, according to most experts.

The farther a ballistic missile is designed to go, the higher and faster it must fly. This means that super long-range ICBMs travel at speeds around over twenty times the speed of sound and can fly up to thousands of kilometers above the Earth’s surface, making them much more difficult to intercept than shorter-range ballistic missiles, even when diving back to the surface in the terminal phase. To have a good shot at an incoming missile, interceptors of comparable speed are preferred.

This does not mean interception by slower missiles is strictly impossible. THAAD is claimed to have a limited capability for low-altitude ICBM interception. That is to say, it can try, but the odds of success would likely not be high."

2A0B:89C1:3:0:0:0:0:A36D (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We report what reliable sources say about the subject. If you have sources saying AEGIS/THAAD is more advanced, please provide the source that says so. If not, it is your own opinion on the subject. That's not what Wikipedia is for. The above, if I'm being savagely honest, reeks of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:WIKILAWYERING. Kleuske (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECTION! the above statement does not abide by WP:GOODFAITH :o)
You'll notice I didn't write anywhere in the article that AEGIS is more advanced for the very reason you just mentioned. I've only mentioned what the on-board system can and can not do. 2A0B:89C1:3:0:0:0:0:A36D (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are two paragraphs - one talks about limited ABM and interest by RN USN in seeing what it is capable of. The other is about what media say of it. The quote about being better than AEGIS is not necessarily about ABM capability.
I also reverted because the intervening copyedit was removed without explanation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Woops I messed up the in-between edits with my copypasting, sorry
it says: "most advanced air defence ships in the world... The US Aegis system is similar, but Sea Viper is more advanced" does ABM defense not fall under the scope of air defense? As I said it's misleading, outdated. etc. Beside it doesn't even say "limited", I had added that.
Anyway I think I'm on loop mode at this point, do what you want. 2A0B:89C1:3:0:0:0:0:A36D (talk)

Performance, ASW, Propulsion, Faults[edit]

Overall, the article does not seem to make clear the class' most significant shortcoming in ASW capabilities / performance compared to frigates; the engines are not rafted. Therefore, they are actually too noisy to function as successful ASW vessels, despite what sensors and ASW systems may be carried or not. As hulls, they are very unsuitable. They are also made less secure in an environment where hostile submarines are anticipated, relying heavily on dedicated ASW platforms for mutual defence (discuss false economies at your leisure). This is well-known within the service. (Rafting was deliberately omitted from the design, under pressure from Parliament, specifically as a means to save money.) Is this aspect of the ships mentioned in the article, for I may have missed it? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:ED18:EA60:61FC:D690 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a quote from Chris Parry. I've expanded upon that, with the MOD's response that as primarily AAW ships, noise supression was not a "premium requirement". I agree with your comment about false economies, however to discuss that further without references that we could use to include it in the article would see me veering into forum territory which is not what talk pages are for. Mark83 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Type_45_destroyer&oldid=1213163944"