Type 26

That argument could be countered by pointing out how many of the slower battleships were ineffective simply because they couldn't catch their intended prey..

Battleships needed to get within 10-20 miles of each other to throw bullets at each other in a drawn out slugging matches.
Modern anti ship missiles don't care whether you or your target is doing 10, 20, 30 or 50kts, they will fly out to well over 100nms at speeds of up to Mach 3 and get you.
High speed as a critical design feature became moot on the 21 October 1967 when INS Eilat, a 37kt destroyer sailing 17nm off Port Said, was blown apart by Styx ASM's fired from a couple of Egyptian fast patrol boats sitting inside Port Said harbour.

To boost the speed of a T45 to 36kts as per WWII era Destroyer designs, you'd need to add more engines, and that would need more machinery space, and that would need a longer hull, and that would need more power to push it… you see the vicious design spiral?

The pre war Fench Fantasque Destroyers could do over 40kts, but required about 80,000shp to do it. The equivalent British Tribals could do 36kts on half that power.
The power vs speed curve for ships is not linear, it's like a hockey stick, and 30kts sits nicely at the optimum point at the foot of the up slope.



Anyway, I digress, speed isn't the asset it was once. As you point out, missiles and helicopters negate the advantages to a fair degree.
The only real necessity for high speed now is created by the small quantities of ships available to the RN. Being required to cover a larger area because of a lack of ships would make higher transit speeds useful. But I suppose thats always going to be a problem given that the RN has to cover the same areas it did a decade ago with an ever decreasing pool of ships to do it with.


Higher transit speeds use up more fuel and we're pretty much all out of tankers at the moment with no sign of any new ones in the forceable future.
 
I'd say that more range is a pretty big "except"... ASRAAM is a top-notch weapon, so with decent range should make for a decent self defence weapon.


Phalanx (and RAM) are very much last-ditch weapons; RAM doesn't even have a third of the range of CAMM. Phalanx is also rather handy for shooting up speedboats, which may well prove handy in the future.

CAMM will be a decent self defence weapon, but that's all it will be. It's going to have limited use at longer range against manoeuvring and fast crossing targets as it's relatively low speed leaves rather a large escape zone. The key programme driver for CAMM has been 'cheap' not 'performance' and it shows.

How many guns do we need to shoot up dhows? It will have a 5", Phalanx's, 30mm guns, GPMG's and miniguns!.
 
I'm a bit perplexed by the claims that the Type 45s are noisy because of their electric propulsion system. Surely the generators are accoustically isolated from the hull, or if not, then they could be, and surely the drive train must be quieter than one which is directly driven.
 
they need to be general purpose because we are only going to have a dozen or so of them with jobs all over the globe so they are going to be shagged senseless
even if we keep them on station and rotate crews don't think mare harbour can overhaul one so thats a 16000 round trip every year at least
 
I'm a bit perplexed by the claims that the Type 45s are noisy because of their electric propulsion system. Surely the generators are accoustically isolated from the hull, or if not, then they could be, and surely the drive train must be quieter than one which is directly driven.

Beat me to it JP. When a sub wants to run silent doesn't it go to electric? Why would the 45s electric drive 'train' be louder than a mechaical one?

Re the Invincibles, I thought they were called 'through deck cruisers' becasue that is what they were. A Cruiser with a flat deck, part of Zumwalts Sea Control Ships idea.

Re the Battlecrusiers, the 'fatal flaw' ie lack of armour only became apparent due to their (mis)use as a ship of the line. The design was originally to produce faster ships that could take on and destroy commerce raiders and such like or to use their speed to exploit fleet movements and get in and destroy armoured cruisers and what not, not to get in to a slugging match with more heavily armoured Battle ships. Or that is my beleif.
 

Mattb

LE
Well, they were cruisers with a flat deck, lots of space for aircraft, dedicated control and handling facilities for aircraft and no offensive weaponry (and only AA defensive weaponry).


I.e. an aircraft carrier.
 
Re the Battlecrusiers, the 'fatal flaw' ie lack of armour only became apparent due to their (mis)use as a ship of the line. The design was originally to produce faster ships that could take on and destroy commerce raiders and such like or to use their speed to exploit fleet movements and get in and destroy armoured cruisers and what not, not to get in to a slugging match with more heavily armoured Battle ships. Or that is my beleif.


Just like the theory that Cruiser Tanks would be able to cut about in the enemy GHQ zone and pop off enemy armour with a small-calibre high-velocity gun, without ever needing to get their tracks dirty in an infantry batle...

Or that American medium tanks would not need to engage other tanks...

Unfortunately, some elements of theoretical doctrine just don't survive contact with reality. In this case the reality was that in the inevitable attempt to force a decisive fleet-on-fleet action, neither side could afford to hold back any part of their force, and that battlecruisers took a thumping...
 
Beat me to it JP. When a sub wants to run silent doesn't it go to electric? Why would the 45s electric drive 'train' be louder than a mechaical one?

Re the Invincibles, I thought they were called 'through deck cruisers' becasue that is what they were. A Cruiser with a flat deck, part of Zumwalts Sea Control Ships idea.

Re the Battlecrusiers, the 'fatal flaw' ie lack of armour only became apparent due to their (mis)use as a ship of the line. The design was originally to produce faster ships that could take on and destroy commerce raiders and such like or to use their speed to exploit fleet movements and get in and destroy armoured cruisers and what not, not to get in to a slugging match with more heavily armoured Battle ships. Or that is my beleif.

Its not the drive train its the BFO RR WR21 gas turbines. The diesels cant generate the power to drive a high voltage IEC drive. Plus IEC is expensive and unproven in the realms of surface combatants, no one realy knows how IEC stands up to battle damage and so on. T45 had the latest and best while 26 is cheap and trusted kit/tech. The only other surface combatant even thinking of using IEC (as far as i know and not counting auxilieries) is the USN deathstar Zumwalt cruisers which are costing about 7 billion each and only 2 shall be built.
 
Beat me to it JP. When a sub wants to run silent doesn't it go to electric? Why would the 45s electric drive 'train' be louder than a mechaical one?.

You have two huge gas turbines making a pretty fearsome din in a T45. T23's can bimble about quietly on their diesel-electric plant.
 
Just like the theory that Cruiser Tanks would be able to cut about in the enemy GHQ zone and pop off enemy armour with a small-calibre high-velocity gun, without ever needing to get their tracks dirty in an infantry batle...

Or that American medium tanks would not need to engage other tanks...

Unfortunately, some elements of theoretical doctrine just don't survive contact with reality. In this case the reality was that in the inevitable attempt to force a decisive fleet-on-fleet action, neither side could afford to hold back any part of their force, and that battlecruisers took a thumping...


Hmmmm…*sounds rather like RN thinking in the 60's/70's that ASW ships would not need a decent AAW capability as they would be doing their fighting in the GIUK gap and all they would need was the ability to shoo away the odd inquisitive prop driven recon plane.

Moving smartly onwards, we had the rather unedifying experience of ships crews in Bomb Alley busily sawing the bottoms off pussers swivel chairs to mount Brens and Gimpys to the rails to give them something to shoot back with more in hope than expectation against waves of rather sporty A-4's and Mirages flown by rather sporty and determined pilots.
 
Don't 45s have a pair of diesel generators?

Yes, but you can't shut down the GT's and just go diesel-electric like the CODLAG plant on the 23's as we fitted two rather small 2,700hp diesels to T45 - T23 has four 2,000hp diesels for a much smaller ship. CODLAG was considered for T45 in the early design stages but was dropped by us when we went IEP. The Frogs and Italians went for CODOG with their version of Horizon and it can run on just their two 5,800hp diesels.
FWIW, it was originally hoped the rather expensive but wizzy IEP plant would give T45 a range of 10,000 miles but it ended up at 7,000, the same as the simpler and cheaper CODOG systems on the Horizons.
 
Surely an electric train wo uld be less prone to damage than a drive train?

If the cable is snapped, fair one but you coul dhave a spare link, you can't have a spare prop shaft.

Any other damage (ie to the turbines or to the props) is going to be the same outcome either way surely?
 
Well it's decision day next month for T26 when the Navy sign off on what they want on the 'capable but affordable' Type 26.

"We have got a sensible platform for the Royal Navy and stopped dreaming about an Aston Martin when we could only really afford a Ford,"
Commodore Simon Kings: Head of above-water capability, MoD


Well that will be a refreshing first, although the git has nicked one of my favourite comments about UK defence procurement. ;P
 

John Civie

Old-Salt
Unfortunatly i bet no one at the MOD knows the price of a ford so will either ask BAE whats the price or take a guess, ''brand new ford, 50p''
 
Question 1 from stupid.

Water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces thermal emissions. Zumwalt class from wiki.

What is water sleeting? How does it work.
 
Question 2 from stupid.

BAe have the Zumwalt contract for the main gun.

The Advanced Gun System is a 155 mm naval gun, two of which would be installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced 155 mm gun and the Long Range Land-Attack Projectile.[SUP][33][/SUP] This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 lb and has a circular error of probability of 50 meters. This weapon system will have a range of 83 nautical miles (154 km) and the fully automated storage system will have room for up to 750 rounds.[SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP] The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating and allows a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. From wiki

Why are we not the same gun given that the research has been paid by the US...?
 
Question 1 from stupid.

Water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces thermal emissions. Zumwalt class from wiki.

What is water sleeting? How does it work.

Basically a big water spray system like pre wet on steroids. IR can't see through water spray very well.
 
Question 2 from stupid.

BAe have the Zumwalt contract for the main gun.

The Advanced Gun System is a 155 mm naval gun, two of which would be installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced 155 mm gun and the Long Range Land-Attack Projectile.[SUP][33][/SUP] This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 lb and has a circular error of probability of 50 meters. This weapon system will have a range of 83 nautical miles (154 km) and the fully automated storage system will have room for up to 750 rounds.[SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP] The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating and allows a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. From wiki

Why are we not the same gun given that the research has been paid by the US...?


It's absolutely enormous with an even more enormous under deck built in magazine and shell handling spaces. It simply wouldn't physically fit in anything smaller than a Zumwalt.
BAE were making good progress on converting the 4.5 Mk8 mount to 155mm, but the money ran out and its been quietly dropped.

We're finally getting the US 5" gun it seems for T26, 75 years after the RN first issued an operational requirement to standardise on a 5" gun as part of 'lessons learned' from WWII.
 

Latest Threads

Top