Building Britain's ultimate warship - Channel 4 Monday 7.30
Discussion
)
mcd said:
..shame about the documentary.
Yep, too right."Navies no longer fight their battles at long distance with big guns"
For fecks sake when was the last time the person who wrote that line ever saw a naval ship?
It's about 65 years since big gun battles ended.
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Monday 31st May 20:46
Certainly a great looking ship. The commentry is woeful though. "Grabbing a chocolate bar during the heat of battle", do they not have action messing nowdays? When we did exercises and operational sea training there always seemed to be hot soup/stew bread, and plenty of tea/coffee to keep us going.
Pity the foreign Johnnies managed to cruise up with a $50 RPG and lob one into the bridge while the billion-pound ship was busy firing flares - and then watching a nice bombing display on HMS Iron Duke... couldn't find 'Fire' in the drop down menu?
Two practical questions.
1) Does it have to be made in parts in several different places? In wartime this is dangerously vulnerable - bomb one place = no ship made. Sink a section being towed at 4 knots = no ship made.
2) It has gas turbines, but these are used to generate electricity to drive elctric motors. Doesn't this result in efficiency losses? Plus, there's twice as much equipment to build, maintain and go wrong - and if one Exocet gets in, twice as much stuff to be damaged.
Two practical questions.
1) Does it have to be made in parts in several different places? In wartime this is dangerously vulnerable - bomb one place = no ship made. Sink a section being towed at 4 knots = no ship made.
2) It has gas turbines, but these are used to generate electricity to drive elctric motors. Doesn't this result in efficiency losses? Plus, there's twice as much equipment to build, maintain and go wrong - and if one Exocet gets in, twice as much stuff to be damaged.
Simpo Two said:
Two practical questions.
1) Does it have to be made in parts in several different places? In wartime this is dangerously vulnerable - bomb one place = no ship made. Sink a section being towed at 4 knots = no ship made.
Yes, few yards have the capability to produce a complete Type 45 by themselves. But applying modern block construction methods allow yards to build blocks in parallel and quickly assemble them. Thus allowing Scotstoun to churn them out in relative quick fire. It's also been a trial run for the construction of the new aircraft carriers. Rosyth is the only yard big enough to build Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales (and then only because it has been enlarged specifically for the project). It'd take forever if Rosyth had to construct all the blocks rather than a few of them and final assembly.1) Does it have to be made in parts in several different places? In wartime this is dangerously vulnerable - bomb one place = no ship made. Sink a section being towed at 4 knots = no ship made.
Your war scenario is pretty pointless because a) it takes several years to build one of these warships so there would be no great loss of capability in the meantime and b) if the enemy is getting close enough to bomb one yard or sink a barge, we've probably got greater problems.
said:
2) It has gas turbines, but these are used to generate electricity to drive elctric motors. Doesn't this result in efficiency losses? Plus, there's twice as much equipment to build, maintain and go wrong - and if one Exocet gets in, twice as much stuff to be damaged.
It's a continuation of the Combined Diesel-eLectric and Gas systems that the Type 23 uses. In the Type 23, diesel generators power the electric motors, which are connected to the shafts. For higher speeds the gas turbine powers the shafts through a cross connecting gearbox. An electric motor has the advantage of being quieter, fewer moving parts, simpler gearboxes, less personnel required and can be run off a battery if necessary.The Integrated Electric Propulsion used by the Type 45 simply takes the concept one step further by using the gas turbine to power the electric motors and thereby eliminating the need for mechanical transmissions. The new aircraft carriers will use an even more advanced propulsion system (Integrated Full Electric Propulsion) as used by the Albion Class, which will power all electric systems on the ship as well as propulsion (rather than separate systems).
Edited by ninja-lewis on Tuesday 1st June 00:17
Back in December, the Sea Viper missiles were still failing tests. Have they got them working now, or is it still only armed with a 4.5 inch gun and a couple of 30mm? Rather expensive for that sort of capability.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/type_45_vi...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/type_45_vi...
ninja-lewis said:
Yes, few yards have the capability to produce a complete Type 45 by themselves.
That makes sense. But a Type 45 (is it a destroyer, frigate or cruiser BTW?) isn't awfully big in historical terms. I suppose all the big shipyards have closed down? Or is it just so damn complicated that one place simply can't have all the skills required?ninja-lewis said:
Your war scenario is pretty pointless because a) it takes several years to build one of these warships so there would be no great loss of capability in the meantime
If anything should happen to HMS Daring, there will be a total loss of capability for several years. Not what you really want in wartime (or peacetime for that matter)!My point is that whilst Daring is brilliantly complex and on paper can take on the entire world all at once, (1) it can go wrong (2) it can only be in one place at once. History shows us that pure technology has to balanced with reliability, quantity and ease of maintenance in combat conditions. It seems to me that the 'Daring' concept works if nothing gets through the missile screen or close to it. I guess part of the issue is that the nature of the 'enemy' can only be guessed at, whether it be Chinese jets, Russian subs or two Somalis in a rubber boat. But then, if end up fighting a major power at that level we're a bit stuffed anyway!
Just to clarify, Scotstoun/Govan shipyards are more than big enough to build Type 45's without any other yards help. Govan is where the vast majority of steelwork on the Clyde is done and it is huge. Scotstoun is currently occupied by 5 ships all under construction. So theres little question the boats could have been produced on the Clyde.
The contract was split between different yards (which eventually joined forces as BVT, then split again) by the government in the interest of market fairness. Spreading the workload and money across a sector which would struggle otherwise.
The contract was split between different yards (which eventually joined forces as BVT, then split again) by the government in the interest of market fairness. Spreading the workload and money across a sector which would struggle otherwise.
ninja-lewis said:
Simpo Two said:
Two practical questions.
1) Does it have to be made in parts in several different places? In wartime this is dangerously vulnerable - bomb one place = no ship made. Sink a section being towed at 4 knots = no ship made.
Yes, few yards have the capability to produce a complete Type 45 by themselves. But applying modern block construction methods allow yards to build blocks in parallel and quickly assemble them. Thus allowing Scotstoun to churn them out in relative quick fire. It's also been a trial run for the construction of the new aircraft carriers. Rosyth is the only yard big enough to build Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales (and then only because it has been enlarged specifically for the project). It'd take forever if Rosyth had to construct all the blocks rather than a few of them and final assembly.1) Does it have to be made in parts in several different places? In wartime this is dangerously vulnerable - bomb one place = no ship made. Sink a section being towed at 4 knots = no ship made.
Your war scenario is pretty pointless because a) it takes several years to build one of these warships so there would be no great loss of capability in the meantime and b) if the enemy is getting close enough to bomb one yard or sink a barge, we've probably got greater problems.
said:
2) It has gas turbines, but these are used to generate electricity to drive elctric motors. Doesn't this result in efficiency losses? Plus, there's twice as much equipment to build, maintain and go wrong - and if one Exocet gets in, twice as much stuff to be damaged.
It's a continuation of the Combined Diesel-eLectric and Gas systems that the Type 23 uses. In the Type 23, diesel generators power the electric motors, which are connected to the shafts. For higher speeds the gas turbine powers the shafts through a cross connecting gearbox. An electric motor has the advantage of being quieter, fewer moving parts, simpler gearboxes, less personnel required and can be run off a battery if necessary.The Integrated Electric Propulsion used by the Type 45 simply takes the concept one step further by using the gas turbine to power the electric motors and thereby eliminating the need for mechanical transmissions. The new aircraft carriers will use an even more advanced propulsion system (Integrated Full Electric Propulsion) as used by the Albion Class, which will power all electric systems on the ship as well as propulsion (rather than separate systems).
Edited by ninja-lewis on Tuesday 1st June 00:17
42's weren't exactly the best designed boats anyway, for example the second batch had to be lengthed as the standard version had stability problems in heavy sea's.
The electric generator was a seperate system (another diesel generator)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff