When is a destroyer not a destroyer?

[nikbear]

When its unarmed!!!!!! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/type_45_viper_paams_fail/ You really couldn't make this sh1t up could you :nope::nope::nope:

[Torplexed]

That's the thing that bugs me about modern surface warships. With only the rudimentary little gun turret up front, they pretty much all look unarmed to me anyway. Gone are the days of a ship bristling with gun tubes. But it is a scandal that all this ship is at this point, is a glorified patrol boat.

[Tarrasque]

Well even if the Sea Viper was operational, it, like the Type 42 before is extremely limited in what it can do.

Very limited anti surface capabilities. Even more limited land attack capabilities and horrific anti sub capabilities.

Thought we'd learnt in WW2 that hugely expensive specialised vessels (read battleships) were ineffective and far too easily sunk.

[papa_smurf]

......when the MOD/RN procure a new warship:har:

(p.s read about the new aircraft carriers being built - 1 could be sold to India due to possible military budget cuts, meaning we will have to carrier share with the French Navy.The other could be converted to a glorified helicopter/commando assault ship:nope:)

[Dowly]

Or when it's front falls off. Then it become's a submarine. :yep:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

When its unarmed!!!!!! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/type_45_viper_paams_fail/ You really couldn't make this sh1t up could you :nope::nope::nope:

Unfortunately for all those who hate Lewis Page, the UK military-industrial-government seems determined to prove him right when it comes to the Navy :D

[Oberon]

:damn::damn::damn::damn:

At this rate, they'll be forced to reactivate HMS Belfast, and HMS Victory to make up numbers...

[SteamWake]

So what you have is a missle platform with no missles ?

[AVGWarhawk]

Shame too when this is ruling the high seas:

http://www.alaskareport.com/images3/somalia_pirates.jpg

[frau kaleun]

When is a destroyer not a destroyer?

When it's a-float?

*ducks*

[Jimbuna]

Well even if the Sea Viper was operational, it, like the Type 42 before is extremely limited in what it can do.

Very limited anti surface capabilities. Even more limited land attack capabilities and horrific anti sub capabilities.

Thought we'd learnt in WW2 that hugely expensive specialised vessels (read battleships) were ineffective and far too easily sunk.

Agreed http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[XabbaRus]

......when the MOD/RN procure a new warship:har:

(p.s read about the new aircraft carriers being built - 1 could be sold to India due to possible military budget cuts, meaning we will have to carrier share with the French Navy.The other could be converted to a glorified helicopter/commando assault ship:nope:)


Really? Never heard this one.

Look I've been on quite a few websites that deal with the RN and one of them, the navweaps forum ahs some pretty knowledgable guys, some current and ex-rn whose word I'd take over Lewis Page.

There has been one failure out of numerous successes. For such a complex system you would expect a few failures. We also don't know what constitutes a failure. Lewis Page is to the RN what Karlo Copp is to Aussie military aviation.

Lewis Page basically thinks all stuff American is great and that the UK should just purchase it.

read this link

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/11732/t/T45-missiles.html

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Really? Never heard this one.

Look I've been on quite a few websites that deal with the RN and one of them, the navweaps forum ahs some pretty knowledgable guys, some current and ex-rn whose word I'd take over Lewis Page.

There has been one failure out of numerous successes. For such a complex system you would expect a few failures. We also don't know what constitutes a failure. Lewis Page is to the RN what Karlo Copp is to Aussie military aviation.

Lewis Page basically thinks all stuff American is great and that the UK should just purchase it.

read this link

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/11732/t/T45-missiles.html

I've glimpsed at the discussion, and while I don't have too high an evaluation of Page's technical expertise (in contrast to Carlo Kopp, which I admit to be rather convinced by) - his Navy background really doesn't show in his work, I think he's more on the money than the gallery on Warships1 this time.

A weapon's success percentage in trials is but a most partial measure of its reliability. In the absence of specific knowledge of what each trial entailed, I'll be much happier with a weapon that didn't work in 90% of a 100 trials, but the last five trials (or even 2 or 3) went w/o a hitch rather than a weapon that was mostly succeeding but the last trial failed.

It is generally the later trials that try and bring everything together. A failure there is much more critical than one (or even 3) in the early stages.

The bigger problem, however, is not so much how the failure percentage than the fact that weapon is still somewhere in its trial program AT ALL even after the ship commissioned. In fact, according to your thread, they hadn't even actually shot one Aster out of a Type 45 yet!

They did this in Soviet Union. It is called "experimental operation". It is generally not thought well of by the West.

But worst of all, even if PAAMS works perfectly, it still won't change the fact the T45 is bloody expensive, and even if Sampson does become the more efficient system in the end it still does not seem to justify the cost. Or the idea of not arming the ship with Tomahawks. Or indeed, while there is a role for surface combtants, that a properly carrier looks extremely attractive versus the cost of those T45s!

And I don't think the board answered those questions at all. It is split b/w ad homineming Page and bland assurances that everything is all right, including propaganda from one self-claimed former worker on the PAAMS program (oh, how neutral!).

[XabbaRus]

Well I would expect a former worker on PAAMS to be more reliable that Lewis Page who left the Navy a long time ago and isn't close to the program.

Yes the Type 45 is expensive but I still don't agree with Lewis Pages article or his argument that AEGIS would have been a better route given the problem yet again that the UK isn't going to get the source code for the F-35 so I doubt we'd get the source for the AEGIS thus as one poster said, we'd have to spend more money to bring AEGIS up to the standard we need due to getting given an inferior system for export.

The trials from the barge as I understand it were to allow testing of the missile and system while the Type-45s were being built to make integration easier.

Anyway we don't know what the failure is and how serious.

As for Carlo Kopp, well, I've heard enough and put him in the same basket as Lewis Page.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well I would expect a former worker on PAAMS to be more reliable that Lewis Page who left the Navy a long time ago and isn't close to the program.

Actually, it just means another source of bias enters, one that can be seen in certain commentary about the V-22. Especially since the "fomer worker" gave no details, just assurances blander than can be found on a brochure.

Yes the Type 45 is expensive but I still don't agree with Lewis Pages article or his argument that AEGIS would have been a better route given the problem yet again that the UK isn't going to get the source code for the F-35 so I doubt we'd get the source for the AEGIS thus as one poster said, we'd have to spend more money to bring AEGIS up to the standard we need due to getting given an inferior system for export.I won't be so dim about Aegis source code. After all, it is not the State of the Art like the JSF is supposed to be. It is a modern but well-used system that's being stretched until the day of a revolutionary new system.

Seeing that every Aegis buyer has more or less the same general requirements (anti-air, anti-cruise missile, maybe anti-ballistic missile, the latter of which apparently PAAMS would not have even if it fully works without upgrades and expense), one must wonder what these high and exacting standards are. Making up nebulous or partially valid (as in turning Desirables into Essentials) standards is a time honored technique to insist on not sharing, at enormous cost in time and expense and often getting stuck with an inferior product.

For a historic lesson for such hubris, see the Soviet S-300P and S-300V series; the Soviet Army's proposal was more ambitious & capable in all aspects in theory (the chassis was tracked, a ATBM capability was specified, the launchers theoretically somewhat more independent with separate illuminator, and the battery level engagement radar incorporating more independent search capability than FLAP LID).

That was the excuse they used to go their own way, but as it turned out, the first S-300Ps were clearly superior to the S-300Vs (for example, in the enormously important minimum engagement altitude area). The ATBM ability is nice, but didn't come out till 1988 because the big 9M82 Giant was delayed (by then, the ordinary-sized 48N6 ATBM-capable rocket wasn't that far away). The early S-300Ps came out sooner to boot - the PTs (they "only" had comparable mobility characteristics to Patriot) were operational as a full battalion by 1981 and transitioning smoothly through the PT-1, the PS and PM. Oh, how much stronger would Soviet Army Air Defense be they can start throwing out the old SA-4s in 1981 rather than 1986!

I'll grant that PAAMS, on paper, if they ever get it working, may be more efficient in some areas against even an appropriately modified Aegis. But saying it is worth the delay or the cost is a much more nebulous argument. If the darn thing doesn't even work, it is treasonous...

The trials from the barge as I understand it were to allow testing of the missile and system while the Type-45s were being built to make integration easier.Yes, that's what trial ships are for. But the fact remains that the damn system hadn't even been tested on the full warship.

Anyway we don't know what the failure is and how serious.So why are you automatically taking an optimistic attitude?

As for Carlo Kopp, well, I've heard enough and put him in the same basket as Lewis Page.From whom? I know he isn't popular in some circles, but seeing that he attacks both the Australians and the States, it is inevitable. Do they actually have arguments that are bigger than nitpicks (I remember glimpsing one that criticized on of his pages for not mentioning some stupid Swedish fighter had a particular human interface before the Russian Su-35BM or something like that ... I nodded but mostly I was rolling my eyes) or ad hominems?

[XabbaRus]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3afe9f8c24-186a-4a57-83c5-ef292ba7fe73&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

This is the original article which Lewis Page refers too. Stating that there has been a failure in the final qualification test. This to me doesn't suggest anything to get worked up about. Suggests that the missile was fired from the warship itself.

I don't believe for one minute that the ships are going to go to sea without missiles. For god's sake Daring was only handed over a year ago.

If you look at some of the early Trident tests they weren't exactly spectacular..

I say wait till more tests have been completed, in the mean time take what Page writes with a pinch of salt.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

This is the original article which Lewis Page refers too. Stating that there has been a failure in the final qualification test. This to me doesn't suggest anything to get worked up about. Suggests that the missile was fired from the warship itself.

If they actually tested it on the ship, it'll be a huge advancement over the original schedule, at least according to the House of Commons (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/372/37206.htm):
12. The first Type 45, Daring, is due to enter service in late 2009, but will not achieve its full operational capability until July 2011 on current forecasts. A number of risks remain to achieving these dates and delivering full capability in the longer term. It is a disgrace that Daring will enter service in December 2009 without a PAAMS missile having being fired from any Type 45 Destroyer, and this gave us concerns about the ship's ability to fulfil its anti-aircraft role.

Judging from all available evidence, this sounds more like the qualification test that IF it passes, they'll go to actually trying it out on the ship.

[mookiemookie]

Sea Viper/PAAMS is largely French and Italian in origin

Well there's your problem right there. :03:

[XabbaRus]

Does in service have to mean fully operational? I don't know of any weapons system of any complexity that is fully operational when it becomes in service.

The Type-45 is not alone. This again is a storm in a tea cup that is being spun out of control by a man with his own agenda whose experience is limited to being second in command of a mine sweeper.

[Cohaagen]

Lewis Page is full of crap. His rent-a-quote "everything beeg in America" attitude is as nauseating as it is myopic. Today it is taken as an article of faith that US weapon systems have always been the best in the world, forgetting such lemons as Sergeant York, the M60A2 and Sheridan tanks, the Dragon ATGM, M60 GPMG, the structurally-unsound OHPs, the Incredible Melting Gun (XM8), etc. The fact that increased reliance on foreign equipment would only further damage the knowledge base and industry of the UK defence sector doesn't seem to have occurred to him. God, he's a useless diddy!

You can all alight from the Outrage Bus now.

[Jimbuna]

Lewis Page is full of crap. His rent-a-quote "everything beeg in America" attitude is as nauseating as it is myopic. Today it is taken as an article of faith that US weapon systems have always been the best in the world, forgetting such lemons as Sergeant York, the M60A2 and Sheridan tanks, the Dragon ATGM, M60 GPMG, the structurally-unsound OHPs, the Incredible Melting Gun (XM8), etc. The fact that increased reliance on foreign equipment would only further damage the knowledge base and industry of the UK defence sector doesn't seem to have occurred to him. God, he's a useless diddy!

You can all alight from the Outrage Bus now.


http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[XabbaRus]

Cohaagen are you a previous subsimmer but with a new name?

I can't remember his name but he was/is RN bubblehead and was based at HolyLoch. The only thing is you use punctuation, he didn't.

[Sailor Steve]

When it's a-float?

*ducks*
:rotfl2:

No need to duck - that was a good 'un!:rock:

[Oberon]

Cohaagen are you a previous subsimmer but with a new name?

I can't remember his name but he was/is RN bubblehead and was based at HolyLoch. The only thing is you use punctuation, he didn't.

You thinking of mickey1up, Xabba? :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

But it is a scandal that all this ship is at this point, is a glorified patrol boat.
At least its a patrol boat.
Our wonderful leaders ordered a patrol boat but couldn't afford the deck gun, then they could afford the deck gun but had forgotten to allow for the deck to be able to take a gun when they had placed the build order.

I don't know if that is funnier than the patrol boat with helicopter facilities, that doesn't have helicopters anymore because apparently helicopters need servicing and the government didn't budget for servicing so it sold them instead.
I think there is still a replacement helicopter sitting in Yeovil for the past 3 years. As they can't decide if its ministry of defence(navy), ministry of transport(coast guard), ministry of health(air ambulance), ministry of marine(fisheries), justice ministry(law enforcement) or ministry of state(govenment taxi service) who should pay the final bill.

[Oberon]

Bureaucracy and the inepititude of the aforementioned is universal it seems... :damn:

[XabbaRus]

Wow.

Personally I think the Type-45 is progressing as required. Just we need anything to lambast the MoD or any defence project.

[Oberon]

She's good, I don't disagree, and when she's in service she will rub shoulders with the big boys, I have no doubt about that. It's just all the messing around in the run up to that point, with cutbacks, delays, overruns, underbudget. Like the mess the Astute project was in before that new chap took it over and shook it up.
We can build them damn good, when we're given the chance to, and it's well known that our sailors are one of the best trained, well, they were under the Perisher course anyway, but I'm not sure they're still doing that.
It's not the MoD I blame, it's the people who decide the budget of the MoD, although to be fair, it's also public perception of the preference of butter over guns, and since we're...sort of...in peacetime, that's understandable. It's just the fact that since everything is run as a business these days, the corruption that is prevalent in big business is also prevalent in the upper echelons of things like the NHS and the government system itself which lead to budget sinkholes which draw more resources away from the actual areas which need it. Of course, one could also argue that this is the end result of the welfare state and that the lifestyle we lead does not come free, but to hear of bankers in the city who have already lost the public they are supposed to serve millions, receive something like twenty thousand pounds a week. That's where the anger kicks in.
But, what is to be done? It is the capitalist system after all, and this strange hybrid mix of capitalism and socialism that seems to have arrived in the UK, in that in one hand banks are allowed and encouraged to operate independently of the state, however the state is now having an increased say in the operation of the banking network and other sectors, such as, for example, the operation of the East Coast Main Line.
Which works?
Well, at the moment it seems that neither does!

Oh god...I'm rambling again...I'm going to bed before I do it again... :damn:

[Cohaagen]

Cohaagen are you a previous subsimmer but with a new name?

I can't remember his name but he was/is RN bubblehead and was based at HolyLoch. The only thing is you use punctuation, he didn't.

No, that's not me. I'm a merchant seaman - I work for a living! I do remember the USN at Site One in the Holy Loch, however - I got a lot of good early-import heavy metal tapes from them when I was a young lad :DL

On topic, it is a sad fact that the Land Forces are the current media darlings. They (the Army) have almost entirely eaten up the Defence budget since 2002 - UORs (Urgent Operational Requirements) since that date could have paid for the entire build costs of the Type 45s alone.

Matelots and air jocks are simply not dish of the day, sadly. They aren't even gormless bridesmaids at the ball in the context of the tabloid-sponsored, publicity-fuelled, ITV-aided, Quinetiq C4ISTAR, special forces, spy-satellite mutual compliment session.

In the period 2005-2009, unless you've got Ross Kemp bumming you up on ITV4, you're nothing in the MoD. This is the first time in the history of Britain that the ground forces have exceeded the Navy in prestige. It is a terrible time.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Does in service have to mean fully operational? I don't know of any weapons system of any complexity that is fully operational when it becomes in service.

The Type-45 is not alone. This again is a storm in a tea cup that is being spun out of control by a man with his own agenda whose experience is limited to being second in command of a mine sweeper.

Actually, that was what is supposed to happen. We've lived so long under various degrees of corruption of this principle that we've almost forgotten it.

We can accept teething troubles that the trial program didn't catch. We are less happy to accept a situation where the trial program is far from completion even if everything goes perfectly.

Aegis passed its Two-Target Simultaneous Engagement test in 1977. Ticonderoga was then around six years from commissioning.

The Soviets DO do this. As I said this "experimental operation" is not well thought of, not even by the Russians themselves. At least when Kirov commissioned, they were already 3 years into the S-300F trials program, things were looking good, and its mother program had already passed a VERY intensive trials program that involved DOZENS of simultaneously attacking drones (in other words, they fired off more test missiles that one day than all of the Aster program), and they can blame the Cold War.

Lewis Page is full of crap. His rent-a-quote "everything beeg in America" attitude is as nauseating as it is myopic. Today it is taken as an article of faith that US weapon systems have always been the best in the world, forgetting such lemons as Sergeant York,

Remained experimental.

the M60A2 and Sheridan tanks, the Dragon ATGM, M60 GPMG,

These aren't leaping successes, but the first two are limited production and the latter two are not quite disasters AFAIK.

the structurally-unsound OHPs,

In what way?

the Incredible Melting Gun (XM8), etc.

As long as the X doesn't come off...

More importantly, I don't think Page is asking you to buy any of those failures.

The fact that increased reliance on foreign equipment would nly further damage the knowledge base and industry of the UK defence sector doesn't seem to have occurred to him. God, he's a useless diddy!

The defence industry serves the military, not vice versa. Indigenous military industry is all very well and good, but if they aren't producing, at some point you just have to accept your limitations as a medium-power.

Heck, even Russia, whose national policy and circumstances requires it to have an independent defence industry to a far greater extent than Britain, swallowed its pride recently to buy an amphib ship (Mistral) from France...