It's Too Warm For Our Ships Now! Nelson Must Be Rolling....

[interestrateripoff]

Royal Navy's most advanced destroyers break down in the Gulf because the water is too WARM, bungling defence chiefs admit

Complicated Rolls Royce gas turbine engines work in the cold water around Britain but the vessels have been left adrift in the Gulf on several occasions because of failures

Genius!

[MrPin]

Fit masts on it and get a proper Admiral with a telescope and missing limbs.

[Bossybabe]

I understand that they don't only fail in warm water. I know for a fact that one of them had to return to Portsmouth from an exercise last year because of engine problems and that it's a problem with the whole class of Type 45s.

[MrPin]

I understand that they don't only fail in warm water. I know for a fact that one of them had to return to Portsmouth from an exercise last year because of engine problems and that it's a problem with the whole class of Type 45s.

Take the spark plug out and heat in under the grill for a minute. You will have it going in no time. Remember to pour a tea spoon of rum down the carburetter.

[The Masked Tulip]

This is going to sound geeky but a few months ago I did a lot of reading into this new propulsion system. Whilst it is state of the art it is not so new that it is not used, in various variations, on other ships already.

On one hand the technology does sound very impressive and, if it works, gives tremendous power to warships.

Power is the key - these modern warships, easpecially the Type 45 which is pretty much 'it' when it comes to modern warships - not only need vast amounts of power to power it through the seas, but they need vast amounts of power for its many complex computer and radar systems. Enough to power a small city and all that guff.

The next generation of warships are going to need even more power as, in the coming years, electro-magnetic projectile rail guns come online - the plan being that rail guns will replace missile systems in both defence and offensive capabilities aboard the next generation of warships.

I do think that the problem with these Type 45s is because the propulsion systems are so state of the art that they are simply very flaky or even poorly implemented. But there is a slim possibility that all of this is a smokescreen in order to put even more powerful generators in to further power key systems and, perhaps, prepare them for future rail-gun implementations.

After all, is not the first Type 45 scheduled for dry-dock for this power upgrade nearly 3 years from now?

[happy_renting]

Take the spark plug out and heat in under the grill for a minute. You will have it going in no time. Remember to pour a tea spoon of rum down the carburetter.

That's Rover 45, not Type 45.

[MrPin]

That's Rover 45, not Type 45.

My excellent knowledge of mopeds will keep NATO safe.

[The Masked Tulip]

My excellent knowledge of mopeds will keep NATO safe.

[MrPin]

Much more cost effective than these ships!

[The Masked Tulip]

Much more cost effective than these ships!

Need wellies.

[juvenal]

I bet when you fire the cannon you suddenly find you have a very powerful reverse gear.

[workingpoor]

All the engines are being replaced on the T45's.

I spent 6 years building them.

[Steppenpig]

Nelson Must Be Rolling....

Or would he be yawing? I always get confused.

[happy_renting]

I spent 6 years building them.

The new ones, or the old ones?

Sorry, couldn't resist

[The Masked Tulip]

Maybe we should have stuck to making warships from ice?

[workingpoor]

They are primarily an Anti-Air Destroyer designed to screen the new Aircraft Carriers which should have been in service by now.

Originally a complement of 12 T45's were planned (6 for each Carrier)

That was scaled down to 6 in an SDSR around 2007

The days of Destroyers pulling alongside each other and slugging it out are long gone.

[Errol]

This is what Russia is about to start building - http://sputniknews.com/military/20160605/1040814482/russia-leader-class-destroyer.html

The 200-meter long and 20-meter wide vessel will displace up to 17,500 tons. It will travel at a maximum speed of 32 knots. The ship will most likely be nuclear powered.

"The massive new warships would outgun the largest surface combatants in the US Navy's fleet – carrying roughly double an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer's missile tubes," defense analyst Dave Majumdar wrote for the National Interest.

- Roughly twice the size of the British (and American) destroyers, and will be carrying more missiles/weapons than any Western Destroyer. It will be equipped with a naval version of the S-500 (or better).

[workingpoor]

This is what Russia is about to start building - http://sputniknews.com/military/20160605/1040814482/russia-leader-class-destroyer.html

The 200-meter long and 20-meter wide vessel will displace up to 17,500 tons. It will travel at a maximum speed of 32 knots. The ship will most likely be nuclear powered.

"The massive new warships would outgun the largest surface combatants in the US Navy's fleet carrying roughly double an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer's missile tubes," defense analyst Dave Majumdar wrote for the National Interest.

- Roughly twice the size of the British (and American) destroyers, and will be carrying more missiles/weapons than any Western Destroyer.

That's got nice lines.

Will be interesting to see if they can build it with the same lines as that model.

[choochoo]

So much money spent and so little achieved.

If we completely scrapped the army, navy and RAF would it actually make any difference to the residents of the UK other than saving us a hew thousand quid a year in tax? Where's the downside?

[workingpoor]

So much money spent and so little achieved.

If we completely scrapped the army, navy and RAF would it actually make any difference to the residents of the UK other than saving us a hew thousand quid a year in tax? Where's the downside?

Wouldn't be able to police large scale social unrest / rioting if it ever occurred.

Or secure large scale public events when G4S Proves to be incapabable.

Or a fire brigade strike etc etc

[Steppenpig]

Shouldn't the futue of sea warfare be sea going drones with the weapons systems and radars controlled from a mothership?

[choochoo]

Don't we just need a few more Police for those, not multi million pound boats and planes?

[workingpoor]

Shouldn't the futue of sea warfare be sea going drones with the weapons systems and radars controlled from a mothership?

A remote controlled carrier (floating landing strip) equipped with hundreds of Reaper Drones and a small crew of Technicians would have been a better proposition than the hugely expensive, huge fleet supply chain requiring, new conventional Carriers we have just built.

For now we could have just had the above in a towable configuration, i.e tow a drone landing strip behind a T45 (for air defense)

Tow it into position offshore and circle around it.

[Riedquat]

- Roughly twice the size of the British (and American) destroyers, and will be carrying more missiles/weapons than any Western Destroyer. It will be equipped with a naval version of the S-500 (or better).

So a big priority target that may well carry more missiles than it can make use of. The reason battleships are obsolete isn't simply because weapons are more advanced (otherwise they'd have carried on building them with new weapons).

Shouldn't the futue of sea warfare be sea going drones with the weapons systems and radars controlled from a mothership?

Quite possibly, although a mothership risks a single point of failure.

[knock out johnny]

Wouldn't be able to police large scale social unrest / rioting if it ever occurred.

Or secure large scale public events when G4S Proves to be incapabable.

Or a fire brigade strike etc etc

Or protect our borders and sovereignity

...oh wait