NationStates Jolt Archive

Thousands cheer on warship launch

Thousands of people have witnessed the launch of what has been hailed as the UK's most powerful destroyer.

HMS Daring was sent down the slipway into the River Clyde in Glasgow by the Countess of Wessex.

The ceremony at the BAE Systems shipyard in Scotstoun was also attended by Defence Secretary John Reid.

The Type 45 destroyer is the first of six to be built in Glasgow and the Navy claims it will be the most advanced warship in the world.

With a price tag of £605m, the 150m long vessel weighs in at 7,350 tons. It will officially come into service in 2009.

Each D-class destroyer will have more firepower than the combined fleet of Type 42s.

Full article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4667132.stm

Looks like the Royal Navy has a bit of life left in it yet. I'm tempted to enlist myself, I could use the free internet. :)

Is it anything like the direction the US is going with surface ships?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/x-craft.htm

Another batch of cold war relics begins to roll off the production line. :rolleyes: If our military strategy now revolves around beating defenceless countries into submission, we needed missile cruisers, not AA destroyers.

I think that the Brits and USN have the same idea. None of the articles mention it but they will both be stealthy from the look of them.

The Type 45 far outperforms the DDX or any other American Destroyer. Rule Britannia! God Save the Queen!

Really going to kick the soviets' ass now!

Seriously Tactical Grace, we can't afford (with this defence budget) to build a CG, and if we did, it would most likely be an enlargened Type 45. The Royal Navy has not employed a cruiser since the Korean War.

That is one ugly ass ship.

The Type 45 may outperform a Burke Destroyer, but at least the Burke will do it with some style.

The LCS is an interesting design. I like where they're going with it.

I just hope that they throw away the designs they have for that idiotic stealth ship. We've had stealthy vessels for 80 years. They're called submarines.

The Daring doesn't appear to have a catamaran hull like the USN version.
I read the info from Deep Kimchi and based on what I read, I think the Daring is going to carry it's mantle for about 6 years.
Mission specific modules that can be added and removed? Outstanding.
I'm not dogging out the Royal Navy though. Much respect here.

Nah, American vessels are fugly. They also have lame names. "Arleigh Burke" "Oliver Hazard Perry". WTF?

Arleigh Burke (http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jan1996/DN-SC-92-01471.jpg)
Type 45 (http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Today/horizon.JPG)

DDX sucks. Once they fit the ASM tubes to the Type 45, a Type 45 would slaughter a DDX. Pity that we will only have six.

Seriously Tactical Grace, we can't afford (with this defence budget) to build a CG, and if we did, it would most likely be an enlargened Type 45. The Royal Navy has not employed a cruiser since the Korean War.
Well then use the Type 45 hull to mount cruise missiles, not AA. What potential enemy do we have with an airforce capable of naval operations? We spanked the Argentinians with deck-mounted 20mm cannon, for god's sake. We need ships with a several hundred mile AA capability? We came up with this stuff at the same time as the Eurofighter, back in the 1980s when the USSR was still a threat. At least the RAF have bowed to reality and put bomb racks on the thing. And the RN haven't even bothered to do a redesign to take into account geopolitical changes? WTF? :headbang:

The Type 45 far outperforms the DDX or any other American Destroyer. Rule Britannia! God Save the Queen!

And you have proof of this how?

Don't Tread on Us!

That is one ugly ass ship.

The Type 45 may outperform a Burke Destroyer, but at least the Burke will do it with some style.

The LCS is an interesting design. I like where they're going with it.

I just hope that they throw away the designs they have for that idiotic stealth ship. We've had stealthy vessels for 80 years. They're called submarines.

It does look ugly at the moment but fully completed they actually look quite good imo, as the pictures on the royal navy's website show.

And you have proof of this how?

Don't Tread on Us!

Come on, get a grip, even Sovremenny beats DDX.

I agree with you TG, i think we should build these AND CGs, but it ain't gonna happen. The best we can hope for is two quad Harpoon tubes.

Come on, get a grip, even Sovremenny beats DDX.

Oh horsecrap! :D

The US Navy owns the British Royal Navy :p

Nah, American vessels are fugly. They also have lame names. "Arleigh Burke" "Oliver Hazard Perry". WTF?

Arleigh Burke (http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jan1996/DN-SC-92-01471.jpg)
Type 45 (http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Today/horizon.JPG)

DDX sucks. Once they fit the ASM tubes to the Type 45, a Type 45 would slaughter a DDX. Pity that we will only have six.

Oh, yeah. Because "Type 45" just bristles with sex appeal.

Arleigh Burke was the best damn Destroyer commander in the history of the US Navy. He was Chief of Naval Operations (the highest Navy post) three times - more than anyone else in history.

I figure the Brits should know Oliver Hazard Perry. He's the American Commodore who kicked your ass at the Battle of Lake Erie. "We have met the enemy and they are ours," and all that.

I think the DDX is a waste of space, but gimme a Burke against a Type 45 anyday. And one fast attack sub would wipe out all six of your Type 45s before they knew what hit 'em.

:)

I apologize for going OT.

I have Harpoon and Harpoon 2 that I bought for $10 at a used book store. Has anyone here ever played them? I like the detail involved but at the same time I hate it because it's fucking up my learning curve.
I also bought an old laptop (made in 1992-$10) that can only run Win3.1 in order to play them.

The vertical launch system will likely be capable of delivering a very effective array of weapons. Certainly even a small number of these ships would be able to pound the holy hell out of anything that can't guarantee air superiority. Anything larger would likely just cost more to maintain and offer little (if anything) in the way of advantages.

Oh, yeah. Because "Type 45" just bristles with sex appeal.

Arleigh Burke was the best damn Destroyer commander in the history of the US Navy. He was Chief of Naval Operations (the highest Navy post) three times - more than anyone else in history.

I figure the Brits should know Oliver Hazard Perry. He's the American Commodore who kicked your ass at the Battle of Lake Erie. "We have met the enemy and they are ours," and all that.

I think the DDX is a waste of space, but gimme a Burke against a Type 45 anyday. And one fast attack sub would wipe out all six of your Type 45s before they knew what hit 'em.

:)

*Breaks into the Navy Song*

Yeah great, you beat us in one battle, I seem to remember that Britain has a much richer naval history than you do, considering one of the most famous battles of naval history was fought by us, without taking a single loss...

You may have the biggest navy, but hey, at least our destroyers don't shoot passenger jets down.

Oh, and Type 45 is only the class name. The first ship is called Daring. That is a WAY better name than "Arleigh Burke."

Daring: 48 VLS for PAAMS, 8 Harpoons
Burke: 90-96 VLS for SM-2MR/SM-2ER/SM-3/Tomahawk/TLAM/Verticle Launch ASROC, 8 Harpoons

I'm sorry, Hogsweat, what did you say? Oh yeah, that's right, nodda. And you know why? Because the RMN ain't got shit for surface attack capability.

PAAMS is better than AEGIS, IMO, and the RN's surface attack capability comes from our submarines and (soon to be replaced) carriers. According to Wikipedia, it's also the second largest in the world by tonnage.

I can only imagine what its like to serve on an Arleigh Burke - only slightly bigger, and with over 100 crew and more weapons than the T45 - in any case, the T45 is only an air defence destroyer. That, and I trust the Royal Navy training far more than the US Navy training.

Oh yeah, and as Prae said, our submarines own.

Yeah great, you beat us in one battle, I seem to remember that Britain has a much richer naval history than you do, considering one of the most famous battles of naval history was fought by us, without taking a single loss...

You guys won the Battle of Midway?

I kid, I kid.

I recognize the rich naval tradition that the Brits have - I'm a big fan. I've read all the Patrick O'Brian books.

But for a bunch of young upstarts, we did repeatedly kick your ass in ship vs. ship battles.

And since Theodore Roosevelt's time, our Navy has been top - and since World War II we've been #1.

You may have the biggest navy, but hey, at least our destroyers don't shoot passenger jets down.

No, they just get blown up by the Argentinians. Whoops.

Oh, and Type 45 is only the class name. The first ship is called Daring. That is a WAY better name than "Arleigh Burke."

Bah. I'd rather have my ship named after someone famous than after an adjective.

Oh, yeah. Because "Type 45" just bristles with sex appeal.

Arleigh Burke was the best damn Destroyer commander in the history of the US Navy. He was Chief of Naval Operations (the highest Navy post) three times - more than anyone else in history.

I figure the Brits should know Oliver Hazard Perry. He's the American Commodore who kicked your ass at the Battle of Lake Erie. "We have met the enemy and they are ours," and all that.Well that's actually a type number, not suprisingly. They are actually called the "Daring Class" and have names like "HMS Daring". "USS Arleigh Burke", without meaning any offence to the man behind it, sounds silly and uninspiring. "Oliver Hazard Perry" sounds worse. I dont understand why the USN seems to want to name every single ship after a historical figure, especially when so many of them seem to have silly names and werent particularly important. I mean, you named a whole massive class of frigates after Perry, just because he defeated a single British frigate. No one here has heard of him, because frigates were essentially unimportant at that time, the defeat served no strategic purpose even to the Americans, and at that time the American navy entirely consisted of a fairly small number of frigates, which is why no one here remembers any of the battles. Anyway, rant over.

I think the DDX is a waste of space, but gimme a Burke against a Type 45 anyday.
I would agree with that the Alreigh Burke is a better ship, but then an Arleigh Burke costs twice as much as a Type 45 and two Type 45s are better than one Arleigh Burke, and in an actual battle it would just be a contest of who spotted the other first, since both use exactly the same missiles.

And one fast attack sub would wipe out all six of your Type 45s before they knew what hit 'em.
This is a meaningless statement, as a Type 45 is an AA destroyer, not an ASW one.

I can only imagine what its like to serve on an Arleigh Burke - only slightly bigger, and with over 100 crew and more weapons than the T45 - in any case, the T45 is only an air defence destroyer. That, and I trust the Royal Navy training far more than the US Navy training.

Oh yeah, and as Prae said, our submarines own.

The Burke's seem a lot bigger than they are. I toured one down in Norfolk when I was a lowly midshipman.

I trust US Navy training more, but that's to be expected.

And our subs pwn yours. And we've got a crapload of 'em.

The Burke's seem a lot bigger than they are. I toured one down in Norfolk when I was a lowly midshipman.

I trust US Navy training more, but that's to be expected.

And our subs pwn yours. And we've got a crapload of 'em.

3 metres bigger. And no, they don't. OURS PWN YOURS!! :P

No, they just get blown up by the Argentinians. Whoops.




The Royal Navy was operating 8000 miles from home with a total of 20 Harrier air superiority fighters. 20! It was inevitable that there were significant losses, but if you consider the tactical disadvantage Britain had it was a fantastically succesful campaign.

And you had the cheek to double the price of Sidewinders when we needed more. What great allies.

Immature penis-sizing contests 4tw. :rolleyes:

Oh horsecrap! :D

The US Navy owns the British Royal Navy :p

Agreed. Ain't a force on the planet that could stand against the US Navy. 'Cept maybe the US Airforce.

I can hear the USAF victory message now ...

USAF Chief to USNAVY Chief ...

USAF "All your ships are sunk by us"
USN : Somebody set us up the bomb!
USAF: You are on the way to destruction.

etc etc etc

The problem is that the RN's only surface attack capability comes from a handful of submarines and two inadequate ships that are more flight-deck cruisers than real carriers. And as for the Daring, considering that once they all commission they're going to be the entirety of the destroyer force, I don't think it was that smart of a decision to make them single-role ships.

I won't be trading in the USN for the RN, so you can have the latter. Rather have the force that can live up to its tradition protecting me, thank you very much.

Well Brians, we did win the only modern naval battle. An outstanding victory.

The problem is that the RN's only surface attack capability comes from a handful of submarines and two inadequate ships that are more flight-deck cruisers than real carriers. And as for the Daring, considering that once they all commission they're going to be the entirety of the destroyer force, I don't think it was that smart of a decision to make them single-role ships.

I won't be trading in the USN for the RN, so you can have the latter. Rather have the force that can live up to its tradition protecting me, thank you very much.

Um, the Royal Navy has never failed in protecting this country...

3 metres bigger. And no, they don't. OURS PWN YOURS!! :P

Forgive my ignorance. What does PWN mean? Exactly?

Well that's actually a type number, not suprisingly. They are actually called the "Daring Class" and have names like "HMS Daring". "USS Arleigh Burke", without meaning any offence to the man behind it, sounds silly and uninspiring. "Oliver Hazard Perry" sounds worse. I dont understand why the USN seems to want to name every single ship after a historical figure, especially when so many of them seem to have silly names and werent particularly important.

We name carriers after Presidents. We name destroyers after famous figures (There's a USS Winston S. Churchill that's a Burke destroyer, FYI). We name cruisers after battles and we name submarines after cities and states.

We used to name submarines after fish. When Admiral Hyman Rickover (the father of the US nuclear submarine fleet) was asked why they stopped naming submarines after fish and switched to cities and states he famously replied: "Fish don't vote".

I mean, you named a whole massive class of frigates after Perry, just because he defeated a single British frigate. No one here has heard of him, because frigates were essentially unimportant at that time, the defeat served no strategic purpose even to the Americans, and at that time the American navy entirely consisted of a fairly small number of frigates, which is why no one here remembers any of the battles. Anyway, rant over.

Au contrare. He defeated two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop and was outgunned two-to-one.

Winning the Battle of Lake Erie forced you guys out of Detroit, allowed us to take control of Lake Erie, and enabled us to successfully invade Canada later that year, which was one of the reasons why we were able to bring the war of 1812 to a successful conclusion.

You guys don't remember because you got spanked. It's okay. We forget about Shannon and the Chesapeake for the same reason.

I would agree with that the Alreigh Burke is a better ship, but then an Arleigh Burke costs twice as much as a Type 45 and two Type 45s are better than one Arleigh Burke, and in an actual battle it would just be a contest of who spotted the other first, since both use exactly the same missiles.

It would probably be a toss up, you're right.

This is a silly statement, as a Type 45 is an AA destroyer, not an ASW one.

I know, but I liked throwing it in because I'm a sub guy. Well, would have been...got medicalled before I was commissioned.

The problem is that the RN's only surface attack capability comes from a handful of submarines and two inadequate ships that are more flight-deck cruisers than real carriers. And as for the Daring, considering that once they all commission they're going to be the entirety of the destroyer force, I don't think it was that smart of a decision to make them single-role ships.

I won't be trading in the USN for the RN, so you can have the latter. Rather have the force that can live up to its tradition protecting me, thank you very much.
The carriers are going to be replaced too, but I agree it is a travesty that we are essentially going to be reduced to a destroyer fleet of 6 ships and (considering the government are taking their time with the 4, 5 and 6 hulls) possibly even 3 and a bunch of T42s that should have been retired years ago. Then again, I dont see what exactly they would carry other than anti-air missiles, as ASW is done by frigates and LAMs are done by submarines and aircraft, and can be fitted to the T45 later in its life.

America, on the other hand, is not protected by the USN but by the impossibility of attacking over thousands of miles of oceans without advanced bases. It could disappear tomorrow and nothing much would happen. It's a power-projection machine, not a defensive one.

Immature penis-sizing contests 4tw. :rolleyes:

Someone isn't getting the tone of friendly joshing inherent in the posts here.

:rolleyes:

Au contrare. He defeated two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop and was outgunned two-to-one.



And a partridge in a pear treeeeeeeeeeeeeee

And a partridge in a pear treeeeeeeeeeeeeee
...No. Just the warships.

Well that's actually a type number, not suprisingly. They are actually called the "Daring Class" and have names like "HMS Daring". "USS Arleigh Burke", without meaning any offence to the man behind it, sounds silly and uninspiring. "Oliver Hazard Perry" sounds worse. I dont understand why the USN seems to want to name every single ship after a historical figure, especially when so many of them seem to have silly names and werent particularly important. I mean, you named a whole massive class of frigates after Perry, just because he defeated a single British frigate. No one here has heard of him, because frigates were essentially unimportant at that time, the defeat served no strategic purpose even to the Americans, and at that time the American navy entirely consisted of a fairly small number of frigates, which is why no one here remembers any of the battles. Anyway, rant over.

No, nobody's heard of Perry because the British education system has a propensity for not teaching about the triumphs and the embarassments. Also, IIRC, Perry wiped out the entirety of the British naval presence on the great lakes.


I would agree with that the Alreigh Burke is a better ship, but then an Arleigh Burke costs twice as much as a Type 45 and two Type 45s are better than one Arleigh Burke, and in an actual battle it would just be a contest of who spotted the other first, since both use exactly the same missiles.

Not quite. Burkes have Tomahawks, the Daring can't fit them.


This is a meaningless statement, as a Type 45 is an AA destroyer, not an ASW one.

Doesn't stop a submarine from killing any ship. As it is, given the heavy reliance the USN places on its SSNs (25% of the USN is submarines), a kill is more likely to come from a sub than any other ship in US service.

The Brits have a new Destroyer! *Wow!* So what is that now? 5 naval vessels? 6? No wonder thousands showed up.

And a partridge in a pear treeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I was humming that while I typed out the list. :)

We name carriers after Presidents. We name destroyers after famous figures (There's a USS Winston S. Churchill that's a Burke destroyer, FYI). We name cruisers after battles and we name submarines after cities and states.

We used to name submarines after fish. When Admiral Hyman Rickover (the father of the US nuclear submarine fleet) was asked why they stopped naming submarines after fish and switched to cities and states he famously replied: "Fish don't vote".
That may be, but it's still a damned silly naming system. We name ships to make them sound menacing and powerful.

Au contrare. He defeated two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop and was outgunned two-to-one.
Oh come on, brigs, schooners and sloops do not count and the ships were still just frigates.

Winning the Battle of Lake Erie forced you guys out of Detroit, allowed us to take control of Lake Erie, and enabled us to successfully invade Canada later that year, which was one of the reasons why we were able to bring the war of 1812 to a successful conclusion.
Errr... you lost the war of 1812 and failed to meet any of your objectives, but claim you won because you stopped us from taking you back as a colony. Not exactly impressive.

You guys don't remember because you got spanked. It's okay. We forget about Shannon and the Chesapeake for the same reason.
We remember other instances in which we lost. We dont remember the War of 1812 in general because it was utterly pointless and achieved nothing for either side, despite a massive US numerical advantage and the fact that Britain was bankrupted after fighting Napoleon whilst the US had made loads of money out of the same war.

The Brits have a new Destroyer! *Wow!* So what is that now? 5 naval vessels? 6? No wonder thousands showed up.

Theres no need to be an arsewipe about it.

And actually, it's 45, not including the RFA vessels.

The Brits have a new Destroyer! *Wow!* So what is that now? 5 naval vessels? 6? No wonder thousands showed up.
80, actually.

EDIT: Hoggie beat me too it, although I counted every ship bearing the 'HMS' prefix.

80, actually.

EDIT: Hoggie beat me too it, although I counted every ship bearing the 'HMS' prefix.

Now, to pay for the new ones, the RN will take the oldest ones and sell them to Canada, where they will catch fire and sink.

It was an accident! I swear!

lol! It didnt sink, just caught fire. We must be more careful next time. ;)

Now, to pay for the new ones, the RN will take the oldest ones and sell them to Canada, where they will catch fire and sink.

That's what friends are for :D

Errr... you lost the war of 1812 and failed to meet any of your objectives, but claim you won because you stopped us from taking you back as a colony. Not exactly impressive.

We won because we got you guys to quit doing what you were doing that started the war in the first place - impressing our merchant seamen into the Royal Navy.

Other than that, it was pretty even. You burn the White House, we burned Toronto. You take the Chesapeake, we take the Java, the Macedonia, and a bunch of others.

We remember other instances in which we lost. We dont remember the War of 1812 in general because it was utterly pointless and achieved nothing for either side, despite a massive US numerical advantage and the fact that Britain was bankrupted after fighting Napoleon whilst the US had made loads of money out of the same war.

Massive numerical advantage? You guys had the largest navy on the high seas. You could've wiped out the entire US Navy if you'd detached one squadron of ships-of-the-line from the Brest fleet and sent 'em over to our ports.

But you're right. You guys had more to deal with, which is why we never figured out why you kept poking at us. But alls well that ends well.

I dont know much about American History but didnt you need French help???? Forgive me if im wrong.

Full article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4667132.stm

Looks like the Royal Navy has a bit of life left in it yet. I'm tempted to enlist myself, I could use the free internet. :)

Same here, would be fun.

Well that's actually a type number, not suprisingly. They are actually called the "Daring Class" and have names like "HMS Daring". "USS Arleigh Burke", without meaning any offence to the man behind it, sounds silly and uninspiring. "Oliver Hazard Perry" sounds worse. I dont understand why the USN seems to want to name every single ship after a historical figure, especially when so many of them seem to have silly names and werent particularly important. I mean, you named a whole massive class of frigates after Perry, just because he defeated a single British frigate. No one here has heard of him, because frigates were essentially unimportant at that time, the defeat served no strategic purpose even to the Americans, and at that time the American navy entirely consisted of a fairly small number of frigates, which is why no one here remembers any of the battles. Anyway, rant over.


I got a bunch of people to answer to... so just bear with me.

The class tends to take the name of the first ship produced. Iowa class battleships, nimitz class carriers, ohio class subs, etc. And when it comes to the lesser ships (destroyers, frigates, etc.) they're not going to waste a big name on them. The well-known names are for the high-profile ships... and in the case of the states, for the influential senators' home states who can get the projects green-lighted. Carriers and the like get presidents and well-known admirals... destroyers and frigates get what's left.

And as for the people claiming a brand new british destroyer can outperform a development-stage American one... i'm sorry, what school of naval military engineering did you go to? Where exactly did you study naval battle tactics, strategy, propulsion, and weaponry design so as to be able to accurately size up weaponry and technology which really has not been used outside of the test ranges and determine its potency on the high seas? Forgive me if i'll wait and see the final specs for both and their actual sea trials instead of taking the shot-in-the-dark-guesswork of those who've been playing too much SOCOM.

At this point, who (with the exception of a select few at Northrup Grumman) could say which will be the better ship? One has just been launched, the other hasn't even had its keel laid (figure of speech considering how they build the ships now). You're comparing a ship which wisn't scheduled to be commissioned till 2009 (the Darling) with one that doesn't exist outside of a piece of paper and a 1/4 scale hull model.

And who said anything about the US destroyers being catamaran hulled? This is clearly not the case with the new dd(x) class (http://www.ddxnationalteam.com/), at least based on the current model. The only recent US ship to have such a design was the "Sea Shadow" which was really built as a test vehicle.

As to looks... well, who cares what it looks like, so long as it gets the job done?

Finally, why are the british and the americans arguing? We've each had our share of military defeats and victories when going against each other. The British mention the failure 1812, the Americans can point out WWII naval supply runs. What's the point? Everyone's on the same side now. In fact, the Darling class and the dd(x) class will have quite a bit in common. Northrop-Grumman and BAE Systems will be working on both of them.

Heh, now, penis waving aside (unless you really want to, because willies are hilarious) I read soemwhere that a type 45 will be able to track huge numbers of targets and engage them simultaneously, at least into double figures.

Pretty shit hot when you think the type 42s are considered pretty good and they can only do two at a time.

I just hope that they throw away the designs they have for that idiotic stealth ship. We've had stealthy vessels for 80 years. They're called submarines.

You ever heard of SONAR?

PAAMS is better than AEGIS, IMO, and the RN's surface attack capability comes from our submarines and (soon to be replaced) carriers. According to Wikipedia, it's also the second largest in the world by tonnage.

Submarines ARE NOT surface ships.

As for carriers, they are the most vulnerable warships.

Agreed. Ain't a force on the planet that could stand against the US Navy. 'Cept maybe the US Airforce.

I can hear the USAF victory message now ...

USAF Chief to USNAVY Chief ...

USAF "All your ships are sunk by us"
USN : Somebody set us up the bomb!
USAF: You are on the way to destruction.

etc etc etc

Frankly, I'll take the USAF over the USN but then, my dad is in the USAF :D

Well Brians, we did win the only modern naval battle. An outstanding victory.

Against outdated warships?

So, what? You Brits waste money on a national healthcare system and a navy, congratulations.

Errr... you lost the war of 1812 and failed to meet any of your objectives, but claim you won because you stopped us from taking you back as a colony. Not exactly impressive.

Uhh...1812 was a draw. Neither side won it! :rolleyes: Damn Brits.

We remember other instances in which we lost. We dont remember the War of 1812 in general because it was utterly pointless and achieved nothing for either side, despite a massive US numerical advantage and the fact that Britain was bankrupted after fighting Napoleon whilst the US had made loads of money out of the same war.

And yet we had a secessionist movement in New England because they did not support the war against Britain. Mr. Madison's War I think people called it.

Oh yea, as to the British Navy, Old Ironsides (USS Constitution) defeated many British Warships at sea.

We won because we got you guys to quit doing what you were doing that started the war in the first place - impressing our merchant seamen into the Royal Navy.

It was a draw. Damn Americans.

Other than that, it was pretty even. You burn the White House, we burned Toronto. You take the Chesapeake, we take the Java, the Macedonia, and a bunch of others.

And Old Ironsides sent others to the bottom :D

Massive numerical advantage? You guys had the largest navy on the high seas. You could've wiped out the entire US Navy if you'd detached one squadron of ships-of-the-line from the Brest fleet and sent 'em over to our ports.

I can agree with this.

But you're right. You guys had more to deal with, which is why we never figured out why you kept poking at us. But alls well that ends well.

Thank you Napolean :D

I dont know much about American History but didnt you need French help???? Forgive me if im wrong.

Your forgiven. Your thinking of the Revolutionary War. Something else that isn't taught in British Schools.

You ever heard of SONAR?

Ever hear of running silent?

Nah, American vessels are fugly. They also have lame names. "Arleigh Burke" "Oliver Hazard Perry". WTF?

Arleigh Burke (http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jan1996/DN-SC-92-01471.jpg)
Type 45 (http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Today/horizon.JPG)

DDX sucks. Once they fit the ASM tubes to the Type 45, a Type 45 would slaughter a DDX. Pity that we will only have six.
You have no idea of Naval history if you think those are bad names.

I will say that the subs of my navy don't get the best names. It's all political now. There was a day when subs were given the names of sea creatures. That gave us the Stringray, Batfish, and Parche. Adm. Rickover said it best though on why they are named after cities or states, "fish don't vote."

Come on, get a grip, even Sovremenny beats DDX.


Bullshit. Sovremenny can't hit our ships because we have Aegis. Then when Sovremenny is out of her 8 SSMs she is done. The US can then fire our SSM and the Sovremenny can't do jack shit about it.

*Breaks into the Navy Song*
Stand Navy out to sea
fight our battle cry
We'll never change our course
so vicious foes stear shy-y-y

Roll out the TNT
Anchors Aweigh
Sail on to victory
And sink their bones to Davy Jones, hooray-y-y

Yeah great, you beat us in one battle, I seem to remember that Britain has a much richer naval history than you do, considering one of the most famous battles of naval history was fought by us, without taking a single loss...

You may have the biggest navy, but hey, at least our destroyers don't shoot passenger jets down.

Oh, and Type 45 is only the class name. The first ship is called Daring. That is a WAY better name than "Arleigh Burke."
The Royal Navy was good, 200 years ago that is. Face it, the US Navy is better than the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy isn't bad, but a single US CSG would take out your whole navy. You don't even have a real effective aircraft to launch off of your decks. I'd rather take an F-4E over your harriers. The Royal Navy will get a real aircraft soon, courtesy of the US that is (see F-35.)

As for the passenger jet, if you knew about the situation at the time it is easily explainable. This is only a couple months after the USS Starke incident so any navy in the world would've acted that way at that given time.

So your ship is called the Daring. Cool except you do nothing more than insult your greatest admirals and COs of all time. The ship should be given a name like HMS Fischer in honor of one of your greatest Naval leaders. The US Navy appreciates its leaders and names ships after the best.

Stand Navy out to sea
fight our battle cry
We'll never change our course
so vicious foes stear shy-y-y

Roll out the TNT
Anchors Aweigh
Sail on to victory
And sink their bones to Davy Jones, hooray-y-y

Thanks. I couldn't remember the song when I posted.

Well Brians, we did win the only modern naval battle. An outstanding victory.
Outstanding victory, if that were the US Navy, not a single warship would be lost. You lost 2 of those POS Type 42s. If the Argentinian bombers had proper fuses on their weapons the Royal Navy would've taken a serious one to the jaw.

Bullshit. Sovremenny can't hit our ships because we have Aegis. Then when Sovremenny is out of her 8 SSMs she is done. The US can then fire our SSM and the Sovremenny can't do jack shit about it.
Aegis isn't perfect, and might well fail against a missile only a few metres above the surface going at Mach 2.8 and carrying a 200kt warhead.

That may be, but it's still a damned silly naming system. We name ships to make them sound menacing and powerful.
Who gives a damn about the name? I'm more scared of Arleigh Burke than Daring if I'm an enemy. Arleigh Burke can TASM or TLAM me, Daring can't.



Oh come on, brigs, schooners and sloops do not count and the ships were still just frigates.
Prae, I'd expect you to know this. It was on a freaking lake. They couldn't have ships of the line there. Those were as large as they could get on Lake Erie and despite their size, the battle held greater significance than any fought by larger ships on the open seas during the war.


Errr... you lost the war of 1812 and failed to meet any of your objectives, but claim you won because you stopped us from taking you back as a colony. Not exactly impressive.
Partially true, but the British took heavier losses and didn't achieve their own objectives either so it was more of a draw. We met some of ours like British pull out of Ohio River valley and the end of impressment of sailors.

Aegis isn't perfect, and might well fail against a missile only a few metres above the surface going at Mach 2.8 and carrying a 200kt warhead.
200 kt warhead, well I doubt you would see that in Naval combat. No country would use a nuclear weapon against us because it would mean we would carpet nuke that country so that is a dumb situation. The Aegis is well tested. The US has purchased the Sunburn missile and fired them against Aegis ships so they know how it will perform against the most dangerous adversaries.

200 kt warhead, well I doubt you would see that in Naval combat.
Hey, don't forget the official line right now is to be scared of Iranians with nukes.

The US has purchased the Sunburn missile and fired them against Aegis ships so they know how it will perform against the most dangerous adversaries.
Do you have any links on that one? I'd be interested in seeing how they went...

You ever heard of SONAR?
Ever heard of Anoeic tiles? Or the fact that no one in their right mind would just blast an active SONAR repeatedly because it will give away your own position long before you get any hits on a target.

Hey, don't forget the official line right now is to be scared of Iranians with nukes.


Do you have any links on that one? I'd be interested in seeing how they went...Iran is developing nukes. Even your beloved UN and IAEA, which is led by a Muslim so there is no bias against Iran, agree on that notion. I would feel confident against Iranian incomings. The SM3s that will soon be used can take out an incoming vampire long before it gets within a range where the detonation is a threat to the ship. Iranian and US ships have exchanged fire with the US Navy coming out victorious. The Iranian Navy has yet recovered from Operation Preying Mantis (although their new mini subs can be a threat around Hormuz.)


As for the test. I've read about their existance on strategypage.com, but any weapons test like that is classified so I have no idea how it went. If there is anything wrong in how they performed, I'm sure they'd rework the software to fix whatever problems they might've had.

As for the test. I've read about their existance on strategypage.com, but any weapons test like that is classified so I have no idea how it went. If there is anything wrong in how they performed, I'm sure they'd rework the software to fix whatever problems they might've had.
I suppose. You might be interested in this though, if you haven't heard about it yet.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Yakhont.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm

C'mon, we all know that Her Majesty's Canadian Fleet is the most powerful in the world.

Just don't look at our subs; we can almost fire torpedoes with them....

C'mon, we all know that Her Majesty's Canadian Fleet is the most powerful in the world.

Just don't look at our subs; we can almost fire torpedoes with them....

I thought your navy was a guy in a rubber dingy carrying a .50cal and trying to get the outboard motor working?

:D

Where did I put that picture...

You ever heard of SONAR?

This was funny. Heard, SONAR. Get it?

I think Britain overall has probably the most successful naval history in the world - Spanish armarda, The Nile, Trafalgar etc...

But, yeah, probably the USN is far better than the RN nowadays. Still, i'm pretty pleased with what we have managed to do considering how little we spend on the military, comparitively.

The problem is that, of course, the USN doesn't use Phalanx any more. All the new ships are deployed with RAM and any ships going into refit are having thier Phalanx replaced. Sunburn was designed to counter Phalanx, RAM was designed to blow Soviet-designed missiles out of the sky.

Sunburn was designed to counter Phalanx, RAM was designed to blow Soviet-designed missiles out of the sky.
And the next Russian missile is designed to get around that. It's an eternal circle, and I get the feeling right now that the Russians are better at building anti-ship missiles than we are. That's all I'm saying.

Why?

Why?
:D
You get a cookie!

I suppose. You might be interested in this though, if you haven't heard about it yet.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Yakhont.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm
That missile is designed to get through the Phalanx CIWS. The old phalanx is being taken off of our ships. They've replaced them with RAM to counter these missiles. And these missiles would have to get through multiple waves of SM-3s to even think about getting near enough to the point a ship fires it's RAMs.

And the next Russian missile is designed to get around that. It's an eternal circle, and I get the feeling right now that the Russians are better at building anti-ship missiles than we are. That's all I'm saying.
The Russians probably build better ones because we've never really had to counter an effective SAM system. The Russians have to counter one. I doubt this missile would be too effective dodging RAM. Even the toughest critics of the idea of dumping CIWS have come around.

:D
You get a cookie! cooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Why?
Because the Falkland war showed your Type 42 were pieces of shit. If the British had something like a Spruance they wouldn't have lost a single ship. Instead about a third of your fleet was sunk or damaged. The Sprucans would've at least had a real missile like the SM2 to shoot down aircraft instead of letting them fly right over your decks. If Argentina's bombs had proper fuses the British losses would've been staggering. This is really overdue yet this ship still isn't up to the Aegis destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class. (No TLAM!?! what the hell was the admiralty thinking?)

Because the Falkland war showed your Type 42 were pieces of shit. If the British had something like a Spruance they wouldn't have lost a single ship. Instead about a third of your fleet was sunk or damaged. The Sprucans would've at least had a real missile like the SM2 to shoot down aircraft instead of letting them fly right over your decks. If Argentina's bombs had proper fuses the British losses would've been staggering. This is really overdue yet this ship still isn't up to the Aegis destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class. (No TLAM!?! what the hell was the admiralty thinking?) fair enough

if that were the US Navy, not a single warship would be lost.

All hypothetical really. No-one can know how it would have worked out had another navy been fighting. Lets face it, The US would not have gone in with a much bigger task force than the UK did over a couple of islands that small. And remember it was 20 years ago, so any modern upgrades that may or may not kick more arse than an automatic arse kicking machine will be irrelevant :P

What we REALLY could have done with were some real carriers.



If the Argentinian bombers had proper fuses on their weapons the Royal Navy would've taken a serious one to the jaw

Now THAT is a fair cop, I've been on the H.M.S Plymouth (now a museum in the Birkenhead docks) and there is a big patched up hole where an Argie bomb biffed through the armour pretty close to the ASW mortar (least I think it was the ASW mortar, its been a while since I went to it) and didnt go off.


EDIT: Hahah, was reading the wikipedia entry for the type 45

The Merlin helicopter will apparently not be carried at first; the PRISM deck handling device and other necessary systems have been deleted from the design as a cost-saving measure.

Hahah, good old MoD, still cutting corners even when they do bother buying modern ships :P

This is really overdue yet this ship still isn't up to the Aegis destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class. (No TLAM!?! what the hell was the admiralty thinking?)
According to wikipedia at least, there is the possibility of equipping them with the Storm Shadow cruise missile if the need arises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45

Outstanding victory, if that were the US Navy, not a single warship would be lost.

All hypothetical really. No-one can know how it would have worked out had another navy been fighting. Lets face it, The US would not have gone in with a much bigger task force than the UK did over a couple of islands that small. And remember it was 20 years ago, so any modern upgrades that may or may not kick more arse than an automatic arse kicking machine will be irrelevant :P

What we REALLY could have done with were some real carriers.

Take a look at the USN compared to the Royal Navy during this time frame. The US more than likely would've done it without a single ship being lost.

Now THAT is a fair cop, I've been on the H.M.S Plymouth (now a museum in the Birkenhead docks) and there is a big patched up hole where an Argie bomb biffed through the armour pretty close to the ASW mortar (least I think it was the ASW mortar, its been a while since I went to it.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

Hahah, good old MoD, still cutting corners even when they do bother buying modern ships :P
It sort of makes sense. it's better to plug any AA deficiencies as sson as possible and worry about adapting the ships to a more versatile role later on.

I consider my opinion to be quite impartial in most discussions and i am totally neutral on this topic in particular, but any fool can see the Royal Navy owns the US Navy. :D

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

I edited in the "and didnt go off"

Come on, get a grip, even Sovremenny beats DDX.

I agree with you TG, i think we should build these AND CGs, but it ain't gonna happen. The best we can hope for is two quad Harpoon tubes.

I agree also- the Royal Navy has a long history of building varient vessels, the Type-42 for example has three Batches. Perhaps (when the money comes in after we have completed building our Destroyers and our Astute Class Submrines and of course the CVF Carriers) a new batch of T-45's might come around. Batches 2-3? Anti-ship and Anti-sub specialists. Well that's what i'm hoping our new First Sea Lord of the RN will propose.

I consider my opinion to be quite impartial in most discussions and i am totally neutral on this topic in particular, but any fool can see the Royal Navy owns the US Navy. :D

It's just that we don't have to pay for our health care and the US do!! alas...at the expense of Defence...:(

I was Expecting it to be a little more complete with Installed Gun turret and PAAM system. Supposed to be more powerful than all the Type 42's Combined!

I was Expecting it to be a little more complete with Installed Gun turret and PAAM system. Supposed to be more powerful than all the Type 42's Combined!

The systems are now to be installed- so i've heard. I wanted to see that great dome on top of the mast housing the SMAPSON RADAR (in my opinion, the best military RADAR in the world).

But hey! At least the bugger floats! :)

I'll still take a US ship over this "cutting edge" ship anyday of the week.

heres BAe site http://www.type45.com/ got a video of the lauching, I think there was a problem or something!

which US ship?

which US ship?

Any of them.

Any of them.

Ditto.

Any of them.
except the Perry class FFGs. Even the Type 45 should be able to handle those.

Ditto.
But they're so ugly! Seriously, the US must make some of the ugliest ships in the world.:)

But they're so ugly! Seriously, the US must make some of the ugliest ships in the world.:)

Our ships are to be feared. Not to be admired.

heh i missed the launch but my GF is goign to get really pissed off when we go shopping now, the bay class vessels and the F-2000 frigates were bad enough for her but the type 45!!! ain't no way i'm leaving the carpark next time i go shopping.

Anyway IIRC there are already plans for upgrades on the Daring class one of the first being upping to gun to 155mm, not quite as apparently uber as the DDX's AGS but still pretty awesome.

Ditto.

Yeah, but let's face it, none of you are exactly objective.

You'd probably pick a dog turd with a US flag stuck into it over a diamond from any other country, and defend it's supremacy to the death :p

heh i missed the launch but my GF is goign to get really pissed off when we go shopping now, the bay class vessels and the F-2000 frigates were bad enough for her but the type 45!!! ain't no way i'm leaving the carpark next time i go shopping.

Anyway IIRC there are already plans for upgrades on the Daring class one of the first being upping to gun to 155mm, not quite as apparently uber as the DDX's AGS but still pretty awesome.
The AGS is being made by a company owned by BAe, so who knows. :)

Yeah, but let's face it, none of you are exactly objective.

You'd probably pick a dog turd with a US flag stuck into it over a diamond from any other country, and defend it's supremacy to the death :p

I find it more fun to be completely biased when we're right, too. :)

But they're so ugly! Seriously, the US must make some of the ugliest ships in the world.:)

No fricking way. I think our ships are some of the best looking out there.

For every ugly duckling Spru-can or Perry class missile sponge, you've got a kickass looking Tico cruiser or Burke destroyer. Our carriers are beautiful and our battleships look better than any others I've ever seen (even if they're all mothballed).

And nothing beats that "Don't Screw With Us" gray paintjob - that's what a navy ship's supposed to look like. Not the white or cream the Canadians and Brits seem to dig.

The Type 45s are hideously bad - they look like a stealthy version of teh old Japanese Pagoda style battleships with that weird ass looking mast.

The only thing that I've seen that looks as bad is the DDX, which looks completely stupid. I'm glad that it's having a tough time getting funded.

The AGS is being made by a company owned by BAe, so who knows. :)

To be honest i don't know if you could actually fit an AGS on a Type-45 the AGS is a very big and heavy peice of kit, where as IIRC the UK 155mm turret idea was actually fairly light weight (and somewhat simialr to the german MONARCH 155mm gun in that it is based on an SPG turret, AS-90 in the case of BAE as opposed to PzH2000 in the case of MONARCH).

Of course that might all change especially if the 155mm gun is only goign to be made availble for later batches as opposed to a retrofit in the place of the 4.5" gun

IDF, we have named our ship after commanders before, possibly one of the most famous warships in history, the HMS Hood, alongside Rodney, Nelson, Anson, Barham, Benbow, and Howe (better battleships than the US could field at the time)were all named after (also better than American) British admirals.

Your claim that an American CSG can take out our whole navy is absolute bullcrap. In NATO wargames (the closest thing so far) a dutch SSK took out an American CVN and half of its battlegroup. The Royal Navy has one of the best submarine services in the world, it is the main pivot of our attack.

You say we're finally getting a good aircraft "courtesy") to America. You are very good at completely ignoring facts: at least 50% of the JSF program is being developed by BAe systems (which, again, is better than Lockheed)

All I am going to say in regards to the Sovremenny that although the Sovremenny is vastly underpowered in comparison the SS-N-22/23/26 would give AEGIS (once more, inferior to PAAMS) an extremely hard time.

That post was the biggest bullshit I have ever read on the NationStates forums EVER.

IDF, we have named our ship after commanders before, possibly one of the most famous warships in history, the HMS Hood, alongside Rodney, Nelson, Anson, Barham, Benbow, and Howe (better battleships than the US could field at the time)were all named after (also better than American) British admirals.

Your claim that an American CSG can take out our whole navy is absolute bullcrap. In NATO wargames (the closest thing so far) a dutch SSK took out an American CVN and half of its battlegroup. The Royal Navy has one of the best submarine services in the world, it is the main pivot of our attack.

You say we're finally getting a good aircraft "courtesy") to America. You are very good at completely ignoring facts: at least 50% of the JSF program is being developed by BAe systems (which, again, is better than Lockheed)

All I am going to say in regards to the Sovremenny that although the Sovremenny is vastly underpowered in comparison the SS-N-22/23/26 would give AEGIS (once more, inferior to PAAMS) an extremely hard time.

That post was the biggest bullshit I have ever read on the NationStates forums EVER.

Here here!

The Royal is frowned upon these days and it angers me to see some arrogant people play it down. It may not be as powerful as it once was- but it has the better trained personnel, better experiance and MOST importantly as the better history.
The RN's history kicks the arse of any other navy in the world.

No fricking way. I think our ships are some of the best looking out there.

For every ugly duckling Spru-can or Perry class missile sponge, you've got a kickass looking Tico cruiser or Burke destroyer. Our carriers are beautiful and our battleships look better than any others I've ever seen (even if they're all mothballed).

And nothing beats that "Don't Screw With Us" gray paintjob - that's what a navy ship's supposed to look like. Not the white or cream the Canadians and Brits seem to dig.

The Type 45s are hideously bad - they look like a stealthy version of teh old Japanese Pagoda style battleships with that weird ass looking mast.

The only thing that I've seen that looks as bad is the DDX, which looks completely stupid. I'm glad that it's having a tough time getting funded.

With all honesty, some of your ships look good. The battleships are relics from the past and look as great as ever- but that Burke!! Ha! Be realitic please, it looks like it's got block of flats for a infastructure of a bridge.

The HMS Daring is one of the most powerful ships in the world now, she looks beautiful and is beautiful and that SAMPSON RADAR **Whistle** now that's what I call RADAR. The Royal Navy is one of the best in the world, what I don't understand is why people feel the need to slag it off? It's done loads for the world in it's long Illustrious (A Rock ON! Carrier) history.

We name carriers after Presidents. We name destroyers after famous figures (There's a USS Winston S. Churchill that's a Burke destroyer, FYI). We name cruisers after battles and we name submarines after cities and states.

We used to name submarines after fish. When Admiral Hyman Rickover (the father of the US nuclear submarine fleet) was asked why they stopped naming submarines after fish and switched to cities and states he famously replied: "Fish don't vote".



Au contrare. He defeated two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop and was outgunned two-to-one.

Winning the Battle of Lake Erie forced you guys out of Detroit, allowed us to take control of Lake Erie, and enabled us to successfully invade Canada later that year, which was one of the reasons why we were able to bring the war of 1812 to a successful conclusion.

You guys don't remember because you got spanked. It's okay. We forget about Shannon and the Chesapeake for the same reason.



It would probably be a toss up, you're right.



I know, but I liked throwing it in because I'm a sub guy. Well, would have been...got medicalled before I was commissioned.

Hold on this was the same war where the US invaded Canada, Canada and Britian repulsed the attack, captured your capital city and burn down what is now the white house and then withdrew to the previous border line. Yep that's the one. Funny, I'll let you beat us like that any day of the week! LMFTO

Hold on this was the same war where the US invaded Canada, Canada and Britian repulsed the attack, captured your capital city and burn down what is now the white house and then withdrew to the previous border line. Yep that's the one. Funny, I'll let you beat us like that any day of the week! LMFTO

You didn't withdrew. You were forced to leave. Yep, that's right.

God I hate revisionist history.

You didn't withdrew. You were forced to leave. Yep, that's right.

I don't know. While the British Army was kicked back into Canada a few times, and at other times withdrew under its own volition, at the end of the war it was still bimbling around in Maine and Mobile in American Territory at which point it withdrew as per the treaty of Ghent.

You didn't withdrew. You were forced to leave. Yep, that's right.

God I hate revisionist history.
The British had no intention of trying to hold the capital, nor did they intend to keep any land.
However it is funny that with all mentions of this war there is a failure to recognise the fact that the capital of the nation was taken. Something that has never happend to the UK. And only to England in the middle ages.
The 'war' of 1812 was never a war as far as the UK was concerned as it was involved in far bigger conflicts elsewhere.

I don't know. While the British Army was kicked back into Canada a few times, and at other times withdrew under its own volition, at the end of the war it was still bimbling around in Maine and Mobile in American Territory at which point it withdrew as per the treaty of Ghent.

For the most part, they were forced to retreat back up into Canada.

The British had no intention of trying to hold the capital, nor did they intend to keep any land.
However it is funny that with all mentions of this war there is a failure to recognise the fact that the capital of the nation was taken. Something that has never happend to the UK. And only to England in the middle ages.
The 'war' of 1812 was never a war as far as the UK was concerned as it was involved in far bigger conflicts elsewhere.

Funny thing is, no one won 1812. It was a tie. I also suggest you look at the British War aims. They didn't accomplish them neither did the US accomplish theirs.

Funny thing is, no one won 1812. It was a tie. I also suggest you look at the British War aims. They didn't accomplish them neither did the US accomplish theirs.
I never said it was a victory, it was a conflict rather than a war. mt original point was that the forst poster (can't remember who it was) suggested that it was a victory for the US. Rather than a bit of a blip in History. Most people in the UK are not aware it happened as the wars throughout europe and north africa were of more import.
What I find strange is that as this is the reason the White house is white many US citizens are not aware of the sacking of the capital city.
I suppose it is the same as the red tip on the feather of some UK soldiers caps, a point of interest but unimportant.

If u want stealth,submarines are the best and reasonable way to go. i think there were submarines that carried planes,and now with smart UAVs coming.......

I never said it was a victory, it was a conflict rather than a war. mt original point was that the forst poster (can't remember who it was) suggested that it was a victory for the US. Rather than a bit of a blip in History. Most people in the UK are not aware it happened as the wars throughout europe and north africa were of more import.
What I find strange is that as this is the reason the White house is white many US citizens are not aware of the sacking of the capital city.
I suppose it is the same as the red tip on the feather of some UK soldiers caps, a point of interest but unimportant.

Yea you are right. Of course, it was in response to us sacking York :D

If u want stealth,submarines are the best and reasonable way to go. i think there were submarines that carried planes,and now with smart UAVs coming.......

The UK is already building the new Astute Class Nuclear Submarines to replace the current SSBN's.

The UK is already building the new Astute Class Nuclear Submarines to replace the current SSBN's.
Wow, I didn't realise we'd sorted out the NHS and the education system, not to mention those pesky trains that never come on time.
What a colossal waste of money.

Is it anything like the direction the US is going with surface ships?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/x-craft.htm

The Littoral Class ships the US are bringing in aren’t so much to replace older ship designs but create a new resource for naval strategy and tactics. The Littoral ships are very small compared to other warships and meant to provide perimeter security and recon. They are better sized for intercepting merchant traffic in blockades; ranging into shallower inland waters; or intercepting smaller enemy attack craft. By using the Littoral class ships, the rest of a US carrier group could go on performing their tasks without being distracted by a bunch of small attack boats, like breaking up their carrier defence formation to chase boats or launch unscheduled aircraft.

The big selling point of the Littoral Class is that they have specialized ship modules to fit onto the primary hull, so that they could be outfitted for different missions at port instead of having to build new ships.

The Bruce

Yeah great, you beat us in one battle, I seem to remember that Britain has a much richer naval history than you do, considering one of the most famous battles of naval history was fought by us, without taking a single loss...

You may have the biggest navy, but hey, at least our destroyers don't shoot passenger jets down.

Oh, and Type 45 is only the class name. The first ship is called Daring. That is a WAY better name than "Arleigh Burke."

Actually, the Russians still have by far the largest Navy, just since the fall of the USSR the Majority of their ships have been rotting in dry docks and the supercarriers never got launched - still the biggest carries ever built.

What a strange thread - patriotism and a bit of national pride is all well and good but to claim that the Royal Navy would 'beat' the US Navy is a bit far fetched. Yes, the RN has some of the best training in the world but the USN isn't exactly bad either, and it's much, much bigger.

Why worry about this? We're allies - they spend all their money on our defence and we get to keep our cash. :D

The US Navy owns the British Royal Navy :p


Do they? excellent, that means it costs us nothing to run and we get all the protection and prestige. Brillo idea!

Long live the US taxpayer owned Royal Navy! ;)

The new Royal Navy ships were a necessity if they wanted to keep up with the Jones of the World. The UK lost a lot of ships in the Falklands and were very nearly beaten by a half hearted use of the Argentine air force. After the SAS raid on an Argentine airfield, the Air Marshal of the Military Trio leading the country didn’t want to lose the resources that gave him his political power so he held back what would have otherwise been devastating to the British pocket carriers. As far as I know the Royal Navy has only two pocket carrier, the Ark Royal and Illustrious. The Invincible was decommissioned last year and the sea harriers are going to be mothballed sometime this year. The British have put a time table to two, next generation aircraft carriers by 2015 (this means 2020 or later) to replace their pocket carriers. The CVF (Queen Elizabeth Class) program has full sized carriers and is progressing along the same lines of the new US aircraft carrier. It does make sense that the Royal Navy would be introducing a next generation point defence ship for their brand new aircraft carriers.

The new next generation ships are definitely a shot in the arm for the Royal Navy, even though they would be better off with missile cruisers as some have already suggested.

CVF Carriers

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf.htm

The new Royal Navy ships were a necessity if they wanted to keep up with the Jones of the World. The UK lost a lot of ships in the Falklands and were very nearly beaten by a half hearted use of the Argentine air force. After the SAS raid on an Argentine airfield, the Air Marshal of the Military Trio leading the country didn’t want to lose the resources that gave him his political power so he held back what would have otherwise been devastating to the British pocket carriers. As far as I know the Royal Navy has only two pocket carrier, the Ark Royal and Illustrious. The Invincible was decommissioned last year and the sea harriers are going to be mothballed sometime this year. The British have put a time table to two, next generation aircraft carriers by 2015 (this means 2020 or later) to replace their pocket carriers. The CVF (Queen Elizabeth Class) program has full sized carriers and is progressing along the same lines of the new US aircraft carrier. It does make sense that the Royal Navy would be introducing a next generation point defence ship for their brand new aircraft carriers.

The new next generation ships are definitely a shot in the arm for the Royal Navy, even though they would be better off with missile cruisers as some have already suggested.

Well aren't we lucky the government's got its priorities straight? With these new warships there's no limits to the number of small rocky islands in the middle of nowhere that we can waste lives defending. Not to mention how useful they'll be in stopping those suicide bombers that hit the centre of our capital.

Yeah, but let's face it, none of you are exactly objective.

You'd probably pick a dog turd with a US flag stuck into it over a diamond from any other country, and defend it's supremacy to the death :p
hahahahahaha! I was gonna say the same thing.

It's all USA USA USA. Buy an american car, it doesn't matter if it's a steaming pile of shit. Which they all are to tell you the truth.

Anyway, there's some shits here in this thread. It's like that old "My dad is better than you're dad" shit.

Well aren't we lucky the government's got its priorities straight? With these new warships there's no limits to the number of small rocky islands in the middle of nowhere that we can waste lives defending. Not to mention how useful they'll be in stopping those suicide bombers that hit the centre of our capital.
Yeah because it's not like the government spends 30% of our GDP on health, social security and education, has doubled NHS funding in 8 years and the defence budget has received numerous cuts despite being asked to deploy more forces to more places. Oh wait, I lie, all of that did happen. But of course, since a government can only either spend all it's money on socialism or all its money on defence, it has to be a black and white issue and obviously the protection of our sovereignty is far less important than paying people to be unemployed, so I fully support moving the entire £30bn defence budget into the £120bn NHS budget so that they can waste it all on employing another 500,000 non-medical bureaucracts so Labour can pretend that they cut employment properly, whilst leaving our troops horribly underfunded, allowing the Argentinians to invade and subjugate the Falklands and finally abandoning any claim to security, a foreign policy or national interest abroad. You're right, that is a good idea.

If they're going to be building a couple of new ships, send a few Belfast's way, eh?

Harland and Wolff has plenty of spare time to build a few, and we could do with the jobs. Not to mention they have the largest dry dock in the world at H&W, so they could build a pretty huge ship.

Of course...Cunard wanted to build the QM2 here, but the government wouldn't subsidise any of it, and then the French came in with a hugely government backed offer and got the contract...