New BAE destroyer launches today on the Clyde

Sea Dart

You neglected to mention that the missile that had been shot down was not heading towards the British destroyer but towards an one of those American ships that you think are so wonderful, one that had completely failed to shoot it down with its own weapon system (although it did manage to put a few stray shots into a US battleship).

It was also the first succesful missile on missile action at sea, not bad for an obsolete british missile.

World domination

Good point from last poster!

Seems to be slag of UK business day on the reg today. Quit honestly I'd rather be doing business in Europe as they regard us as equals and hand over any supporting docs we might need. Unlike the yanks who see us as a convenience and only help if it suits them. They've also got previous for not telling us information we need to know, shooting at us when we fight alongside them (strange how it's always the yanks), keeping back-doors open into our systems and spying on us.

re: world domination

Not the best example Anonymous Coward:

A: Switzerland does not have access to the sea. Unlike the UK which is surrounded by it.

B: Despite this they have some pretty cool lakes and have a small Navy that paddles around on them as well.

Considering the UK's location having an effective Naval force makes good sense. The key word being "effective". The tossers at MOD and BAE should maybe look up that word in a dictionary sometime.

If it is a matter of price..

We can probably shave off further 30% by going for a Russian system.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=new+russian+destroyer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

If we do not have them formally declared as the enemy I do not see anything particularly wrong with that.

It is not particularly different from buying from the French (who are still not part of Nato military command). We can also probably negotiate on getting something newer with a better AA system compared to what the Chinese got. For the same money we will get something that can have the Arley Burke for breakfast, the BAE junk for tea and a couple of aircraft in the meantime for pudding.

Sunny Govan

I drove through sunny Govan yesterday,

Where is all this £1bn quid going cos I didnt see much of it floating around Govan. You could count a fancy new bridge and some penthouse apartments but they aint for anyoen working in the shipyards and the place is still a total dump.

If onyl thatcher hadn't failed in her bid to toaly kick out shipbuilding(and all heavy industry) out of the country.

We can't compete with any other coutnry in the world so why are we spending double the money to make something half as good!

Chris

Yeah, lets scrap the lot. Why not.

I do wish when glibly slagging off the new Type 45 for cost and PAAMS for range, you'd bother to write more exhaustively on the systems as a whole rather than focussing on whichever bit got your goat.

The escort air defence role (of which the Type 45 is ideally suited) whether as part of a self defence exercise or a co-ordinated anti-air bubble around, for example, a carrier or other capital ship, requires that you engage multiple high speed low level targets often tracked on multiple vectors - and every second counts.

PAAMS is perfect for this; a range of 75m using the Aster 30 missile is massive and when you consider the rate of fire (8 missiles in about 10 seconds), that is a significant response to an incoming threat. It is most definitely a quantum leap beyond current capabilities and of course fits the NATO standard, and will undoubtedly have further capabilities added to it in future generations of the same system.

When considering how much air space it dominates, it is too simplistic to simply focus on a single PAAMS system in terms of individual missile range. The PAAMS radar and guidance system goes out much further than the missile itself, and an integrated air defence picture with more than one PAAMS equipped ship (Type 45 or otherwise) will easily give you the air space domination mentioned.

The Royal Navy has quietly got on with refitting (at enormous expense) existing surface units over the last 20-30 years, however refitting only gets you so far - both in terms of capabilities and of course cost effectiveness. It is about time we (and we are an island in need of an independent naval capability, hence why we're in a different place with different needs than Switzerland) invested in the Royal Navy and ensured they were given the tools required to achieve those objectives that will be set for them over the next 20-30 years.

Comparing the cost per unit on a like for like basis with the Army, based on the fact it is well publicised that our chaps over in Afghanistan and Iraq are finding themselves short is ridiculous. The Navy maintains much lower numbers of operational units but which operate in completely different circumstances and therefore have different needs - the Army on the other hand has considerably more yet lower per-unit cost assets.

This is a stupid article, based in part on reading BBC News and in part reading crap from Wikipedia - or at least, thats how it appears. Sort it out eh?

for(i=0;i<3000;i++) shootSelf(foot);

Whilst bringing down one antique missile with another is no great feat, it's better than the USS Jarret (in the same incident) which, instead of targeting the Iraqi Silkworm, decided to pick on the USS Missouri, leaving lots of holes and one injured crewman.

Sea Dart

Sea Dart....hmmmm, I was under the impression it was a very good system. As for Graham.....I think that was the point of the comment.

You know..., sarcasim.....if not get an american to explain it to you.

Complete Idiot

Mr. Page, you really are a complete idiot aren't you! You seem to have a burning desire to turn the UK into a nation competent in only one field - idiot journalism.

Cut our manufacturing and heavy industry some slack for crying out loud - the only reason that our home-brew stuff costs so much is because of short sighted penny pinching morons like you. Have you thought of running for government office? You'd fit in well - they're all short sighted penny pinching morons as well.

Freyed Edges/Diamond Blades?

"Isn't it time we grew up and stopped playing games we can't afford anyway, Switzerland seems to do quite nicely without running around the planet and having a Navy??"

Crikey, AC, I thought for a moment you asked if Switzerland ran the planet without a Navy??

i just hope...

that these Windows warships have all got Minesweeper installed...

a thought...

Switzerland shares a "coast" with France... seems like a good enough reason to have a navy to me...

Whats with...

...All the bashing of BAE, the Navy and in particular the Type 45 today? really it is a bit harsh.

Based on the last few Reg stories we should all go on benefits and let the Americans build all the kit for the Army and Navy. Of course if nobody is paying any Tax and everyone is sucking down benefits there is not going to be any money around for your precious American hardware let alone there being anyone skilled enough to operate or maintain it.

Type 42s aren't "ageing" you cheeky bighters!

I was 16 when the Type 42 came into service, as as I'm not *old* then neither are they! :P

cheeky young beggars <shakes stick and hobbles off back to allotment>

BAE charging double for worse hardware...

I wonder where all the rest of the money went then?

Of course, no one will accuse BAE of taking/giving kickbacks... It is all in the national interest...

I suppose if these ships were being supplied to the Saudis then we'd get all sorts of accusatons of corruption regarding the inflated price; but perish the thought that anyone other than them would be taking kick-backs.

No wonder the government didn't want BAE investigated... I wonder what other matters would have come to the surface that the tax-payers don't need to know.

@James Farrell

LOL! Nice one...

All being very harsh...

... on the first poster.

Bolivia is landlocked and has a navy.

Where's mine?

Seeing as this is a BEA product if they broke a bottle when they launched it, did it go "Bung"?

Cost vs Competence

So what the US have a cheaper build with punch. That just translates to more equipment and fire power to accurately destroy you fellow amercian soliders or allies with.

They may have some really good kit that bests most people but they have an apalling unprofessional fighting force that seems to do more damage politically/pyshically/mentally to everyone but their enemies.

Poor Journalism

I know El Reg prides itself on it's lack on integrity, but accidentally it's aquired some pretty decent journalists. It's not until you read a piece of slanted crap like this article and realise that you expect so much more from this august organ.

Slanted, poorly researched, after the event and snide. Maybe fit for a blog (though most self-respecting bloggers might take issue with this) but certainly not for the Register.

I've known a few Weapons Officers in my time and am well aware of "other capabilities" that ships with few guns carry. Strangely the WEO on a ship without guns was the brightest of the lot and most respected by his colleagues to boot. I'd be astonished if PAAMS is the only trick these ponies have.

Uh oh...

Holy Crap! I think amanfromMars just achieved sentience! Better find John Conner quick...

Cost v Competence

Two mostly unrelated points, there, Rob. Give "our superior personnel" their choice of their "effective equipment" and you might have a Navy that can do something. The attitude and competence levels of their armed forces are related to their equipment only inasmuch as the equipment inculcates the attitude.

If it's about price...

"the only reason that our home-brew stuff costs so much is because of short sighted penny pinching morons like you."

So it's absolutely nothing at all to do with huge Swiss-bank slush funds, "irregular" payments of £1bn or more to Saudi Arabian royalty, and that kind of thing? The amount of Prince Bandar's payments is not in dispute, remember, only its legitimacy. And this is only one of the bigger ones that have been exposed, how much is still to be discovered?

How many soldiers/sailors/airmen (and their families) does a few £1bn pay? More than a handful, that's for sure. It also pays for a few manufacturing and design employees in skilled UK jobs. If it's allowed to, rather than being mis-spent overseas by Tony and his cronies.

Judging by the unusually large number of anti-Lewis responses here today, the order has gone out from the BAe executive bar/diner - stop him stirring, he's getting troublesome.

Lewis, watch your back, and your other bits. We don't need another David Kelly.

Nah...

Rob:

"They may have some really good kit that bests most people but they have an apalling unprofessional fighting force that seems to do more damage politically/pyshically/mentally to everyone but their enemies."

I'm sure it seems that way if you read certain media.

Fact is, they're still a very long way ahead of anyone, see the Gulf war I & II for good examples. They only lost when forced to withdraw by a hostile media, never defeated militarily.

Ask our guys in Afghanistan. And of course we should buy American, with the amount we're willing to spend.

Type 45 Frigate(Tincan)

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 'buckling' under stress, admits USN

Looks like ALL 50 odd Distroyers are all headed for drydock to be made sutible to be used on the High Seas.Seems that they are liable to get a little bit bent if they hit rough water repairs estimate is $62 Million.And rising?

lol

Makes for a good read tho doesnt it... and the comments are great too!

Really hope El Reg doesnt go mainstream, itll get spoilt!

Jobs, jobs, jobs (no, not the Apple geezer!) - and some good missiles.

The Government was always going to build the ships here because that meant more jobs in Labour-voting wards. And building BAe's design no doubt also meant some nice and friendly feelings all round (any BAe lawyer's reading this, please note I have not even inferred that bribes, backhanders or illegal campaign contributions may have passed hands between any parties....).

Sea Dart has the first validated missile-vs-missile kill, the above mentioned save against the Iraqi "Silkworm". In that instance, the USS Jarrett's Phalanx system couldn't lock on to either of the two Silkworms, and the damage to USS Missouri may have been caused by the Phalanx operator trying a manually aimed shot. Interestingly, it is suggested that the battleship USS Missouri (thought to be the main target) would have been invulnerable to an impact by the Silkworm due to her 12.1 inch hull armour (the Iraqi Silkworms were the older HY-2 version and not thought to be capable of a climb and terminal dive attack against the superstructure like the later HY-4).

But, the Sea dart scored its success again at a height below even its revised minimum engagement height, a trick Sea Darts pulled off several times in the Falklands even with the old Type 965 radar. And here we get to the really interesting bit - the US ships had to rely on Phalanx as the Silkworms fired (two) were BELOW the minimum engagement height for their other defence systems (USS Jarrett's SM-1 Standard missiles)! And there is some muttering from US sources that the new Enhanced Sea Sparrow used on the US Navy's Arleigh Burke ships would not have been able to make the engagement either, and they may have to wait until the future SM-6 development of Standard to be able to defeat cruise missiles with certainty. Which makes the UK's 34-year-old design's achievement all the more applaudable.