Talk:Type 45 destroyer

message: Time and time again there is confusion about the various stages of progress from build to service for new build Royal Navy ships.  This is how it works:
* Acceptance off contract is the bit where BAE hands the ship to the Royal Navy, and the white ensign is flown for the first time.  Stage 1 trials are complete, and stage 2 trials commence.  This happened to Diamond on 22 September 2010, on the day she arrived in Portsmouth. ()
* Commissioning is a purely formal ceremony at which the cake is cut, everybody gets a cup of tea, and technically the ship goes from being a non-naval vessel to a Royal Navy commissioned warship. Stage 2 trials are on-going.  This happened to Dauntless on 3 June 2010. ()
* In service means the ship has completed all her trials and is ready to deploy.  This happened to Daring on 31 July 2010. ()
So, although Dauntless has been commissioned at the time of writing, she's not in service, and is still undergoing her stage 2 trials.  Shem (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptance off contract, commissioning & "in service" 

message: I saw a couple of typos in the sidebar on the right. In the Armament section it refers to 'kms' as the plural. This is incorrect - in metric the plural of 'km' is 'km'. I tried to change this but was mystified by how to go about it. How do you get to edit the sidebar? Blaise (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you edit the article page, you'll see that the relevant part of the infobox comes from Template:Type 45 weapon fit.  I've corrected that.  David Biddulph (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to edit sidebar 

message: I can see there's a bit of an edit-war going on over this. Although I'm happy to keep the factual comment about the limitations of the Type 45, the fact the Register - i.e. Lewis page - complains about numbers of missiles carried doesn't mean it must be mentioned. Trying to compare the Type 45 to the Arleigh Burke is a matter of apples and oranges. After all even the Arleigh Burke doesn't carry as many missiles as the Kirov class cruiser. Does that make the latter a better ship? John Smith's (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: JS, thanks for the intervention here.  Not so much an edit war, rather an anon IP who keeps removing the whole section with no reason, and a series of editors (including me) who just put it back in again. I'm not sorry to see the Register section go, though. Shem (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Register 

message: Since the Arleigh Burke article makes a "See Also" to this article for some unknown reason, just thought this article should reciprocate. Don't want people confusing this as being "the" destroyer, it's just "a" destroyer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any obvious reason to add this to the "see also" section, so I've removed it, and addressed the Arleigh Burke article too (whose "see also" section listed all but one of the Arleigh Burke derivatives, plus, confusingly, Type 45).  Shem (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither - but if you delete anything on Wiki, you're accused of vandalism, so I just added the Arleigh Burke "see also" here to maintain symmetry. Yours is a more elegant solution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting Oversight 

message: The shipbarod  Helicopter is actually the Wildcat--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW159 not just the Lynx. See the SDSR http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf?CID=PDF&PLA=furl&CRE=sdsrOther dictionaries are better (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet it isn't - the Lynx Wlidcat isn't in service yet!Nigel Ish (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I knew these were futuristic ships but this is ridiculous! Benea (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

text: yes but the Lynx has been retired--http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1131-trusty-lynx-makes-its-last-appearance-at-sea.aspxOther dictionaries are better (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That ref doesn't say that the Lynx has been retired;  only the Mk3.  The Mk8 is still going strong, and of course the Merlin is also available.. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Helicopter

message: Regarding the ship's armament: 
The Lynx helicopter can carry 4 Sea Skua anti-ship missiles at a time - any data on how many such missiles the ship can carry? 
What data is there on support for other helicopters, and their missiles? 
(E.g. Apache & number of Hellfires that can be carried by the ship, or NH90 & number of air-launched Exocets that can be carried by the ship.) 
82.25.150.93 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any data on that available to the public, besides, the ship won't carry the Apache or NH-90 anyway. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Helicopter Magazine Size

message: Is there any data on quadpacked missiles for the A-50 launchers on this ship? 
There is firm data that the VT1-VL missile can be quadpacked on the Sylver A-43, but I've not been able to find data for the A-50. 
Likewise, is there data on quadpacking the CAMM missile into the A-50? 
82.25.150.93 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, not yet. Wait for CAMM to come close to introduction and there may be. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that anything that will fit in an A43 will fit in an A50, so you may struggle to find an explicit source saying that VT1 will go in A50. However, neither VT1 nor ESSM will be going in the T45's A50 tubes - the RN's "quad-pack missile" will be CAMM when it comes in. However it won't arrive in its dedicated launchers on the T23's until 2016 so I'd guess you won't see quad-packed CAMM in Sylver until 2019 or so. From memory the CAMM article has a reference for quadpacking it in Sylver though. 82.31.1.92 (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any firm data regarding Quad-Packed misiles for Sylver A50?  

message: In an "intensive attack" a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five
I still have a 1980 pamflet where it says the same about the 42s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.118.128 (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutral tone 

message: The link which leads to this claim does not really say that
And the link saying that Type 45's PAAMS system interrupted the joint US-Uk Naval training is dead as well.
Over patriotism aside please, and keep it as neutral as possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.188.204 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most  Advanced Air Defence Destroyer? 

message: This article in the US Naval War College Review provides an interesting reference on what went wrong with the program to originally build 12 Type 45s: http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/8c48e9ba-b7ca-42f1-868b-451f9ac72cd0/The-Type-45-Daring-Class-Destroyer--How-Project-Ma.aspx Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good new reference 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/8c48e9ba-b7ca-42f1-868b-451f9ac72cd0/The-Type-45-Daring-Class-Destroyer--How-Project-Ma.aspx. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Shem (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newshms-daring-to-participate-in-ballistic-defence-trials-with-us
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: "After the launch of Daring on 1 February 2006 Admiral Sir Alan West, a former First Sea Lord, stated that it would be the Royal Navy's most capable destroyer ever, as well as the world's best air-defence ship."
The World's Best Destroyer?  A personal opinion  and of a citiation link that does not load?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.219.85 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self made claims? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071031074413/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/server/show/nav.2227 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2227
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813235419/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk:80/server/show/nav.2227 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2227
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013015454/http://baesystems.com:80/daring/week2.asp to http://www.baesystems.com/daring/week2.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: None of the sources has been very informative about what modifications will be done. Will it be an extra diesel engine or an extra gas turbine or will the two diesel engines be replaced by one extra gas turbine?  I think the last is most likely because how else would they find the space? I'm also puzzled as to why there is a problem anyway. If electrical demand exceeds supply, all they have to do is slow down a bit to bring them into balance. Biscuittin (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it might be a problem with keeping the four generators synchronized. If they are overloaded, the generators will slow down. If one slowed down more than another, they would go out of synchronism and that would put a (metaphorical) spanner in the works. Biscuittin (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful paper here  Biscuittin (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a problem with harmonics. I'm just throwing in a few ideas for people to think about. Biscuittin (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I thought it was seven? This letter is a useful source if someone wants to incorporate it into the article, it's a public letter from the SoS that gives as much detail as you'll ever get in unclassified sources on the problems and a timeline of the MoD's hapless efforts to track down the problems. 2.97.164.83 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2016 electrical problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070216154035/http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1265414.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1265414.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131205013252/http://navy-matters.beedall.com:80/daring1-2.htm to http://navy-matters.beedall.com/daring1-2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are we sure the RN Lynx Wildcat has a dipping sonar as claimed on the page, and if so which one? I'm not sure Lynx even had sonobuoys in RN service. It did have a dipping sonar as used by some foreign navies. Likewise, does it retain the capability to carry Stingray torpedoes and DCs?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.17.7 (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No they do notCantab1985 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildcat Helicopter Dipping Sonar, Torpedoes and Depth Charges? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010060050/http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/8c48e9ba-b7ca-42f1-868b-451f9ac72cd0/The-Type-45-Daring-Class-Destroyer--How-Project-Ma.aspx to https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/8c48e9ba-b7ca-42f1-868b-451f9ac72cd0/The-Type-45-Daring-Class-Destroyer--How-Project-Ma.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126000000/http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/aster_ds.pdf to http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/aster_ds.pdf
*Added  tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607224042/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/31D096E9-3F41-4633-BEA2-AE62CF97C3AE/0/annrptvol1_200708.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/31D096E9-3F41-4633-BEA2-AE62CF97C3AE/0/annrptvol1_200708.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the entry as it stands does not reflect a NPOV. We are deluged with statistics of its world-beating performance but very little about power issues, cost escalation and breakdowns when at sea. My recent edit about HMS Duncan's recent difficulties has been reverted twice, but I think without good reason. The article already mentions at least two points about the (excellent) aspects of performance of at least one of the ships. Surely info about negative performance should be included for balance, not hidden away in individual ship's entries? And sometimes they are not even there.
I'd like to hear other people's views on this, I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone. Might have a power failure : )
TonyClarke (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a better way of putting it, and more in-line with the sort of content you should find on a ship-class article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

text: I think the language in that confirms the truth of my POV remarks: 'grabbed media attention...'. Do you not see that that phrasing represents a judgement rather than a fact? What if some one said: ' Media usefully recorded that ...' And what or where  is the justification or rules for 'the sort of content you should find on a ship -calss article? Other than your own views, of course. I see neutrality disputes have  been an issue through the history of this entry, looks like they are embedded now. The article sounds like a commercial promotion for the class, rather than a factual account of the pros and cons. Come on, be honest.
TonyClarke (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues?

message: This
I do not believe it so. Type 45 was designed with lessons learned from the Falklands War, and the shortcomings of the Type 42 in it. Most notably, the ability to engage high-speed low flying air targets (a tactic employed to much success by Argentine pilots) and no CIWS. A warship designed to replace a class that saw action, and which aims to address shortcomings due to lessons learned in that action, is a meaningful and relevant point in my book. Although I think the current wording is both vague and poor, and probably why User:Roger 8 Roger removed it in good faith, missing its relevance. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Put that way, then yes, I think reference to the Falklands is relevant. As you say though, the wording was not ideal and it read as if attention was being drawn to the war for no reason other than drawing attention to the war. Perhaps you, or another editor, might want to re-arrange the wording to clarify the point you have made? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it [[WP:WEASEL]]?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Type 45 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028213846/http://www.wartsila.com/fi/references/HMS-Daring to http://www.wartsila.com/fi/references/HMS-Daring
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313123057/http://www.raytheon.co.uk/newsroom/news/press_release_08032006.pdf to http://www.raytheon.co.uk/news_room/news/press_release_08032006.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3624A3FC-1A13-42AE-B5C6-CF8F730807C3/0/desider_52_Sept2012InternetU.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ieindia.org/pdf/90/90MR203.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203151133/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1617705.0.0.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1617705.0.0.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028221659/http://navy-matters.beedall.com/paams.htm to http://navy-matters.beedall.com/paams.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19980514185102/http://jdw.janes.com/ to http://jdw.janes.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609181842/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-45-destroyers/hms-daring/ to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-45-destroyers/hms-daring/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422001508/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/April/20/120420-HMS-Dragon-commissioned to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/April/20/120420-HMS-Dragon-commissioned
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the subheading Guns the article lists "up to 6× FN MAG General Purpose Machine Guns" however as of 2018 (probably earlier) at least the HMS Duncan is equipped with one or more M2 .50 caliber machine guns.  I can't absolutely say whether these are in place of or in addition to the 7.62mm FN MAG machine guns. I do know that at least some of the 7.62mm FN MAG machine guns are retained.  I don't have a text-based reference to document the M2 machine guns, but at least one of the M2 .50 caliber machine guns is clearly visible in the video for Episode 4 of the documentary "Warship: Life at Sea" which was filmed aboard the HMS Duncan during Royal Navy operations.  The M2 machine gun is featured in the video at about 25 minutes from the beginning of the episode. https://www.channel5.com/show/warship-life-at-sea/   While neither the FN MAG nor the M2 machine guns contribute to the Type 45 destroyer's fleet air defense mission, these guns are important to the close in defense of the ships against small craft, especially while at anchor or maneuvering in confined areas.--N4aof (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons, countermeasures, capabilities and sensors 

message: Does the Type 45 have any ECM? If so, it doesn't say in the infobox.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the Type 45 have in the way of Electronic Counter Measures (ECM)? 

message: See the headline.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.76 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does IDS300 stand for? 

message: I have eliminated the statement that historically, ships with turbo-electric had DC motors.  This is not correct.  Diesel-electric ships usually used DC motors, but turbo-electric drive was usually AC.  In the steam era the U.S. Navy was the primary naval user of T-E drive, and it was all AC (including USS Langley, mentioned in the passage I removed, and destroyer escorts like USS Buckley, mentioned on this discussion page).  The turbo-electric battleships and carriers built in the World War I era and early twenties all had AC motors, as did World War II-era ships like the Buckley class and the T2 tankers, as well as non-U.S. ships like the French liner Normandie.  There are many sources for this, but two I can cite is CDR S. M. Robinson, "Electric Ship Propulsion," and the c. 1970 USN text, "Principles of Naval Engineering," which covers the destroyer escorts.  Keacla1 (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turbo-electric Drive 

message: Should we include a section on their upcoming replacement vessels? Imperialpeace (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement 

message: Overall, the article does not seem to make clear the class' most significant shortcoming in ASW capabilities / performance compared to frigates; the engines are not rafted.
Therefore, they are actually too noisy to function as successful ASW vessels, despite what sensors and ASW systems may be carried or not. As hulls, they are very unsuitable. They are also made less secure in an environment where hostile submarines are anticipated, relying heavily on dedicated ASW platforms for mutual defence (discuss false economies at your leisure). This is well-known within the service.
(Rafting was deliberately omitted from the design, under pressure from Parliament, specifically as a means to save money.)
Is this aspect of the ships mentioned in the article, for I may have missed it? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:ED18:EA60:61FC:D690 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There was already a quote from Chris Parry. I've expanded upon that, with the MOD's response that as primarily AAW ships, noise supression was not a "premium requirement".  I agree with your comment about false economies, however to discuss that further without references that we could use to include it in the article would see me veering into forum territory which is not what talk pages are for. Mark83 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance, ASW, Propulsion, Faults