Talk:Type 45 destroyer/Archive 1

Trivia

I think the following is too vague for the main article, just thought I'd put it here for anyone's interest.

The contract states that the Type 45 must protect itself and all vessels within a 6.5km radius against 8 anti-ship missiles arriving within x number of seconds. (where x remains classified). Mark83 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

...the Daring Class destroyers represent the largest escorts ever built for the RN, second only to the Tiger class guided missile cruisers of the post-Second World War era.

Largest?

Either they're the largest, or second largest, surely?

I changed the reference from golf ball to cricket ball as that is what the telegraph source says.

"...the Daring Class destroyers represent the largest escorts ever built for the RN, second only to the Tiger class guided missile cruisers of the post-Second World War era." should this read "...the Daring Class destroyers represent the largest escorts built for the RN, since the Tiger class guided missile cruisers of the post-Second World War era."

Shurely shum mistake here. Especially when relying on a newspaper source to be accurate. The Type 45s are indeed the largest escorts built for the Royal Navy since WW2. The Tiger class began life as cruisers. Within the conventional meaning of that label. Even after conversion the Tigers were never escorts for the fleet, as the Type 45s will be. The Tiger were never "guided missile ships" either, within the normally accepted meaning of a ship fitted with guided missiles to defend the fleet. They had Seacat fitted for last-ditch self defence, as did many frigates, but unlike the Type 45s they could not defend the fleet against air attack. The role of the Tigers was as a temporary anti-submarine warfare helicopter carrier, not unlike the Invincible through-deck cruisers/carriers, and fundamentally different from an air defence destroyer designed to protect the carriers. In short Tiger was the "escorted" not the "escort". Ergo: Tiger was not an escort, larger or smaller. Simple really! And the largest escort? Yes! But only by a whisker heavier than HMS Bristol D23, but shorter than Bristol. 217.42.218.28 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Missile Control

The SAMPSON article mentions that the SAMPSON radar is similar to the USN's SPY-1 system, which is a fixed phased array radar, and from what i understand the S1805M radar fills a purpose similar to the USN's SPS-49 radar that of a long-range Search radar. however, the USN's Aegis missile system needs a target illuminator (SPG-62) for guidance. My question is, does the Type 45 destroyer need this intermediate radar system too, or because the SAMPSON radar is different to the SPY-1 radar and/or because the Aster is different to the Standard, there is no need for a target illuminator like the SPG-62? 202.72.148.102 11:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• The answer is no, it doesn't need illuminators. One of the big advantages of the system is that the Aster missiles are active homing only, every missile has its very own radar in the nose. The SAMPSON radar is needed to track the target to provide midcourse updates to the missiles, but once they get close enough they home all on their own. BobThePirate 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Radars

By the way, will the Type 45's be fitted with Surface Search and Navigation radar(s), and/or a Gun Fire Control radar? Or can the SAMPSON et al radars handle these important functions too? 202.72.148.102 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There will be an S1850M 3D air search radar fitted. Though I've read comments that the SAMPSON is so capable that they could actually leave the S1850M off without real difficulty. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if that was done eventually, to give more space for more missiles or other gear. BobThePirate 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The S1850M is, like you said, an Air search radar - not surface search, so i wouldnt have imagined that it would be useful in a surface seach role - indeed the image of the Type 45 looks like it has a small surface radar on the front of the "pyramid" which isnt mentioned in the radars section. Going from what you said, the SAMPSON radar can be used to target the Gun as well (on both surface and airbourne targets?) - it would make sense if it could, however in the past there has (almost) always been a dedicated gun fire control radar. btw, thankyou for the prompt replies (above as well). 202.72.148.102 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a web article saying the ship will have "Raytheon Pathfinder navigation radar". That's the only other reference to radars I can find. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a gun radar if that's normal RN practice. Wait and see, I guess. BobThePirate 16:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC

the most recent RN warhsips (Type 22 Batch 3 and Type 23) use Electro Optical Sensors instead of radars to control their 4.5" guns. Its quite likely the Type 45 will alsoThe useless one 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

listings of radars on warships often ignore Surface Search/Navigation radars, primarily because just about every government owned ship mounts at least one these daysThe useless one 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that gunnery direction will be provided by equipment the same as, or similar to, the GSA-8 (Sea Archer) electro-optical director carried on T22 BIII and T23 Frigates.--87.127.18.198 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Build Method

"Block A is assembled at Govan and moved to Scotstoun where it is mated to the Block B/C, which is already fitted with the WR-21 turbines and machinery. Block D, also assembled at Scotstoun is fitted to these three blocks. The bow sections (E/F) are mated at VT's facility at Portsmouth and taken by barge to Scotsoun. This is the final block to be attached."

This is only true for the first ship - Daring. Blocks A - D of the remaining ships are all being constructed at Govan and then mated to VT's E/F for launch in Govan. Scotstoun is only to be used for outfitting and commissioning for ships 2 to 6.

Guided Missle Destroyer/Cruiser

Why is type 45 classed as a cruiser, if the royal navy are calling her a destroyer than shes a destroyer. The only mention of her being like a cruiser is in her tonnage and this is mentioned mostly by the press.Crusiers also only used to be classified by what inch guns they had 6" or 8". type 45 is also below 10000 tonnes which seems to be the tonnage of later cruisers so if anythings shes a large destroyer.Corustar 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Type 45 isn't a cruiser, and personally I don't know of any source that calls it one. Certainly the Royal Navy doesn't call it one, and neither does any part of this article. Possibly the news media does, but when it comes to military hardware the news media generally doesn't have more than the faintest clue what it's talking about, so I wouldn't sweat it. )Added - oops, just noticed that it does. I'll fix it) BobThePirate 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In Royal Navy nomenclature, air defence warships (such as Type 45s) are known as destroyers, and anti-submarine vessels are known as frigates. So HMS Daring is a destroyer. At various times, the idea of reclassifying the Type 22 Batch III frigates as 'cruisers' has been considered but rejected. Politically, a 'cruiser' sounds expensive, which is probably one reason why the term is not used by the Royal Navy. --87.127.18.198 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tomahawk and Sylver

The article implied that the Sylver launcher could be used to fire Tomahawks, but i don't believe this is the case. Apart from questions of compatibility, the Type 45 has the Sylver A50, which hold missiles up to five metres long; a Tomahawk with booster is 6.25 metres long. Also, if you read the parliamentary answer, it's clear a new launcher would have to be fitted for Tomahawks.

I've altered the article accordingly. If i'm wrong, apologies, and we could do with a citation on the matter.

Furthermore, note that current Storm Shadow is 5.1 metres long, and that's an air-launched missile without a booster; it seems highly unlikely a surface-launched variant would be under 5 metres, and so would also not fit in the A50. There's an A70 model of Sylver designed for this. The RN, having a fine tradition of crippling its ships to save a few quid, did not fit this model to the Type 45. There are references to this in both the Tomahawk and Storm Shadow articles, which ought to be fixed.

-- Tom Anderson 2006-11-25 14:13 +0000

Tom Anderson, former ADAWS maintainer of YORK????

Well spotted, and well edited. :) Emoscopes ^Talk 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Commission Date

Why in the world does Daring need two years to be commissioned, it's only a destroyer for goodness sake. US carriers take less time to be commissioned. why does everything take so long in the damn RN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.159.196.253 (talk • contribs)

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.

Templates can be and are removed regularly. There is no way the above comment is off topic - if true it is of genuine interest, why will it take two years? The last point is extraneous but the comment as a whole is valid. Mark83 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As per Help:Talk page, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. It really is not a place for general questions and discussion about the subject matter, however "on topic" they are to the subject, they are "off topic" for the talk page. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and a discussion as to what development will take place in those two years would absolutely "improve the contents of the article in question". Please don't let your interpretation of policy possibly rule out the inclusion of something which could add to the article. Mark83 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't read to far into the placing of a simple reminder notice, as you say it is my interpretation of policy, any user is free to ignore the reminder if they want to, it's not something to lose any sleep about. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The length of time for HMS Daring to be commissioned is almost certainly to do with making sure that a NEW class of vessels is working properly before commissioning them all. It also means they are able to thoroughly test them, not just slightly test them to make sure everything works for every eventuality, these vessels arent little speed boats, theyre some of the most advanced kits available all rolled up into one big piece of hardware. JonEastham 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The last part of the first comment ("why does everything take so long") is a bit naive. My point all along is that it would very much be of interest to explain what will go on during commissioning as it is, I would suggest, the most complicated warship the RN has ever introduced. And I apologise if I read too much into the template. Mark83 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, in hindsight the tone of that template could be done with being more "friendly" or "welcoming", it was not my intention to sound like I was giving a rap on the knuckles. Emoscopes ^Talk 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who made the unsigned comment, I just believe that there's way too much hype about this new class of Destroyer in general, and with this article in particular. And I don't believe me saying this is off topic or not constructive to the article, I think it's too long, it needs to be trimmed down, until thie ship is atleast completed there shouldn't be half the amount of space devoted to it here. While I can't fault the RN fans here alone (the Zumwalt Destroyer article is wayyyy too long, and so is the talk page), I think that there needs to be more objective and well sourced information regarding articles of this type and not just Government propaganda trying to justify their Defense spending. For being over 150 meters long and weighing in at nearly 7300 tonnes this ship doesn't pack any type of real punch, a single 4.5 inch gun, and only 48 PAAM missiles, similar US ships are less than 1500 tonnes heavier, less beamier, and about the same length or shorter and have damn near enough space for 100 Air Defense missiles plus cruise, hangar space for two heavier helos etc. Hype, all hype. 12.199.96.253 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No joke about the hype (something the British are excellent at). When I saw the quote in this article from some former RN officer that this would be the "world's best air defence (sic) ship," I almost fell off my chair - haven't laughed so hard in years. Indeed, I never even heard of this boat but wanted to check out what was out there on the web about the Arleigh Burkes so googled "best destroyer in the world" and this article popped up surprisingly. Fortunately, I already knew the answer, and actually not at all surprised to find pro-UK Wiki wrong as usual. Jmdeur (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical American, always assuming rather than investigating. AAW capability must be judged on a high threat environment with multiple attacks, just because an Arleigh Burke is bigger or has a few more missiles doesn't mean it can literally use all those extra missiles in a crisis. Info suggests that these new generation ships (AEGIS was designed in the 1970's) can simulaneously target 16 threats, with another 16 missiles en-route, compared to traditional systems which use 2 target illuminators and scheduled intercepts of multiple targets by missiles en-route, in turn. Then we have the higher RADAR mast, giving maybe twice the horizon scanning range. Here's 1 fact for you, there's only ever been 1 wartime ship to air intercept of a anti-ship missile, and it was done in 1991 by a British destroyer, in protection of an American ship.

Oh, and BTW, defence is the CORRECT spelling, the pro-USA Wiki wrong as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.175 (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

File:Rn type 45.jpg

I uploaded both of the images to the right. However in hindsight using two fair use images is a bit much, particularly when they both convey similar information. Anybody agree/disagree/have suggestions to which one to delete? I'm inclined to delete the bottom one (at sea). Mark83 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - delete the bottom one. There will be better pictures of the T-45s soon enough, when HMS Daring begins sea trials next year. John Smith's 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it at images for deletion. Thanks for the comments. Mark83 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Commissioned / Commissioning / to be Commissioned

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this context, as a verb, the correct use for the future would be "to be commissioned", "will commission" or "commissioning". Without the auxiliary verb ("will", "shall" etc.) using "commissioned" on its own refers to the past tense. I can understand that "commissioned" is nearly always used when referring to ships, but that is when we are speaking about the vast majority of ships; those that are already commissioned, but is this a justification for bad English? Emoscopes ^Talk 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what we should do here is to split the last column into two, given that the majority have not actually been comissioned and that none are in service. The meaning of 'commissioned' is getting rather overloaded as the dates certainly don't reflect when the ships are being put on active military duty. So we would have columns 'name', 'pennant number', 'First steel cut', 'Launched', 'Commissioned' and 'In service'. However, we should not be listing future dates (and fairly uncertain future dates a that) in the table without noting that such is the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sander (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. All the articles on ships I have seen used "commissioned" rather than anything else. It means "expected to be commissioned". Really I don't see why there has to be this debate. John Smith's 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly radical step towards Orwellian Newspeak. It might easily be that Wikipedia articles covering some catogory are all making a similar mistake (it would hardly be the first time), possibly due to coping. The Royal Navy certainly doesn't refer to any of the Type 45 destroyers as having been commissioned, and similarily as far as i can tell, no navy anywhere has refered to a ship not yet ready for sea trials as commissioned, nor do they use "commisioned" to mean a future event (as oppsed to "will be commissioned", is "slated to be commissioned" and so). Sander 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the debate because on it's own, "commissioned", as a verb, means in the past, and seeing as this is a future event it is an incorrect use of language - it might be a minor nitpick (hence debating it here rather than edit warring) but to my eye it is messy and slightly contradictory and confusing. I think this is particularly pertinent as these dates are for the most part, conjecture or projected, rather than firm. There really aren't that many articles on ships that are building but not yet commissioned, off the top of my head I can think of Astute class submarine and Littoral Combat Ship. The former suffers from the same poor language ("launched" for a future event) and the latter avoids the issue altogether. It would be good to reach a concensus here. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Emoscopes I grant you you are 100% correct about the use of English. However personally I don't see a major problem with the status quo - it's common sense that 2009 is in the future. Perhaps a compromise would be "commissioning" - which (correct me if I'm wrong) could refer to both a past and future event. Mark83 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

i.e. commissioning occurred on.... or commissioning will occur on.... Mark83 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably just being anal for anal's sake... I had put it as "commissioning" at one point but that got reverted, this was my compromise as it would cover both eventualities when one of these ships finally commissions and there is a mix of past and present dates. Emoscopes ^Talk 21:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We could do that, or we could leave it at "commisioned" and instead of definite dates use "expected in ..." in the table cells, to be replaced by actual dates when the event has come to pass. I'm fine with either - but we really should not combine past dense and "definite" future dates. Sander 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Commissioning" sounds horrible. How about Sander's second suggestion - "commissioned" and "Expected XXXX", unless a firm date is forwarded. John Smith's 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm out. I didn't really care from the start and this is just getting silly. Mark83 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I've made my point, it doesn't matter how it sounds, "commissioned" is actually wrong. My POV is here for the record if anyone in the future feels the need to dig this up. I'm off to work. Emoscopes ^Talk 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

HMS Daring's trials

The speed of 31.5 knots is already mentioned in the main body of the article - please do not add it to the ship information summary. John Smith's (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is ideal for the information summary, even if it is in the main body. Also the news reference states target speed of 29knots (BAE state 28) and why say 29+knots when it is over 30? Please consider this reference: http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_product_type45.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.107.86 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The news reference states target speed of 29knots (BAE state 28) - so we are going to take a news paper over BAE systems are we? sigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.107.86 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Page

Nydas makes a good point about Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, but I would argue that Lewis Page is far better at stating the bleeding obvious about the failings of defence procurement than he is on the benefits or otherwise of one type of ship or another. Remember, he may be bright and articulate, but his naval experience (Mine Warfare) is largely peripheral to the arguements he makes on the pros of escorts vs aircraft carriers and amphib ships. I would suggest that the first paragraph in the criticism section should stay, but the second paragraph is unjustified. Perhaps what we really need is a far fuller article on Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs ... Nydas? Shem1805 (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it should be easy enough to find reliable sources contradicting him if he's wrong about the superiority of airborne radars like the E-2 Hawkeye over the Type 45. This article by Max Hastings largely agrees: The folly of our war machine.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nydas, I agree entirely about comparing reliable sources, but I think the proper place for the debate is on the Talk Page of Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs rather than in the T45 article (although a short note and internal link from T45 to L, D & D would be appropriate). If you feel strongly about the whole issue, Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs is screaming out for a lot more information. Vive le Wikipedia! Shem1805 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shem that the second paragraph should not be included. John Smith's (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, what about Max Hastings? He calls the Type 45 a 'huge folly' and a way of maintaining the critical mass of the Royal Navy. It would help if this article had information about the intended role of the ship, because it is unfair to have criticism of this in a vaccuum.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree more detail is needed about the T-45's role. But Max Hastings is just another commentator with no real modern naval experience to my knowledge - I wouldn't have anything by him either. John Smith's (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So who can legitimately criticise the Type 45? As well as being a commentator, Hastings is also a military historian who covered (amongst other things) the Falklands War.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am neither a naval strategy expert nor a military historian so my opinion doesn't count as far as the article goes. However I can raise this question here: How on earth can the Royal Navy, given its expeditionary commitments, afford not to have a AAW destroyer such as this? This section started because of a query about the relative use of an escort vs. aircraft. The Type 45 with PAAMS is contracted to protect itself and its accompanying vessels within a 6.5km radius against anti-ship missiles. There is no way you could effectively/economically provide that sort of guarantee with fighters, especially against a short notice attack. As for "huge folly" or 'white elephant' - what other option was there? Buying AEGIS from the U.S. -- Is it not commonly agreed that PAAMS will be more capable once fully operational. Not to mention the high value-added jobs created or maintained at MBDA and Thales. Mark83 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with John Smith's - this is not an appropriate place for this debate, which should be happening on the talk page of Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, or elsewhere. I propose that we move the discussion there and adjust the criticism section of the T45 article to link to L, D & D. I've got some lovely POV to air, but I'm not doing it here! What do you say, Nydas? Shem1805 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read John Smith's comments here and can't see where he said "this is not an appropriate place for this debate". However I respect your view. Mark83 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mark83. Incidently, I didn't mean "this is not an appropriate place for this debate" as an extension of "I'm in full agreement with John Smith's", but instead as two separate statements. I must be more careful about my use of dashes - pure laziness on my part. Having thought rather more about this, it is clear to me that you wouldn't use the Wikipedia page on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer to criticise US Pork barrel politics, unless it had a direct bearing on the ship's performance, perhaps. I don't see that the T45 article is a suitable place to discuss the (myriad) failings of UK Defence Procurement. In fact it's going to be difficult to assess T45 at all until she is in service, for better or worse. I think the section as it now stands is pretty fair ("The Type 45 project has been criticised for rising costs and delays, with the ships costing £6.46 billion, compared with an original estimate of £5.47 billion. The ships are scheduled to enter service in 2009, rather than 2007 as initially planned. In 2007, the Defence Select Committee expressed its disappointment that the MoD and BAE had failed to control rising costs.") Defence Industrial Strategy or BAE Systems might be a better place for this, if not L, D & D. Incidently, given your advertised lack of expertise, I thought your contribution very level-headed indeed. I shall say no more on this subject, and watch with interest. Shem1805 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1st off, no need to apologise. Perhaps I misinterpreted the dash! Thank you for the level-headed comment - I don't pretend that the MOD and BAE don't need a massive dose of common sense slapped into them at times, but I don't buy into the (in my view) tabloid-esque simplification of a complicated subject. You're entirely right, sure the Type 45 has had problems, but only Type 45-specific problems should be discussed here. To micro-analyse UK defence procurement in this article is neither sensible nor appropriate. Mark83 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If this article had some explanation of its intended role (air defence and a helicopter), then it's reasonable to give at least a couple of sentences about criticism of this role; that it's too narrow and not cost-effective. Are there reliable sources for the defence against sneak air attacks role suggested by Mark83?

The idea that the Type 45 can't be assessed until it is in service is very limiting, considering that they will most likely never fire a shot in anger.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but it will have undergone firing trials such that people will know how well the system works. Criticism is fine, but because this is a highly technical project the usual tabloid complaints aren't suitable. We already have a bit on the cost from the Parliamentary committee. John Smith's (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows Vista, another highly technical project, had a huge criticism section before it was released [1], and a criticism spin-off article [2].--Nydas^(Talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's apples and oranges, Nydas. Details of Vista were available before release, such as pricing, features, etc. If there had been any criticism of its performance prior to release I would not have supported it on that article. Also because so many people use it, a separate criticism article is understandable given it is easy to see what it is like. Conversely few people will get a true insight of the Type 45s such that they can criticise them from real experience. John Smith's (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We know the pricing and features of the Type 45 before release, as well. The very few people who will gain a 'true insight' will most likely be fired if they criticise the ship.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we're in the realms of conspiracy theory, Nydas. 'No one who knows anything can criticise T45, because they'll be fired.' Utter rubbish, not least because I don't see how the MoD could fire somebody based on their Wikipedia Username! The MoD has the capacity to find and sack internal critics, but it is incapable of efficient procurement? If you're drowning, find something better than a staw to clutch. Shem1805 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are composed what can be found in reliable sources, not what we, the editors, think. To write a reliable source, you need to give your name. An officer who finds the Type 45 inadequate is unlikely to risk their career by badmouthing it in the media. Those who do criticise it (largely Lewis Page, with a tiny bit from Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins) are not qualified enough. The end result is no criticism.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Max Hastings article you referenced says nothing about the Type 45 and says "Some of Page's charges are overstated, and some of his analysis lacks context." The Times article I referenced in Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs says the book is "shot through with inaccuracies ([Page] seems to believe everything he was told) and his remarks are frequently facile, which undermines his judgment on important procurement issues he raises." Simon Jenkins says "a new batch of archaic destroyers, the Type 45.." Archaic?? I refer to you my comments above regarding the necessity of an AAW destroyer for a fleet. I haven't read the book but from the characterisation of it I've gotten from this discussion Page wants a £4bn carrier force with a £10bn airwing whose main role will be protecting itself! Not to mention an F-35 with ASRAAM has nothing like the capability of the PAAMS/Aster combination vs. anti-ship missiles. I'm fine with authoritative criticism, none has been presented so far.

Regarding the cost increases the Defence Equipment and Support Organisation COO said last month "fundamentally what happened was that the price was fixed while the design was still very immature. What we used to do with complex warships was to build a first of class almost on a cost-plus basis. You knew what you were doing before you tried to fix the price of the subsequent ships."[3] Mark83 (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

USS Ticonderoga cost $1 Billion [4], and that was in 1983. Given that the value of money has shrunk by half [5] since then, £1 Billion per hull spread over the whole project looks a fairly sensible figure. Instead of using the value of money figure for infaltion, perhaps we should be looking at inflation in the defence sector, which runs at a horrific annual figure of 10%. When you then consider that the US built 27 hulls, rather than 6, it begins to look quite good. When you then consider that the polititians (not the MoD) reduced the number from 12, to 8, and then down to 6, it's hard to see how the whole project got in so cheap. I'm not a fan of defence procurement (far from it), but I think the whole cost issue for T45 has been blown out of all proportion. How much do you pay for 6 brand new world-class destroyers? Compared to £20 Billion for an NHS computer system that doesn't work, or £11 Billion for ID cards, or £55 Billion for a bust bank, this is good value (don't get me started on Eurofighter, though). Can we please move this discussion away from this page and to somewhere more appropriate? Shem1805 (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This all very well, but it's more suited to a military forum than Wikipedia. I'm citing published sources, and you're batting them away with original syntheses. The Hastings article is here: The folly of our war machine. He also calls the Type 45 a 'high tech exhibit' here. Page's views on the Navy can be found in his article for Prospect magazine (though he has a softer stance on the Type 45): Wasted warships.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, we're agreed this has evolved into a forum discussion which is not what these pages are for. But your sources are sub-standard e.g. "They are escorts, offering limited anti-missile... cover" THAT IS JUST WRONG. They will offer the best anti-missile cover of any naval vessel. You want to see how many references I can get for that! Mark83 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. They are perfectly respectable references from respectable institutions. They should be included as should the criticisms. If you can provide reliable sources for your claim of best anti-missile cover, then do so. Under Wikipedia policy, all verifiable information which would expand people's knowledge of the subject should be added. Woody (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Woody, for the timely reminder. Before we got carried away, the question was, should criticisms of UK defence procurement in general sit on the T45 article? Surely this article is the appropriate place for criticisms for the class of ship? Shem1805 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should be comprehensive in its coverage of the T45 destroyer. As part of that it is neccessary to include some discussion regarding the culture that has created it. I am not saying there should be an exhaustive review of UK Government defence spending, this is most certainly not the place for that. A sentence or two including a link to another article/discussion should suffice in my opinion. Something along the lines of "The T45 destroyer was ordered as part of a move towards a more blue-water based Navy. Its development and construction has seen delays caused in part due to the wider issue of spending reviews in the Military budget of the United Kingdom". Woody (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To put this into perspective its an article from 2004 to advertise a book written previously to that. His arguments made sense at the time, since Eurofighter was an unmitigated disaster prior to it being able to shoot down F22's well beyond visual range and win dogfights against squadrens of F15's. I think the crux is not that he thinks the type 45 isnt a good piece of kit, its that he thinks we dont need an anti submarine warfare vessel if we're going to be fighting a war against a goat herder with a 50 year old rifle.

The Register,as entertaining as it is, is not a newspaper - its an IT blog. The description in Wiki is that it is a news and opinion web site. Its articles are not fact-checked (and an opinion piece in any newspaper is just that - one person's personal opinion). There is no way El Reg can be considered a source of accurate defence knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.200.120 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Affiliations

Now that I've read through once more, it seems to me that the best place for the stuff on affiliations is in the articles on the ships themselves . I shall put its deletion (and cross checking to the other articles) on my list-of-things-to-do and assume that any lack of comment here equals consensus. I can't promise to get round to it quickly, though. Shem1805 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion - it's not really notable enough for the main article. John Smith's (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Planned?

The infobox currently says 6, possibly 8. I understand that only 6 have been ordered, but 7 & 8 are still planned officially. Would anyone object if the infobox was changed to say 8 are planned? John Smith's (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's commonly understood that only 6 will ever materialise, so the current infobox reflects reality rather better (but is less verifiable). Change it if you like; time will tell. Shem (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware official UK policy is that 8 is the requirement. However only 6 have been ordered. If I'm right that 8 is still the official requirement then to discuss otherwise is Original Research. It's pretty obvious that the MOD procurement budget is struggling at the minute but as far as the Type 45 programme goes it is complicated by issues such as Saudi Arabia possibly buying 7 & 8 and the UK buying 9 & 10 to make a RN class of 8.Mark83 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

7 and 8 canceled

The last two type 45s have been canceled as was expected. But before everyone gets excited about it the C1 element of the future surface combatant is being accelerated as was reported a few months ago by defensenews.com and again on bbc news. The two spaces in the escort establishment will be added to that program keeping the future escort force at 25 even though force mix will be slightly different. The future Surface combatant program has 3 elements called c1, c2 and c3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.218 (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Sales?

There was a BAE article in the Telegraph today, it mentioned greater than expected interest in the type 45. Just a clueless journo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AOC, Commissioning and "In Service" dates

The dates of Acceptance off Contract (AOC), Commissioning and "In service" are quite different:

Event	Explanation	Date	Ref
AOC	Handover of custody. Vessel is manned by RN. White ensign flown. Milestone payment to BAE. CO becomes the captain	December 2008	[6]
Commissioning	Big party. RN pays for a sticky bun and a cup of tea for every official visitor. Cake is cut. Speeches made. Flypast	23 July 2009	[7]
In service	Trials complete. Weapons and command system work. Ship passes work-up. Ship deploys	2010 or December 2009	[8] [9]

The reference for the commissioning is pretty rubbish - can anybody find a better one? Shem (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've found a reference for the commissioning date, which I now know to be correct from other (unverifiable) sources - [10]

Displacement

Is there any source for the 8,092 tonnes deep load? The RN still speaks of 7,350 tonnes. --Albion05 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Design

"The Type 23 frigates were the first British warships to incorporate signature reduction technology, with the large 70° angle of the bow, the elimination of right angles and reduced equipment on deck."

This statement is highly inaccurate - please refer to the Type 23 frigate which pioneered such measures in the 1980s - in particular eliminating all rightangles in their superstructure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not understood - are you saying that the Type 23 pioneered British Warship signature reduction (which is what the text says), or are you saying that they didn't? Shem (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't agree with the changes just made. We already mention the cost and the fact ship-ship/ship-shore capabilities are limited.

As for comparisons with other destroyers, it's apples and oranges. The Arleigh Burkes are mass-produced, proven platforms that seek to do everything. The Type 45 is new, will only have a handful of ships and is focused on AAW. Doubtless if we ran production out to 60 that price would come down significantly. But if you want to play the comparison game let's quote people comparing it to every other destroyer in the world!

Besides, who is this "Lewis Page"? Who does he work for? Is he a formal naval officer? "Defence analyst" is pretty meaningless. User:John Smith's (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He's a former naval officer - mentioned in a section on this talk page. There used to be a page on him on WP. He's not well liked in the defence community, and he's a little... virulent when it comes to defence, thinking himself better qualified than the RN itself. I wasn't quite sure how to describe him, but seeing as he analyses defence matters and has written a book on defence procurement which has been quoted in parliament, defence analyst seemed appropriate.

I'm just keen that the actual cost of the project is stated - it's extremely expensive, even for a state of the art destroyer, and will be useless at anything except anti-air defence. I think that comparing it with similar ships in other navies is a valid comparison to make in an article - not every other destroyer in the world, but its contemporaries - for example the Arleigh Burke, the King Sejong the Great class destroyer. Even the awesome Zumwalt-class destroyer costs only about £2bn for the lead ship, and that can do land attack and air defence to a level the T45 can't match. It might also be worth mentioning the current furore: "The first Type 45 destroyer is set to enter service later this year, more than two years late, £1.5bn over budget, and not fully operational." Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but not in the intro ... Shem (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If it gets more mainstream media coverage, would you consider it? It's not often that procurement projects get this much criticism. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Isnt it? most things this labour government have done in the past 10 years seem to come in late and more expensive than first thought. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said, but it's more a BAe/MoD thing than a Labour thing, I think. It was the conservatives who nearly scrapped most of the fleet just before the '82 war. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you don't know enough about naval shipbuilding to understand my point. The Koreans are using proven American technology - the radar, sensors, AAW missiles, etc. The Type 45s' cost isn't the steel, it's SAMPSON, PAAMS et al. Unproven, new stuff that has proven harder to get to work together and more expensive to produce than originally thought. As for the Zumwalt, that hasn't even been launched let alone commissioned.

I'm sorry, but cost overruns are normal especially in UK defence procurement at the moment. They've also received a lot of criticism. User:John Smith's (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I don't know much about naval shipbuilding, and you've sort of missed my point, but I'll bow to your experience. Just give it some thought is all I ask :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) It would be better to integrate this material into the body of the article rather than have a separate 'criticism' section. A section which contains only one set of views without acknowledging that other views exist risks violating WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D, the body of the text is primarily "Pro-45" as is the nature of such topics when the information sources are almost entirely marketing information released by the military and associated parties. A small section mentioning criticisms seems to me to help balance the article... in my opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.107.86 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2009

£5.47 billion was the original stated cost, was this for 12 destroyers or the first 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.244.112 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The strategic value of the ships - outside a naval battlefield - is being ignored when it comes to the costs, but thats probably for a different section on another page. However I disagree with the use of the word 'allegedly' when describing the reduced capability - Senior Naval officers and commentators have cited this many times and ties into my earlier point that many don't see ships for their full role and only their battlefield role. I could continue with the current numbers of escorts versus the required number as mandated in the 1998 strategic review, but thats is again a side topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.125.226 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The procurement of these vessels is a major waste of MOD and UK Government resources. The Operational Analysis conducted by Higher Level Studies on behalf of the Directorate of Force Development in the early 1990s showed that there was no realistic high technology fixed wing or land based air threat to the fleet in the configuration that it was proposed to deploy. It also identified that there was no realistic deep water threat that generated a planning scenario which had any utility for the proposed Type 45/PAAMS platform. The Type 45 does not match any of the historic RN roles, apart from diplomatic entertaining and export sales, since the Falkland War in 1983. It appears to have been procured to satisfy the egos of office bound naval warriors rather and employment in vulnerable parliamentary constituencies than to meet any role required in the MOD Strategic Tasks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackorack (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Falklands War was in 1982. Got any sources for any of this, or is this just OR? Shem (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Daring

Shem, Daring has been commissioned - it's official. It doesn't say she's in service. More importantly your citation does not say she is in "stage 2 trials". That's your own invention. John Smith's (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

John Smith, "Stage 2 Trials" isn't my invention - see [11], [12] and [13]. Shem (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's tautological to say a commissioned ship has a status of "commissioned", and the date of her commissioning is shown in the table; her status should be "trials" (as discussed in the reference), changing to "In service" when that finally happens. Shem (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still original research to say she's in trials since last week. None of the articles say Daring is currently in trials, only that she has been. You will need to quote me an article published or updated since her commissioning that says she's in "stage 2 trials". To imply the ship is commissioned yet in trials will confuse readers who aren't up to speed on the situation.

The same applies for ship number 2. I think it's better to say "trials" for pre-commissioning. John Smith's (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest it would be confusing to tell readers that her status is commissioned; they will assume that she is in service, when there is still a long way to go before that happens. I'm not saying she's in trials since last week - she's been in trials since Summer '07. Trials doesn't mean "pre-commissioning" - it means she's undergoing trials. The reference given says:

“ Dec 10/08: Daring is formally handed over to the MOD in an Acceptance-off-Contract ceremony at the Scotstoun shipyard on the Clyde. HMS Daring is due to sail to her home port of Portsmouth in January 2009 to undertake 12 months of exhaustive Stage 2 trials and training, before she is declared ready for operational service. ”

Is that what you're looking for? If you think about it, every HM Ship is commissioned, so it is a nonsense to make the status "commissioned". This article went out of its way (until last week, obviously) in the first sentence to state that she wasn't commissioned yet. The Ark Royal example is a good one; her status could be "in refit", "active", "conducting trials post-refit", "awaiting disposal", but hardly "commissioned". Shem (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Over-Optimistic Commission Dates

Considering that HMS Dauntless is due to be commissioned in Nov 2010, doesn't it seem way too optimistic to suggest that HMS Diamond is also due to be commissioned in the same year, since she was launched 10 months later? Shouldn't the commission dates for the final 4 vessels be shifted up one year? CrackDragon (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the various dates of commissioning? Arbitrarily moving the dates by one year doesn't seem like a good solution. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When I saw CrackDragon's comment I looked at the article and saw that only two of the dates in that table have in-line citations. The historic ones are, IMO, less problematic but surely the future ones should all be cited or removed. FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

All good points. I've found a reference for Diamond commissioning in 2011, and edited the article. A warning, though - so much of the information out there is a mirror of Wikipedia, that finding out the right dates is going to be a nightmare! Shem (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just found this on the Royal Navy website:-

"The first is due to enter service in 2010 and will be named HMS Daring, the second and third are to be HMS Dauntless and Diamond respectively and these should be in service by 2011. The successor three ships, that will be joining the Fleet at intervals of about six months after HMS Diamond, are to be named HMS Duncan, Dragon and Defender."

Is there a temporal difference between the date of commission and in-service date? If not, then the dates stated in this article look to be about correct, assuming they do manage to commission the last 3 ships at 6 month intervals. There again, don't hold your breath! Overpriced, under-equipped and years overdue these ships certainly are!!
CrackDragon (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Phalanx CIWS

I'm a little confused over about whether the type 45's are actually fitted with Phalanx CIWS as the type 45 page lists them as fitted for but not with while the articles on HMS Daring and Dauntless both state that thee ships are equipped with Phalanx in their respective info boxs so im wondering witch is correct? have the ships recently recived these weapons asi have looked on the royal navy site and cant find any reference to them and I haven't seen the distinctive R2D2 domes on any photos of the ships so can anyone bring some light to the issue? --Delta33 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good point, and an important distinction. The class page is correct, and I've been through and changed the ship articles. The proof is, as you say, self-evident - no visible Phalanx domes on the ships. Shem (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

T45 is fitted "for but not with" Phalanx. This is politics-speak for "not fitted with Phalanx (but please don't run headlines about how we've forgotten HMS Sheffield)". I don't think these "for but not with" equivocations should be included in the specifications. Almost every ship is in principle capable of being fitted with all sorts of things which are not present at commissioning. A number of ships have been been converted type entirely, eg. the WWI-WWII carrier conversions. But these are little more than speculation. HMS Vanguard (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the 'fitted for but not with' might be better left in the article as its showing an intent and direction on what the ships will be reffited with as i'd guess that the type 45's will be reciving phalanx recycled from the older type 42s when their sent to be scrapped as the cost cutting prevented buying of new weapon systems and could possibly be the same for the harpoon?--Delta33 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is is Phalanx and not the Goalkeeper that is common to other RN ships?Foxhound66 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably because Phalanx can be easily "bolted on" , while Goalkeeper, which penetrates the deck, is much more demanding on ship space. Incidentally, it looks like Daring at lkeast will actually be fitted with Phalanx - "The Best of the UK". Navy News. January 2011. p. 9. Retrieved 2011-01-26. Daring is currently undergoing a mini overhaul which among other upgrades will see her fitted with Phalanx automated guns

Thanks do you have a source for the Goalkeeper "pentrating the deck"? And Why did the RN no plan the Type 45s with CIWS inthe first place?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the Goalkeeper page it says that the height is 3.71 m above deck and 6.2 m including deck penetration. FerdinandFrog (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Naval Rules

"The Type 45 destroyers are the first British warships built to meet the hull requirements of Lloyd's Register's Naval Rules." What on earth does that mean? Blaise (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lloyds introduced construction standards for naval ships: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_199909/ai_n8874282/ It's implied that this means the building standards are better than previous ships, but since no Lloyds standards existed for any previous class, this is only possibly true. HMS Vanguard (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mk41 / BGM 109 speculations

There are currently no plans or provisons to equip these ships with the Mk 41 / BGM 109 bundle (or with A70 for that matter).
The cited source (an answer to a specific question about the BGM 109 and the typ 45) only states, that it could be possible to fit a Mk 41 into the ships, because the ships have space to do so.
"Could be possible" are a lot of things, so this is just pure speculation in regard to the capabilities of the typ 45 has at the moment or in the forseeable future.)
This speculation is thus too fare fetched to be mentioned unter the system/armament section.
If one someone absolutly wants the BGM 109 mentioned in the article about the Typ 45, a section "possible future upgrades" would be the right place to do so. John Harrington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.204.189 (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

MrGRA and Woody have pointed out, in reverting your previous edits, that the material which you are repeatedly removing is supported by the references. Anything not supported by the reference has already been removed. Please take the trouble to read the edit summaries provided by experienced editors when they reverted your previous changes. David Biddulph (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop reverting now or the page will be protected by another admin. Discuss the issues here before editing the article anymore.

As it is I don't think the article is misleading the viewer. It does not state that they are being considered, it simply reports that they could be. A casual reader would be interested to know whether these large ships have any land attack capability, the sentence that is currently in contention clarifies these issues. Woody (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think, the article is misleading especially a casual reader, because equipping them either with the A70 or the Mk41 would mean a rebuild of the ship. As it stands at the moment and for the forseeable future the Typ 45 will have no land attack capability besides the gun. Insofar this part of this article is pure speculation and misleading and thus shouldn't be mentioned in a section about the systems an armarment of this ships, especially when one compares this article with articles about other modern warship classes (eg DDG 51, KDX III, etc). In other articles there is much less of "fitted for", "considered", "would be possible" when it comes to the equipment of the ships when compared to the article about the Typ 45. A clearer distinction between the facts about the ship and what may be possible in the future or may be wished for by certain circles would raise

The cited reference doesn't really support what is written in the article. It's a political answer to a political question, no more, no less. Neither Jane's nor Proceedings have puplished anything worthwhile about land attack missiles for the Typ 45 and the DoD Whie Paper and follow on puplications puts land attack capabilties solely in the hands of submarines and carrier based fighters. So it is very unlikly, that the Typ 45 will ever receive such missiles. ~~John Harrington~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.219.39 (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

'because equipping them either with the A70 or the Mk41 would mean a rebuild of the ship' - if you have a reference for that then cite it and this can be added to the article.

'In other articles there is much less of "fitted for", "considered", "would be possible"' - that may well be because there are no references to support such statements.

'Neither Jane's nor Proceedings have puplished anything worthwhile about land attack missiles for the Typ 45' - that may be true but all that this proves is that they haven't published anything. If they had published something saying that fitting land attack missiles would be, say, difficult then that would be relevant.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the absence of prove that they will be equipped with land attack missiles somewhere in the future besides a small comment made in respect to specific question in Parliament.

@FredinandFrog The Mk 41 VLS in strike length needs a certain volume of below deck space (double the space for 16 cells than for 16 A50 cells (Proc. 4/03) and a certain frame to fit it inside. The Typ 45 can't be equipped with such a frame at the moment, because it would have to be bought in the US and thus would need a FMS permission which up to now hasn't been given (see lack of announcement by the DSCA). Thus retrofitting such a frame would mean reconstruction work on the ships.

The article about the Typ 45 exaggerates the capabalities of this class of ships by speculating about weapons systems which may be or may be not added in the future und thus is, like it has been said earlier and despite of the critisim section, biased.

As Janes and Proceedings are serious publications about naval matters, the lack of reportage about such a major decison is worthwhile.

Putting such things like the possible future upgrade in a detictead section "proposed", "wihsed for" future upgrades would be better and mor fitting for an encylopedia.

Relevant would be a source stating that the RN is activly pursuing the installation of Land Attack Missles on the Typ 45, like it is with the CIWS or the 155mm gun.

John Harrington 84.156.219.39 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)John, Please see WP:Verifiability which starts with "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", with the emphasis in the original. Whatever might be a reasonable assumption based on your experience and knowledge of the area, unless it can be referenced it cannot be included.

From the way that you write I assume that English is not your first language and perhaps your are missing some nuances of what has been written.

You start your last post with "The problem is the absence of prove that they will be equipped" and 'will' means something that is definitely going to happen. Noone is saying that it is certain that the BGM109 will be fitted to the Type 45s.

The Parliamentary answer says "We currently estimate that up to 16 TLAM missiles could be mounted on a Type 45 Destroyer" and the WP article says that "should the need arise, it would be possible to fit ... the BGM-109 Tomahawk" (emphasis added in both). Both 'could' and 'would' are conditional, that is they say that something else must happen before the Type 45s have the ability to fire BGM109s. Specifically a decision has to be taken to do this the ships would have to be modified.

The fact that relevant publications have not mentioned these missiles being added is because no decision to add the missiles has been taken. Janes, etc, are very unlikley to run a piece listing all of the weapon systems that might be added to ship over the ship's lifetime, especially as that lifetime will probably be over 30 years.

However the Goverment has said that the design of the Type 45s allows for the BGM109 to be fitted in the future so it is reasonable to include that one weapon system as a conditional item.

Also you say "The article about the Typ 45 exaggerates the capabalities..." but the relevant section says "The Type 45 as it stands has no land-attack missile capability and the SYLVER A50 launcher currently has no capability to fire such a missile", I think that is pretty clear and would be unlikely to confuse anyone.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John Harrington that merely possible future upgrades should be clearly separated from actually present and planned capabilities. Truth be told I would rather they weren't included in the article at all (any ship could have all manner of upgrades, but we don't write on every Chinese patrol boat article that it would be possible to fit Harpoon, in principle). As it stands the ship is equipped with a gun, a Lynx helicopter (not EH101), and the Aster SAM system. That is it. That is all that should be in "Armament" section. If you want to fill up a "Possible future upgrades" section with things it doesn't have, then, well, I don't really approve, but that is the extent to which these things should be included. HMS Vanguard (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If there were a reasonable number of possible future upgrades I might agree with you but as there is only one, and there is only likely to be one, I think it would read poorly to put it in a new section.

When you say "(any ship could have all manner of upgrades, but we don't write on every Chinese patrol boat article that it would be possible to fit Harpoon, in principle)" you are not making a valid comparison.

The article cites a Parliamentary reply which states that the ability to fit this has been considered and an informed estimate of the requirements & capabilities has been made. If you can find a suitable citation about 'every Chinese patrol boat' then the comparison would be helpful.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you been following T45 at all? Possible future upgrades (that have been mentioned in the media) just that I can think off the top of my head:

- CIWS - 155mm gun - SCALP Navale - ABM "Aster 45" - Harpoon - EH101 - Sea RAM - UAVs

Essentially the ship has been built with very limited capability, and the PR machine is trying to spin this with the various for-but-not-with "capabilities". Since this is an encyclopedia article and not a part of the MoD press machine, it should be made clear the difference between capabilities the ship actually has and those that may or may not (none of these things have been funded, for instance) be fitted in the future.

wrt Chinese patrol boats: Harpoon is essentially a "bolt on" system. It could be fitted to a merchant ship, if you wanted. Shall we add it at a for but not with capability for MV Emma Mærsk? Or maybe Sea RAM too, since that even has integrated sensors? HMS Vanguard (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to lose your temper, remember WP:AGF.

I made a mistake saying there would only be one item in a future upgrades section. In fact half of the upgrades you listed are already in the article and I should have thought of them.

More to the point, surely if people (you and John Harrington) are exercised about systems that are not currently fitted then surely you should be commenting on the other systems (CIWS, 155 mm gun, Harpoon, EH101) as well as SCALP Naval.

You might want to look at other current warships and see how possible upgrades are included there. If a separate section is the norm then you might have more success in persuading other editors.

You say "it should be made clear the difference between capabilities the ship actually has and those that may or may not ... be fitted in the future". What part of "The Type 45 as it stands has no land-attack missile capability and the SYLVER A50 launcher currently has no capability to fire such a missile." do you think is unclear?

Talking about Harpoon, you say "Shall we add it at a for but not with capability for MV Emma Mærsk?". If there is a reliable citation that the Emma Mærsk's owners are thinking about doing this then yes we should. The important point to bear in mind is verifiability not truth.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't lost my temper, and am not trying to attack you personally in any way. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Agreed that this should apply to the other systems and not just Tomahawk.

Most other ships are not half-built, as this one has been. I don't think there is any parallel to this case, of a ship being built without its originally planned anti-surface, land attack or (much of the originally planned) anti-submarine capability, and for major upgrades, to the original baseline standard, to be suggested before it has even been been commissioned. The possibly equivalent ships, FREMM, Arleigh Burke, the non-US Aegis destroyers... All I can think of is another British ship, the new CVF, which is fitted "for but not with" catapults and arrestor wires, but since the whole ship is as yet a hypothetical this is included under a "Format Selection" heading that isn't really applicable here.

It is misleading that such a statement is even included the heading "Systems". None of these systems are present. They may not even be installed. It reads much like the MoD press releases: admitting that an originally planned capability has been cut to save money, but quickly fudging the matter by saying it could be fitted "if the need arose". An encyclopedic article should be presented so that you can skim the systems section and see what it actually has, and then read a "Future Upgrades" paragraph about stuff that only might be on there in 10 or 20 years. HMS Vanguard (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)