Royal Navy Type 45 ("D" Class) Destroyer Daring Class concepts

Via the Foreign Policy blog:
Via Navy Matters, an early (late 1999) design concept:




Three pictures from November 1999 showing the early design concepts for the Type 45. Particularly note:
1) The flush-deck VLS Sylver missile silo
2) The original Sampson radar design.
3) Harpoon SSM launcher tubes in a superstructure break amidships
4) Phalanx CIWS mount on the hanger roof
(Source: BAE Systems)


  • t45-14big.jpg
    75 KB · Views: 737
  • t45-02.jpg
    18.1 KB · Views: 538
  • t45-06.jpg
    11.3 KB · Views: 641

Britain’s Type 45 destroyers – which have been plagued by engine problems – are “as noisy as hell”, a former director of operational capability for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Rear Admiral Chris Parry told The Sunday Times
Extended TV series featuring HMS Duncan. Likely to be removed due to copyright.
Royal Navy still using the Phalanx system for new ships?
Well I guess it is cheaper then the Goalkeeper or Bushmaster.
Frankly, current Phalanx 1B with optimized barrel group is probably better than Goalkeeper (and definitely easier to fit).

Bushmaster isn't even in the same class -- it's akin to the DS30 mounts, which I believe are on the Type 45.
Babcock International, the Aerospace and Defence Company, is pleased to announce a further year contract extension has been agreed to continue in-service support to the Harpoon Missile System for the Royal Navy.

Babcock provides specialist air, defence and missiles engineering expertise supporting the availability of the Harpoon Missile System fitted to Type 23 Frigates and Type 45 Destroyers. Its role in the programme covers operational defect support, post design services and the procurement of spares, enabling maintenance of the system and its operational availability to the fleet.

Martin Laity, Director Mission Systems, Babcock said: “We are pleased to continue supporting the Harpoon programme, ensuring asset availability for our customer. This is a vital piece of anti-ship equipment on board both the Type 23 and Type 45 that enables them to operate safely wherever they are deployed.”

Babcock International announced on 7 January that has received a 12-month contract extension from the UK MoD to continue in-service support for the Harpoon missile system operated by the RN.

Possible future variants of the Royal Navy Type 45 ("D" or Daring Class) Destroyer include Type 45 Land Attack variant and Type 45 General Purpose variant.
What was the intended armament of the Land Attack variant, and given its increased length was there an increase in beam and was an alteration to the engines needed?
What was the intended armament of the Land Attack variant
I believe that Tomahawk and the Naval version of the Storm Shadow (the MdCN) were both studied as part of the planned loadout.
Possible future variants of the Royal Navy Type 45 ("D" or Daring Class) Destroyer include Type 45 Land Attack variant and Type 45 General Purpose variant.
Does anybody know where are these drawings from? From the opening post of this thread? Which shows 3 proposed variants of the Daring Class / Type 45 Destroyers?
From post#14 we're off topic. Please try to focus on

"Royal Navy Type 45 ("D" Class) Destroyer Daring Class concepts"

Otherwise I'm going to start cleaning it up because the discussion about what's the definition of cruiser/frigate/destroyer isn't new in the forum
Is the Land Attack T45 just another name for the Global Cruiser? Also interesting to note that other, non-USN navies, where looking at ships orientated for land attack.
Land attack was all the rage in US and Western European navies back in the late 1990s-2000s. The "end of history" and the Global War on Terror made them think bombing low-rent dictator states and non-state actors with relative impunity would be their main job moving forward. Even Germany got in on the act with the F125.

In hindsight, that focus was a mistake and caused tremendous damage in terms of wasted industrial and design effort (e.g. see Zumwalt) that some aren't sure the US and Western Europe can really recover from.
Eh, I wouldn’t call the Zumwalt a waste. The design is sound and the tech all works. Had we not seen a giant shift in geopolitics, and thus defense strategy and fleet architecture, we probably would’ve seen a dozen or so built. And all of that tech is being reused in DDG(X).
Early concepts


  • DDG RN Project Horizon Janes 1994-95.jpg
    DDG RN Project Horizon Janes 1994-95.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 155

Similar threads

Top Bottom