Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: HMS DARING  (Read 14398 times)

MCAT

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
  • Location: FARNBOROUGH HAMPSHIRE
HMS DARING
« on: August 15, 2007, 09:03:59 am »

Just thought this may be of interest pictures of HMS Daring  finishing sea trials

http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,30100-1279904-1,00.html
Logged

madrob

  • Guest
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2007, 11:22:51 am »

still looks ugly though.    ::)
Logged

spoons

  • Guest
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2007, 07:08:47 pm »

Its good to see that she is performing aswell as they expected, she is going to make a fantastic model.
stu
« Last Edit: August 15, 2007, 07:40:19 pm by spoons »
Logged

cbr900

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,857
  • Mayhem is the Only Forum!
  • Location: Taree New South Wales Australia
    • Roys Hompage
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2007, 09:55:19 am »

With that forward tower does look decidedly ugly.........

Roy
Logged
I try not to be naughty but nautical

dougal99

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,111
  • Huntingdon, Cambs, England
  • Location: Huntingdon, England
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2007, 12:04:07 pm »

I quite like it - beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say.

Doug

PS who changed the smileys? Good job I don't suffer from epilepsy :D ;D :o ::)
Logged
Don't Assume Check

madrob

  • Guest
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2007, 12:40:52 pm »

Looking at it through my good eye  :D
it would be easy to build, its all flat surfaces ...does anyone make a hull yet  :P
Logged

Ghost in the shell

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,703
  • Go Nuclear! you'll love it
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2007, 01:20:47 am »

Looking at it through my good eye  :D
it would be easy to build, its all flat surfaces ...does anyone make a hull yet  :P

maybe PS SHIPS does!

With that forward tower does look decidedly ugly.........

Roy
personally I think that the new Daring class ship is actually a good looking warship
Logged
"xxxxx" the tree huggers, GO NUCLEAR

tobyker

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,311
  • Location: Scotland - West Coast
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2007, 10:45:11 am »

Not as nice as the old Thunderer or 1890s Dreadnought, but quite attractive. I wonder why the false deckhouse around the fwd missile silos - earlier missile boats didn't seem to need them for spray protection - I wonder if it's to hide the launching flash? However I suppose if anyone answers this we'd all have to be shot!
Logged

gingyer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,583
  • Location: Glasgow
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2007, 02:43:43 pm »

I wonder why the false deckhouse around the fwd missile silos - earlier missile boats didn't seem to need them for spray protection - I wonder if it's to hide the launching flash? However I suppose if anyone answers this we'd all have to be shot!

the Missile silo housing is the same set up as the Type 23 frigates
and it is not a false deck House ;)

Colin
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 02:57:06 pm by gingyer »
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11,112
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2008, 10:46:39 pm »

Seems that it it's now been confirmed that the Government will not order the last two Darings - quite rightly it seems they were dubbed "Dubious" and "Doubtful". The original requirement was for 12 ships, now reduced to 6 and the Government was trying to flog two of those off earlier this year. There are rumours that HMS Victory and HMS Warrior are to be refitted and made ready for sea and that a feasibility study is in hand to rebuild the Mary Rose.

A Government spokesman said that reactivating Victory makes environmental sense as the ship is constructed from sustainable materials and all replacement wood will be met from organic sources. There will also be huge fuel savings as the ship is confidently expected to do at least 10,000 miles to the galleon.

Sob!  :'( :'( :'(
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,536
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2008, 10:58:38 pm »

So where do we get the Battle Group for the new carriers now, France?

Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

The long Build

  • Guest
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2008, 11:31:11 pm »

We may not need a battle group for the Carriers as according to Wednesday's daily mail we may have to hand over 1 of the carriers to Brussels under plans for a joint European naval fleet.

have attached  a link to the article..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027332/How-French-planning-hijack-Royal-Navy-create-European-naval-group.html
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,536
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2008, 11:58:00 pm »

The French already have the Charles DeGaulle ans are supposed to be building another Carrier with us, so if they are so keen they should give one of theirs first.

Bob
« Last Edit: June 21, 2008, 12:06:06 am by shipmate60 »
Logged
Officially a GOG.

justboatonic

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,514
  • Location: Thornton Cleveleys
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2008, 12:01:24 am »

The daily wail always goes OTT.
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2008, 07:26:20 pm »

I really do hate to say "I told you"....but the cancelled destroyers were actually under construction. What's the betting that "they" will wriggle out of finishing the carriers as well. Having said that, can someone, somewhere, tell me just why we need these things anyway. We cannot afford to put aircraft on the ones we already have. No destroyers for protection, no subs left for protection, no fleet train to supply them, no skilled people to man them and to cap it all "they" say they will be fastened together at Rosyth. Miles away from where the "bits" are being made. And I am also dubious that Rosyth has a big enough dock to build them in...unless "they" are going to build another white elephant. BY.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11,112
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2008, 08:21:45 pm »

Bryan, I fear much of what you say is quite true. Even if the carriers do get built there are doubts about whether the planned aircraft complement will be available.

With regard to whether we need them I think that is a moot point. History teaches that if you are going to do the job at all then it's worth doing it properly. OK, the carriers will be of limited use against the Taleban but ten years down the line we may be looking at a resurgent Russia with a need for a more conventional defence capability and we could be grateful for them then.

That said, the multi role aircraft carrier types as exemplified by the US Navy's Wasp Class amphibious assault ships, see July Ships Monthly, do seem to offer a very flexible and adaptable weapons platform which may be more useful. The RN equivalent is the Albion class ships or HMS Ocean which appear to be substantial and effective ships.

Colin
Logged

gingyer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,583
  • Location: Glasgow
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2008, 11:48:43 pm »

Bryan raised some interesting stuff about the carriers.
some more strange facts about them,

1) the contract to design them has been signed
2) the steel has been ordered to build them
3) the contract to enlarge the drydocks at rosyth has been signed and work started
4) the contract to design and build the aircraft lifts has been done

So with all these contracts signed why is the most important one not done
the contract to build the carriers
maybe it is because our illustrious leaders are still thinking about it?
Logged

farrow

  • Guest
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2008, 10:20:13 am »

Perhaps the answer lies where someone already has touched on the EEC navy, if you own the carrier part you have the big cheese part. Plus one will always be in reserve as the CVH's were.
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11,112
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2008, 07:00:08 pm »

Announcement in today's paper that the contract for the two new RN carriers will be signed on board HMS Ark Royal on Thursday.
Logged

Martin [Admin]

  • Administrator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20,644
  • Location: Peterborough, UK
    • Model Boat Mayhem
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2008, 09:15:56 am »

Logged
"This is my firm opinion, but what do I know?!"    -   Mayhem FaceBook Group!

andygh

  • Guest
HMS Daring
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2009, 04:07:56 pm »

Don't know if anyone has posted this yet, interesting for RN modellers?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7848174.stm
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,536
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2009, 05:05:35 pm »

PSSHIPS do a 1/96 Scale Semi-kit of the Type 45
Fleetscale are producing a 1/72 Scale Semi-kit.

Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

maninthestreet

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2009, 06:57:55 pm »

It'll look nice when they finish it.  ;D
Logged

Perks842

  • Guest
Re: Type 45 Destroyers
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2010, 06:04:30 pm »

I really do hate to say "I told you"....but the cancelled destroyers were actually under construction. What's the betting that "they" will wriggle out of finishing the carriers as well. Having said that, can someone, somewhere, tell me just why we need these things anyway. We cannot afford to put aircraft on the ones we already have. No destroyers for protection, no subs left for protection, no fleet train to supply them, no skilled people to man them and to cap it all "they" say they will be fastened together at Rosyth. Miles away from where the "bits" are being made. And I am also dubious that Rosyth has a big enough dock to build them in...unless "they" are going to build another white elephant. BY.

Here's the neckyest man in NATO, Aircraft is true but we have 6 new T45s so thats the destroyer bit said to be "xxxxx", no subs well we have the astute class o look more BS we have plenty of fleet train in GUZ from elder ships that have been and gone/going and skilled people to man them? The Royal Navy provides the best training in the world which is why we train many foreign navies that pay top dollar for it. i'd say your knmowledge is based on newspapers and just hope your not a serving member!!
Logged

Perks842

  • Guest
Re: HMS DARING
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2010, 06:06:27 pm »

O and forgot the dock part, there's only 3 docks around the UK that can hold them, the one in question at rosyth, the one in Belfast where Titanic was built and the one in Southampton that is used to refit cruise ships bigger than the carriers!!!!!!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up