Service loyalty needs to be tempered by rwtional use of limited defence funds.

Phalanx is hardly new, it's been about for many years, as has the Dutch equivalent, Goalkeeper. Regardless of how many AA guns or missiles you stick on them, surface vessels always have been and always will be nice big sitting targets for flyboy, best defended by other flyboys, whether carrier- or land-based, perferably AWACS-controlled.

You certainly don't need multi-£billion Air Defence destroyers or ASW frigates to do SAR and fisheries protection, that's like buying a Rolls to do the shopping. The RN should be spending its (OUR) limited money on subs, naval aviation, minesweepers and landing ships. It cannot sensibly afford, and actually doesn't need, frigates or destroyers, which are more about providing jobs for the boys than credible naval assets. Just like Eurofighter, they're all very pretty but a disgraceful waste of scarce cash.

Destroyers are designed primarily as platforms for multi-million pound SAM systems, so are hardly a cost-effective method of dealing with RPG-armed pirates in speedboats, either. They don't seem to have had much deterrent effect so far.

The UK dosn't have the defence budget to buy Rolls Royces to do the shopping, but that is exactly what they are doing.

I will go as far as saying I can see where you are kinda coming from, but to be honest I still do not agree, I believe that these AA systems are quite effective, and I did not say that the Type 45 was to be used fo SAR and/ or fishery protection, I was refferring to the Royal Navy as a whole. Simple fact of the matter is, just like Boris said, if you disagree with anything else, these ships display the fact that the Royal Navy is just as capable today as it was back in the wooden ships era. Now you will say that the USN is bigger than the Royal Navy so how can it be better, it simply is . British Mariners and British endorsed Mariners are still the best in the world, which is why every year many new cadets from other countries round the world come to the UK to get the OOW tickets endorsed by the MCA, simply because, in my opinion, it is one of the things we are best at (working at sea), and because of our seafaring heritage.

(typed this in a bit of a hot headed manner so some of it may not make sense)

no aa defence system beats a tactical nuke in the country where fires coming from

nah, but then again, who wuld fire a tactical nuke at a ship?, bit of overkill eh?

Agreed that our naval types are about the best in the business but that's no reason the admirals who decide which expensive toys they get to play with. should not choose sensibly.

Buying shiny but non-cost-effective kit just because it impresses uninformed people is really rather silly. Kit that is actually useful in the sort of wars the country might actually fight, makes rather more sense, and would lead to fewer Jolly Jack Tars ending up in Davey Jones's Locker in the event they were called upon to fight someone with nasty stuff like even 1970-s era planes, bombs and missiles, let alone anything more sophisticated.

As for firing tactical nukes at ships, that was exactly the sort of thing the Soviets planned to do, against carrier task groups and other high-value targets anyway; ever heard of the "axe theory"? (read Victor Suvorov, "Inside the Red Army", for example). One of the reaons the RN and other NATO navies practiced nuclear decontamination of warships. For Soviet (and probably now Russian) doctrine, no nonsensef like flying Tornadoes across airfields sowing toy bombs from JP233s, every NATO airfield would have been taken out by a tactical nuke from an unstoppable missile insidethe first 24 hours. Even the Iraquis put a stop tosuch attacks. Even now NATO could not stop such atatcks (don't believe Patriot's maker's sales pitch).

Our boys (and girls) in DPM, Navy or Airforce Blue deserve a lot better from the defence planners.

that I would agree with you on, it could easily have been decided to build 4 of these destroyers and the money saved from one could have bought some chinooks which would save the lives of many of the lads and lasses on the ground who deserve a lot more than they get. But I do still think that keeping ahead of the game with military hardware and getting the latest 'toys' is a good idea and a display of might.

But ye, definatly, more support for the folks on the ground is definatly needed.