Entire Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers all in dock.

[Penguin]

These aren't half bad either.

Dutch LCF (Zeven Provincien): though not yet equipped with SM3 or SM6, in principle BMD capable.

German F1214 (Sachsen): though not yet equipped with SM3 or SM6, in principle BMD capable.

Their radar (on which the Type 45 radar is based) can track BMD targets. Both are fully interoperable with a US carrier group. They only lack an interceptor at present (which is essentially a political decision whether or not to invest in that capability, not a technical issue)

 

[Blue Marlin]

USS Hopper (DDG-70)
Ordered:8 April 1992
Laid down: 23 February 1995
Launched: 6 January 1996
Commissioned: 6 September 1997

USS Hopper is approaching 20 years of age.


WHAT FINGER?

Norway is not a member of the EU, but is closely linked to it through the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement.

For its part, the EU has also referred to its relationship with Norway as an attractive model for developing future ties with its neighbours. In 2014 the Council of the European Union stated that a precondition for non-member states that want close integration with the EU is the establishment of an EEA-like common institutional framework to ensure homogeneity and legal certainty.

There are therefore good reasons to look more closely into the true nature of the Norwegian option, and its relevance for the UK.

Some lessons to be learnt from the Norwegian case:

• 
  
• European integration has been beneficial for the Norwegian economy and has helped it to modernise and stay competitive.
  
• As a member of the EEA, Norway is integrated into the single market, meaning that it also guarantees free movement of people. However, the nature of the country’s cooperation stretches well beyond the single market, and covers free movement of goods, capital and services, environmental protection, state aid, research, and public procurement.
  
• Norway’s integration with the EU began in 1994, and numerous additional agreements have since been concluded, in the areas of border, migration, police, defence, security and climate.
  
• A separate EFTA Surveillance Authority and an EFTA Court have the task of monitoring and ensuring compliance in Norway, much like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice do for the member states.
  
• Norway complies with some three-quarters of all EU laws and policies. As a result, Norwegian society has gradually become Europeanised, in a very similar way to EU member states. In short, Norway is more inside than outside the EU.
  
• Norway’s association with the EU does not come free of charge. The Norwegian net financial contribution to the EU in 2010 was to the EU was €350 million, or around €80 per capita - a figure comparable to the contributions of France or Italy. The economic contributions have steadily increased since then, and the Norwegians have learnt that the EU can be a very tough negotiator when it comes to allowing access to its market.
  
• Norway can decide to make free trade agreements by themselves. However, in reality there are several important constraints to this freedom. During the negotiations Norway cannot be flexible on many of the regulations that are shaped by the EU. Norway has also come to realise that as a small market it is not as attractive a negotiating partner as others, and it is for instance not included in the TTIP negotiations.
  
• The truly unique element of the Norwegian model is that the EEA arrangement entails “integration without representation”. The agreements do not give Norway a seat at the table, a right to vote, and only grants them very limited possibilities to influence the EU agenda. Norway is left, much like any other Brussel lobbyist, trying to influence the EU from the outside. As the EU has expanded and become an important global regulator and standard setter, Norway has realised that it is increasingly difficult to lobby the EU, even in areas where Norway has considerable negotiating power, such as in oil and gas, or financial regulations.
  
• EU legislation is hardly debated in the Norwegian Parliament, leaves limited room for policy choices, and is most often regarded as technical implementation of the agreement. Briefly put: Norway’s agreements with the EU have had a paralysing effect, not an invigorating one, on the domestic democratic system.
  
• The reasons for this rather unattractive arrangement are circumstantial and specific to Norway. For Austria, Finland and Sweden the EEA agreement turned out to be a preparatory move for full EU membership at a later stage. By contrast, the Norwegian government lost a referendum on full membership in 1994, and were unable to progress further than the initial EEA arrangements. It should be understood as a political compromise and a second-best solution, in the sense that many would prefer either full EU membership or less integration, but politicians do not dare to restart the debate.
  
• For any European country operating in a modern economy there is no real escape from integration and intense interaction with other European partners, countries and societies. You can vote to put an end to representation, but there is no escape from integration. You can vote to protect your formal sovereignty, but in a world of interdependence real sovereignty has to be pooled.
  
• To be sure, the Norwegian economy has performed well as a quasi-member of the European Union, but this is primarily as a result of high commodity prices and issues unrelated to its mode of association to the EU. In fact, Norway has benefitted greatly from deep integration with the EU. The agreements with the EU have provided access to a huge market, and reduced some of the costs and regulatory uncertainties for third parties associated with non-membership. High commodity prices, especially for oil and gas, has made it easier to withstand the costs of non-membership.
  
• Norway has tolerated its peculiar type of integration because there is a high degree of convergence between the EU’s and Norway’s regulatory aspirations, particularly in areas such as market law and environmental policy. In addition, as a small country Norway has no tradition of or aspiration to act like the Greater European States and take the lead in European developments.

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_lessons_from_the_norway_eu_relationship_7046

Norway to Britain: Don’t leave, you’ll hate it
Norwegians pay a high price for not being at the table on EU decisions, says [Norwegian] prime minister.
http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-referendum-look-before-you-leap-norways-pm-tells-brexiteers/

everything in grey i ignored as i hate readin huge pieces of text bu the last part in green.......... damn!!!
true. i heard petrol in norway is expensive even though they produce the stuff.

 

[Penguin]

they dont have the sm-3 or the sm-6? do they....... most likely they would have what the spaniards would have, the sm-2mr

This uses ESSM only. However, how hard do you think if would be to plug in SM6 or 3? They have space and weigh for additional VLS, which they may exercise to install longer Mk41s (I'm assuming it has the shortest MK41 at present). Otherwise, Aegis is Aegis.

 

[Blue Marlin]

These aren't half bad either.

Dutch LCF (Zeven Provincien): though not yet equipped with SM3 or SM6, in principle BMD capable.

German F1214 (Sachsen): though not yet equipped with SM3 or SM6, in principle BMD capable.

that annoys me......why.......... they are called frigates......
they are destroyers. have you seen the size of the f125? its masive, and what do they call it..... a frigate

 

[Penguin]

everything in grey i ignored as i hate readin huge pieces of text bu the last part in green.......... damn!!!
true. i heard petrol in norway is expensive even though they produce the stuff.

Well you should ingnore the bullet, that's just LAZY ( and has the important bits).

 

[Blue Marlin]

This uses ESSM only. However, how hard do you think if would be to plug in SM6 or 3? They have space and weigh for additional VLS, which they may exercise to install longer Mk41s (I'm assuming it has the shortest MK41 at present). Otherwise, Aegis is Aegis.

installing it wont be a problem providing its a full lenght mk-41 to hold the ms-3/6 or even the sm-2er.
i think they have the standard mk41 here which cant hold the bigger missiles probably because they are too big for the hull.
compare the norwegian ship as well as the spanish ship with the arleigh burke ddg's and its obivous.

Well you should ingnore the bullet, that's just LAZY.

thats me, lazy
that and i hate reading huge amounts of text in one go.

 

[Penguin]

that and i hate reading huge amounts of text in one go.

If you call that long, how do you deal with a book? Or even an in depth newpaper article?

 

[Blue Marlin]

If you call that long, how do you deal with a book?

i dont read books, when i was younger i could read large books. but my dislexia has got the best of me and my ability to read huge amounts bores me to death. and my writing is very bad. as i would assume you would notice. i can read i ain't retarded or something. mind you i did not care as i fell in love with computing so i dont care and my profession involes computing too. my other half is starting to make/force me to read.

 

[Technofoxxy]

WHAT FINGER?

Stop being so damn serious.

Lighten up, Francis.

that annoys me......why.......... they are called frigates......

We call our Nansens Frigates, other nations call them destroyers. Hull classifications don't really follow a unified international standard. They're large ships, in excess of 5,000 tons, but are lesser armed then other classes classified as destroyers (barring the Iranian designs, which are more akin to light corvettes):

They're rather standard as far as Euro-Frigates go.

What they're called is left to the individual to decide. Hell, after we put a few torpedoes up its arse, you can call this a submarine:

The F125 series is large, over 7,000 tons, and meh on the armament, but it's still within what the Europeans call frigates. Based on the armament, I can't see the Americans calling it a destroyer either.

i heard petrol in norway is expensive even though they produce the stuff.

It's expensive due to enormous gas taxes. Our government likes to promote high quality social services, kind of using our population as one large social experiment, and one of those services is a clean, well kept environment.

To disincentives people against using non-electric vehicles, gas taxes are slapped on its sale. High average income is another source of the high prices, but it's mostly taxes.

And just so we're clear, everything is expensive in Norway, not just the oil. High earnings = high costs.

...

And yes we produce it, but mostly for export. We hardly use the stuff ourselves. Our government disincentives the use of cars, our energy sector is nearly 100% hydroelectric and our tanker fleet and even our Navy is run on liquid gas, not oil or its byproducts.

 

[Penguin]

i dont read books, when i was younger i could read large books. but my dislexia has got the best of me and my ability to read huge amounts bores me to death. and my writing is very bad. as i would assume you would notice. i can read i ain't retarded or something. mind you i did not care as i fell in love with computing so i dont care and my profession involes computing too. my other half is starting to make/force me to read.

Sorry about the lazy remark. I assumed a regular reader, without dislexia. My bad.

 

[Frogman]

HMS Daring - test fired weapons 11/7/16 so likely to be deployed on ops soon
HMS Diamond - Operating in and around the British Isles after completing Operational Sea Training
HMS Dragon - completed major refit 8/7/2016 and has just come back from a jolly to Amsterdam
HMS Defender - in routine maintenance after completing a 9 month tour in the Gulf and returning the 7th of July
HMS Duncan - in refit. Deployed to Gulf for 9 months last year

Sailors are allowed some time for RR in July/August ahead of deployments in the Autumn. Bloody Matelots!

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/all...an-indication-of-something-sinister/#comments

We need more Type 45s

 

[Penguin]

Stop being so damn serious.
Lighten up, Francis.

I beg your pardon?

First of all, even if I were to allow you to call me Francis, it would be Mister Francis to you. Second, don't be surprised you get a response when you make a silly or factually incorrect remark. I for one tend to take defence matters in general and navy matters in particular quite seriously and I am not about to lower my standards because of / just for you.

 

[Blue Marlin]

We call our Nansens Frigates, other nations call them destroyers. Hull classifications don't really follow a unified international standard. They're large ships, in excess of 5,000 tons, but are lesser armed then other classes classified as destroyers (barring the Iranian designs, which are more akin to light corvettes):

They're rather standard as far as Euro-Frigates go.

What they're called is left to the individual to decide. Hell, after we put a few torpedoes up its arse, you can call this a submarine:

The F125 series is large, over 7,000 tons, and meh on the armament, but it's still within what the Europeans call frigates. Based on the armament, I can't see the Americans calling it a destroyer either.

thats what i go by. if a ship is 5000+ tonnes i class it as a destroyer too. as for iran their so called "destroyers are meant for inflating the ego of iranians and they can say, "ya look at iran we has a destroyer, is no corvette" (i tried talking like you there) and the same pinciple applies with germany the netherlands and the dutch but they are the opposite. i think the past still haunts them.

It's expensive due to enormous gas taxes. Our government likes to promote high quality social services, kind of using our population as one large social experiment, and one of those services is a clean, well kept environment.

To disincentives people against using non-electric vehicles, gas taxes are slapped on its sale. High average income is another source of the high prices, but it's mostly taxes.

And just so we're clear, everything is expensive in Norway, not just the oil. High earnings = high costs.

...

And yes we produce it, but mostly for export. We hardly use the stuff ourselves. Our government disincentives the use of cars, our energy sector is nearly 100% hydroelectric and our tanker fleet and even our Navy is run on liquid gas, not oil or its byproducts.

so that would mean you guys earn quiet bit more than everyone else if stuff is so expensive there.

so this mean everyone drives hybrids and electric cars there? since hydrocarbons are so expensive.
you lot must love the states as i can imagine stuff would be very cheap there as compared to norway.

Sorry about the lazy remark. I assumed a regular reader, without dislexia. My bad.

dont be, i dont care

HMS Daring - test fired weapons 11/7/16 so likely to be deployed on ops soon
HMS Diamond - Operating in and around the British Isles after completing Operational Sea Training
HMS Dragon - completed major refit 8/7/2016 and has just come back from a jolly to Amsterdam
HMS Defender - in routine maintenance after completing a 9 month tour in the Gulf and returning the 7th of July
HMS Duncan - in refit. Deployed to Gulf for 9 months last year

Sailors are allowed some time for RR in July/August ahead of deployments in the Autumn. Bloody Matelots!

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/all...an-indication-of-something-sinister/#comments

We need more Type 45s

we were supposed to get 12 at first for a 1:1 replacement for the type 42's
but then the number went to 8 and then 6

 

[Penguin]

dont be, i dont care

Still. I do.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Still. I do.

ok