Missileless Guided Missile Destroyers... Whatever next?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Stan |
Missileless Guided Missile Destroyers... Whatever next? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 106 ( 9-Jun-2008 00:24:58) |
Last Edited By: Stan 9-Jun-2008 09:40:20.
Edited 3 times.
|
||
|
WillR06 |
|||
|
Posts: 887 ( 9-Jun-2008 01:13:04) |
You're link's not working.
However having gone via the BBC's main website I am forced to conclude that this is not the sort of information that should be in the public domain. What compelled the Navy to comment on this? |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3835 ( 9-Jun-2008 05:04:48) |
Try this link. I got to it by going to bbc.co.uk,
and searching for "Hampshire destroyer," just in case it's not reachable directly.
I'm not sure that this is really any worse than the USN's deactivation of the Standard system on the Perry class frigates, as I'm not sure how capable the Sea Dart system was in these ships. WillR06 said "What compelled the Navy to comment on this?" Putting pressure on Parliament in a rather unsubtle, and possibly incorrect manner? |
||
|
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 15 ( 9-Jun-2008 05:11:52) |
emc wrote:
The only missile to ever operationally shoot down an inbound Anti-Shipping missile, the missile was one of two fired at the USS Missouri during Gulf War 1. Like the SM-2, due to upgrades it only needs the target illuminated in the terminal phase, with mid course guidance via radio signals. I suppose, the question of capability depends on how important the electronics are and how important the actual platform (missile) is. The Sea Dart missile was designed in the 1960's, but so was was the original Standard Missile. |
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4741 ( 9-Jun-2008 06:53:21) |
The Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigates had their SAM capibility deleted not only because of the SM-1MR being an old missile more importantly
the Perry uses the Mk92 fire control system with two control channels one being the CAS antenna and the other being the STIR antenna. The Mk92 system is far
less capable than the Mk74 systems (with the New Threat Upgrade software) that were fitted to USN vessels like the Kidd class DDG and Virginia class CGN. The
CAS and STIR had to provide constant illumination to the targets while the SM-1MR homed in on it. The CAS antenna is also less powerful than the STIR antenna
is.
|
||
|
CSpook |
Not only Sea Dart.. | ||
|
Posts: 105 ( 9-Jun-2008 10:10:01) |
Southampton arrived at Devonport this weekend minus her two Vulcan Phalanx mountings.
|
||
|
Stan |
|||
|
Posts: 107 ( 9-Jun-2008 10:25:48) |
Have the T45s had their Phalanx's added? If not, are we seeing the first "live donor organ transplants"?
|
||
|
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 16 ( 9-Jun-2008 10:45:10) |
Stan wrote:
And with only 6 Type 45's ordered and under construction, could the batch three Type 42's be upgraded and stay in service longer? just a thought, as i'm under the impression that they are much better ships then the other Type 42's. |
||
|
Jimlad1 |
|||
|
Posts: 1449 ( 9-Jun-2008 10:56:03) |
If the ships aren't programmed for deployment in hostile areas, and aren't down as fleet ready escorts etc, then I see few problems with this. The
seadart is old, and better to put spares and money up threat where vessels are deploying, than maintaining capability on a ship with less than 12 months to go
before the end.
|
||
 kev 99a |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 29 ( 9-Jun-2008 11:04:38) |
This information has been available via Wikipedia for ages, its not exactly been a major secret.
|
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 266 ( 9-Jun-2008 11:06:04) |
Sea Dart may be old, in the same way Standard missile is old. The missiles themselves are not old though, they are currently Block 3 missiles and on a par with
most other nations' SAM systems. As was said earlier, Sea Dart is the only SAM in service to have shot down aN SSM in combat, and the type 42s were also
able to track USAF Stealth Fighters over the Persian Gulf with their radars. Old, yes, Obsolete and useless? No way! Also it is normal in the RN for a ship to
be kept in full fighting trim right up to the day of decommissioning, as although the ship herself may be on the way out her crew needs to be kept in the right
frame of mind for when they are transferred to their new drafts. Sending ships out in this condition has got to be bad for morale, and by extension retention
in service.
|
||
|
Meeware |
Training hulks | ||
|
Posts: 1767 ( 9-Jun-2008 11:22:36) |
If we cannot afford to arm, nor to fully man the fleet's destroyers, I see very little point in maintainng the ships at see. Lay them up, be honest about
the fleet size, and give the crews some shore time. Any other approach is dishonest, gives false sense of security to the politicians, and further drains the
already overdrawn good will of the hard pressed officers and crew.
The cold hard truth is that we are nt paying for a navy as big as we've got. Time to cut our cloth the realistic way, or actually pay the going rate. |
||
|
Stan |
|||
|
Posts: 108 ( 9-Jun-2008 11:24:01) |
kev 99a wrote: Really? Which page, it's not mentioned on the HMS Exeter or HMS Southampton. Nor the T42 page or the Sea Dart page... |
||
|
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 17 ( 9-Jun-2008 11:28:48) |
Meeware wrote:
Compare the Royal Navy with the Royal Australian Navy, assuming that roughly the same proportions of both defense budgets are spent on the Navy, the Royal Navy should be three times the size, i think the Royal Navy can do a bit better then it is at the moment. When you look at the Royal Australian Navy i suggest looking at both the current modernisation upgrades on the FFG's and FFH's as well as the two ship classes on order. |
||
|
kev 99a |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 30 ( 9-Jun-2008 11:37:09) |
It was available on Exeter's page last year. There was also mention under Type 42 Destroyer article that both Exeter and Southampton were due to have their
Sea Dart launchers removed this year, this has been edited out in the last few months though. To be honest I thought it might of been a @*!! up that someone
had fixed, it appears it wasn't though.
Just looked at Exter page under weapons: Sea Dart missiles (removed as of November 2007) |
||
|
hulahoop7 |
|||
|
Posts: 1129 ( 9-Jun-2008 12:52:10) |
"As was said earlier, Sea Dart is the only SAM in service to have shot down aN SSM in combat, and the type 42s were also able to track USAF Stealth
Fighters over the Persian Gulf with their radars. Old, yes, Obsolete and useless?"
PR blabber It may have shot down a missile.. but it wasn't a very advanced missile, and it had already passed the 42. Plus.. it isn't difficult to track a "stealth fighter" if you know where it's going to be. |
||
|
Stan |
|||
|
Posts: 109 ( 9-Jun-2008 16:54:30) |
Wouldn't they make better West Indies Guard ships, where the ships will be employing only guns and helicopters... A fully functional South Atlantic vessel
is still required for Sovereignty issues...
|
||
|
NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 3439 ( 9-Jun-2008 23:14:51) Commonwealth Moderator |
How many nuclear submarines does the RAN have at present?
In three dimensions the the RN is significantly more than three times more capable than the RAN. It might be valid to ask, with current build policies, where wil they sit in 20 years time. |
||
|
JNiemczyk |
|||
|
Posts: 6467 ( 9-Jun-2008 23:24:45) |
How many nuclear submarines does the RAN have at present?
Or how many carriers for that matter?
Scotland - Land of the deep fried Mars Bar.
|
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 99 ( 9-Jun-2008 23:48:44) |
NewGolconda wrote: Indeed. And how many amphibious ships, & how many aircraft carriers? The current RN submarine fleet is over 5 times as large as the RAN submarine fleet, in terms of tonnage, & the same ratio applies to amphibious fleets. The RAN has no equivalent of the RNs carriers, & its fleet train is far less than 1/3rd the size & capacity of the RNsA simple comparison of numbers of escorts & submarines doesn't mean much. Neither, of course, does a simple comparison of tonnage - but throwing it into the mix shows up one of the perils of simply counting hulls. The two fleets have different structures, & much of that reflects different priorities.The RN has only twice as many (on average a little larger) escorts than the RAN, & only 50% more (much larger, faster, longer range . . ) fleet submarines, but has far more of other capabilities than the RAN, & some the RAN completely lacks. |
||
|
Richard B |
|||
|
Posts: 4036 (10-Jun-2008 00:29:25) |
My take is that CinCFleet simply doesn't have money to keep both HMS Southampton and Exeter in service for another year in anything like a near normal
operating pattern and readiness state. The options were either to decommision at least one them now, or mothball their Sea Dart and GWS30 (i.e. let them be
cannibalized for the T42B3's) and use the two reduced manned ex-DDG's as super gun boat's (C2 equiv?) for a little bit longer.
I'm beginning to feel that the MOD must have soldiers and sailors out begging for money on the streets around Whitehall. |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
