royal navy 1970s – Key Publishing

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

3,360

Send private message

By: Bager1968 - 15th December 2005 at 07:45

“The Ikara took up a lot of space, meaning that ships really had to be built around the system – just look at the modified Leander class!”

Just look at the Ikara in the Aussie “Roths-anders” & Brizilian Nitiero (sp?)… much smaller installation for the same number of UAVs… even in the “Perth” class DDGs they had 2 launchers & lots of “missiles”. The Aussie frigates were an upgrade, but they didn’t over-build the launcher area like the Brits did.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

250

Send private message

By: Tony Williams - 14th December 2005 at 16:28

Don’t forget that the Ikara in my proposal would be quite different, as it would be packaged for firing from the same VL system as Sea Dart.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,259

Send private message

By: EdLaw - 14th December 2005 at 15:52

I agree, though a lot of the problems in developing the Types 22 and 42 were due to trying to size the ships to chanding launcher sizes, whereas if the UK had simply fitted the missile to the launcher, i.e. design Sea Dart to fit the SMs launcher.

As for Asroc, though not guided, it did have a very short flight time, which meant that steering was not really necessary. The Ikara took up a lot of space, meaning that ships really had to be built around the system – just look at the modified Leander class! Also, Asroc was adaptable, allowing Harpoon missiles to be used instead, allowing for a very flexible loadout.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

250

Send private message

By: Tony Williams - 14th December 2005 at 14:32

Well, there are no right answers to that, everyone who looks at this topic is likely to prefer different solutions. I like Sea Dart, it had an excellent performance for its size and weight, and Sea Wolf is still one of the best short-range naval AA/AM missiles around.

ASROC was an inferior system to Ikara because it was unguided, which limited its effective range. Ikara could be steered on route to make sure that it kept up with the latest position of the detected submarine.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,259

Send private message

By: EdLaw - 14th December 2005 at 14:16

I looked at that, Tony, but I wondered why you targetted the Mk8 gun, but left the Sea Dart? I agree, there were better alternatives to the 114mm, such as the Italian 127mm, but I have always felt there were better targets for change. Personally, I would have cancelled both the Sea Dart and Sea Wolf projects as they were – and replaced them with a UK version of the SM-series, and perhaps the Sea Sparrow.

The UK did produce a derivative of the Sparrow, as the Sky Flash, and a sea launched variant might have been able to use a lot of the technology developed for the Sea Wolf. Best of all, such a missile, able to use a standard launcher, would have had a much better chance at exports.

In terms of the Ikara, I have always thought that the Asroc would have been a much better solution, since it was a far more compact system. It would also have allowed a smoother adoption of anti-ship missiles, since the US ended up fitting the ASROC to fire the Harpoon missile. A standard ASW escort ship could have been fitted with an Asroc launcher on the bow, and a Sea Sparrow launcher aft.

A good sight though! I always wondered what the Falklands conflict might have looked like if each side had had a slightly bigger budget – e.g. Argentina having both 25 Mayo and Independence, or the UK having a couple of Kitty Hawk class carriers. It sure would have been interesting…