The Royal Navy used to build Monitors with Battleship Guns. (i.e. 2 X 15inch) So, why not construct a Small Monitor that could operate in the Littorals and be equipped with 2-3 155mm AGS? It would not have to be large nor complex……………:rolleyes:

Yes but the RN’s monitors never had to face long range supersonic anti-ship missiles, or satisfy the desires of many USN officers who are looking for a multi-purpose DDG to follow on from the ABs.;)

The OHP with SM1 is superior in AAW compared to type-054a. The ASuW is better in both OHP and T-23, especially since they can also carry two helicopters instead of one. Secondly OHP will be available in numbers and more readily in 3-4 years compared to 054 which will take nearly a decade to build and complete.

Firstly the SM1 is fired of a single arm launcher which automatically limits its rate of fire. Seeing as there is still debate as to what type of missile the 054A actually carries it is impossible to say that SM1 is better.:rolleyes:

You do realise that ASuW stands for anti- surface warfare dont you?:rolleyes: Oh and by the way the T23 only carrys one helo.

Seems like you dont actually know what you are talking about and are just making rather vague uninformed generalisations.

Nothing is quoted out of context:dev2:

Being the newbie here, I must thank you for not ignoring my posts and taking the time for replying 🙂

Read my post carefully. I already mentioned that it is more difficult to stop an ICBM. You don’t score points by repeating the obvious:diablo:

Which one do you think needed more research/development/technology/cost/finances/maintenance/manpower/manhours/etc. : The Tomahawk cruise missile or any US ICBM?

Couldn’t you find a more complex cruise missile 😀

1) Yes you did qoute out of context.:mad:

2) I was pointing out that you were qouting out of context and explaining the context the comment was actually posted in. As a newbie you need to learn to stop making ridiculous comments about points.:mad:

3) Up until recently a basic developed Scud could penetrate pretty much any defence system- as was shown by Gulf War 1, However the Koala and the Tomahawk are what was/is required from a cruise missile to be sure of penetrating defences. Thats why the US and the Sopviet Union focussed on ICBM’s up until the 80s. Secondly for cruise missiles to have a truly intercontinental capability they have to be tied either to warships or aircraft, both off which also have to be designed, developed and built. North Korea has achieved very little at either.:rolleyes:

Its amusing how often the old jokes are still the best. This is a ‘DDH’ just like the Invincibles are ‘through-deck cruisers’ or the Kiev class were ‘heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers’. The JMSDF should be inducted into the honourable, if modest, fraternity of Navy’s recognised for peddling utter twaddle to its Govt!. Love it – bravo the JMSDF.

Sorry Jonesy but the bit about the Kiev class is something that realy frustrates me. There is nothing wrong with the ‘heavy aircraft carrying cruiser’ designation. It perfectly describes what the Kiev’s were. A hybrid between an aircraft carrier and a heavy cruiser. A ship with a very comprehensive missile armament and part aircraft carrier. The Kiev’s realy were ‘heavy aircraft carrying cruiser’s’.;)

However I agree with the Invincibles. They started out as classic anti-submarine carriers that evolved into multi-purpose carriers and finally attack carriers.

As for these new Japanese ships they seem to me, for now at least, to be the classic anti-submarine carrier. A fairly sensible and not uncommon evolution from DDH’s. I would also add a note of caution, if these things do eventually operate F-35’s it will be in very small numbers (probably single figures at most) with a very low operational tempo and likely without being able to fully use the types capabilitys. At the moment there is no sign or talk of a ski jump (although US ships dont use them they are, however, significantly larger) and more importantly no sign what so ever of Japanese interest in the F-35 yet alone the V/STOL version.

I do like the CVH designation, seems to fit quite nicely.;)

No, I am well aware of what (and what not) the RAF and British AAA accomplished:p

I never disagreed with the part of your previous post where you mentioned that ballistic missiles are more difficult to intercept.

What I don’t agree with you is in your previous post where you are implying that ballistic missiles where easier to develop and came first.
This part:

That’s why I brought up the V-rockets.

Wow qouting out of context I see:mad: . Try reading the bit about how a simple cruise missile has less chance of penetration than a simple ICBM. The point being that a vast amount of technology is required to create a worthwhile cruise missile compared to a simple ICBM. Just look at the thread about the AS-19 Koala.:rolleyes:

If you look at the role this ships will be undertaking they are perfectly suitable. In fact the nature of the engagements that NK/SK usually fight the gun armament will be far more important than the missiles. In fact there may not even be that much use for RAM.

This link was posted by Tango in the news thread, it does not mention anything about the Ka-60 though.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2813216&C=asiapac