sealordlawrenceNo, it did work like advertised simply and their counterparts had no real time experiences with that before. Some lessons has to be learned the hard way sometimes.
😮
No, friction, read Joneseys posts then On War.
sealordlawrenceNo way you could make that determination. HMS Coventry was an equivalent T42 class vessel screened even by a Type 22. It was sunk and the Argentines didnt need an exocet to do it!.
This is the point by and large, and I dont know how else to put it unfortunately, Exocet was NOT the deciding factor in the attacks on Sheffield or on the ‘Atlantic Conveyor’ group. The deciding factor was that both ships made no attempt at defeating the missile. In Sheffield’s case swap the Exocet for an Armada Skyhawk/snake strike pair and Sheffield still gets hit and probably far more seriously. In fact HAD Sheffield been switched on she would’ve had a much easier time against the AM39 attack than the A4 strike pair!.
Far from making excuses I am correcting you on the reasons that two ships were lost and its a fundamental point you seem to be missing. You said that because of Exocet 2 ships were lost. You are wrong. As stated repeatedly had Sheffield deployed countermeasures she wouldnt have been lost – so the factor wasnt that the Exocet was fired – it was that Sheffield didnt undertake the necessary procedures to defeat the missile.
I dont really see how I’m being all that defensive when I’ve said clearly that the RN was responsible for the loss of its people and civillians under its protection in the Exocet attacks mentioned. All I have done, in those terms, is seek to bring a little balance back to a situation where people have tried to make the RN out to be poor on the strength of two incidents 26 years back. You accept yourself that ‘people and procedures’ were at fault for the ship losses and have not disagreed with the technical limitations of the AM39 under operational conditions.
I find it hard to understand this – you understand that the missiles performance was not the reason for its success in the two launches that it found targets, yet, you still advocate the weapon?. On what grounds?.
To summarise, the exocet did not achieve its kills because it was an outstanding weapon or because it was unstoppable or any other hyperbole that has in the past been used to describe individual arms but because of what Clauswitz calls friction. Basically exocet is just another weapon that got lucky.
sealordlawrenceThe whole project was a nightmare in slow motion. So much new technology, and yet real questions as to whether it was actually the right solution. For instance, the 155mm guns: developed at huge costs, and yet there really was not good reason for doing it; the Mk45 Mod 4 had the potential to fill all the naval gunfire support roles. The PVLS – again, an innovative solution, but an answer looking for a question; the current Mk41 is good enough, and very versatile.
It would have made a lot more sense to just develop improvements that could be applied to other ships. For example, fund improvements to the current 5in gun, and its ammunition, or a ‘drop in’ replacement for it. Another example is the radar – it should have been possible to simply develop it as a replacement for the SPY-1D used on the current destroyers. It may not be glamorous to just make incremental improvements on existing designs, but in the long run, it can make a lot more sense.
For the stealthy AAW role, perhaps we could have had a version of the GD/Austal LCS, enlarged a bit; with a 5in gun on the bow, a Mk41 VLS amidships, and a suitable radar and Aegis-type suite fitted. It would have been more interesting, and possibly had more export potential.
I agree absolutely and I have expressed such opinions before. The real bit of the package that was viable was SPY-3, otherwise systems wise nothing there was needed. Sure a stealthier hull form and more efficient machinery would be good too.
However I have a funny feeling that DDG-1000, will re-appear in a few years time under the title of CG-X, just without the 155mm guns. All the development costs have now been attributed to DDG-1000 so they should even be able to keep the costs down.
As for the DDG-51 class, well with continual upgrades (which they have had) they still represent the most powerful destroyer in the world with the possible exception of the KDX-3 and that is just a case of missile counting. the type is still a very powerful vessel and the fact is that the Aegis system is still being procured by new customers. I see no reason whatsoever to end its production yet.
sealordlawrenceYou seem to have an obsession.;)
sealordlawrenceHi Sealordlawrence.
So pleased that you saw the vulcan and that you enjoyed what you saw, if you or any one else reading this reply are not already a members, It’s not to late to get involved as donations and club members are still very much needed to keep this iconic aircraft up in the air
Dellboy
It certainly was an awesome sight, I have seem numerous types fly but the Vulcan seems to have a level of grace and agility quite out of proportion to its size that makes it a stunning and to me at least unique sight.
sealordlawrenceI’m afraid they are old clunkers..the RAN has had noise problems with them since they were built..they were obsolete before they were even commissioned
The problems are largely solved (after huge expenditure) and they are certainly not obsolete.
sealordlawrenceI’m afraid they are old clunkers..the RAN has had noise problems with them since they were built..they were obsolete before they were even commissioned
The problems are largely solved (after huge expenditure) and they are certainly not obsolete.
sealordlawrenceIt was fired from an old diesel clunker of the Aussie navy..if it’d been war time and not a test ..the ship would’ve heard them coming a mile off
If you are reffering to the Collins class, they are certainly not old clunkers and are amongst the quietest boats out there.
sealordlawrenceIt was fired from an old diesel clunker of the Aussie navy..if it’d been war time and not a test ..the ship would’ve heard them coming a mile off
If you are reffering to the Collins class, they are certainly not old clunkers and are amongst the quietest boats out there.
sealordlawrenceJust a quick note.
I was out in the Norfolk countryside today and I looked up and saw a Vulcan, as I understand it it was either on its way to or from the lowestoft airshow. I only saw for it for a few minutes but it was spectacular and I would just like to thank everyone who supported the project. A truly remarkable sight.
sealordlawrenceAssuming you mean Eagle, I doubt it would have received Sea Wolf as it wouldn’t have as great a need for long range SAM’s as the Invincibles due to it carrying far more fighters than the Invincibles which would at times have as few as 3!
What would have been mounted? Not sure! Unlikely to be a long range SAM though.
Sea Wolf is not a long range SAM and it was designed as a replacement for Sea Cat.
sealordlawrenceIt’s not going to be retired the moment the IAC is put to sea, or anytime soon after.
By the time 2 IACs are up, if ever, the Gorshkov will retire, yes, but I assure you with the way things in India go, it’ll be a while.
Why the hell did you make that post, all you actually did was agree with me, do you actually bother to read before posting?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceA tiny emirate in the middle of a Gulf ordering strategic airlifters, the largest and most modern navy of a superpower considering pounding billions of dollars into just ONE destroyer…
What’s next? Austria ordering CVF????
I have a theory, my suspicion is that the USN/DoD is planning on using DDG1000 to absorb the development costs for all its fancy new toys. Then when the requirement for the next gen DDG appears it will look suspiciously like DDG1000 just everything will be ‘off the shelf’.
sealordlawrencefine, ignore that part, the main point i was making is in the first line. Falklands showed up the obsolescence of the sea cat, despite being possibly the most common missile system of the conflict it did not score a single kill.
It was a subsonic missile.
True, but it was still inservice and a suitable direct (ie; easy) replacement never appeared, the plans to use the Sea Cat launcher for the Sea Wolf seemingly coming to nought as far as deployment/procurement goes.
sealordlawrenceErm, seacat gets thrown overboard and replaced by phalanx or sea wolf as soon as one of them is developed.
If you built the Invincible class to a more LPH friendly internal arrangement, with that as a clear secondary role right from the start…..
If the Argentines were silly enough to attack the falklands you’d have the incoming birds shot down by the sparrow equiped cap and sea dart T82’s and T42’s. And while the argentines are off getting massacred in the skys you have their airbases getting destroyed by buccaneers and the marines getting dropped inland by helicoptor in the first wave with the gurkas following behind.
Of course if you are Reagan you will probably still have to convince thatcher not to Nuke Argentina.
I am not entirely sure what the purpose of your post is?:confused:
Why would a dedicated ASW/VSTOL fleet defence carrier (essentially an escort carrier) be built with LPH operations in mind. Making the assumption that Eagle was still in service is is likely that Hermes or some of the other ships of her class would still be commando carriers anway if they had not been sacrificed to keep the big carriers in service.
Sign In
