http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070521/tuk-uk-britain-fire-fa6b408.html

Cutty Sark fire may have been arson

By Peter Griffiths Reuters – 42 minutes agoLONDON (Reuters) – The fire that ripped through the historic Cutty Sark, causing millions of pounds of damage, may have been started deliberately, police said on Monday.

1) both the ECM and the Barak anti-missile systems were in a two-minute stand-by mode
2) the ship’s captain was not aware of that fact.

ad 1) This is not the same a switched off, it mean ‘not in full auto mode’, with a man in the loop. Much the same happened with USS Stark.

No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and launching Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing usage of the ship’s Standard missile defenses. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear prior to the first missile impact.

ad 2) That’s a human error that could have occurred in any ship.

That has virtually no chance whatsoever of being built. The UK will probably end up getting an AEW version of the Merlin if they do not come to their senses and put catapults on the CVF’s.

That maybe so, I don’t know, but the question related to technical feasibility and in relation to DDH16.

Also , from Beedall:
“The E-2C Hawkeye demonstrated its ability to launch from a ski-jump during the 1980s and thus the “new” Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye remained officially a viable choice for MASC….
It is widely thought that the adoption of a STOBL configure ‘adaptable’ CVF design has effectively eliminated the Hawkeye from the MASC requirement, but that is actually not the case. During the Carter Administration, the US Navy investigated whether it would be possible to deck launch an E-2, in expectation that it might be forced to move from its Nimitz Class super carriers to much smaller carriers such as the CVV and SCS. It found that not only was it possible to deck launch, but it could even be done safely – at reduced weights. Trials in the early 1980’s from a ski-jump (of just 2-3 degrees) built at built ashore at NAS Patuxent River offered the promise of raising launch weights. However the ski jump presented some maintenance problems, and also indicated the possibility of fully compressing the nose gear at the higher angles that are optimum for a STOVL fighter such as the Harrier. A redesign of the nose gear would thus be required in order to operate the E-2 from a ski-jump on a regular basis, and max TOW issues remain as well. However these problems can almost certainly be resolved, if arrestor wires are added to the current STOVL but adaptable CVF (i.e. changing it to a STOBAR carrier) then the Hawkeye remains an option for MASC, indeed Flight International magazine reported in November 2002 that this approach was being seriously considered. The UK is thus still regarded by Northrop Grumman as a potential future customer for the Hawkeye (or Advanced Hawkeye) that may require deliveries in a 2010-2012 timescale.”

Would it be correct to sum up the situation as follows: one can’t really afford not to have MPA, even if their effectiveness is not 100% proven.

It’s difficult for small(er) players to compete. Too bad, if SA’s record in other defence areas is any indication, Rooivalk would be a worthwhile asset. I don’t think this decision detracts from the inherent qualities of the system.

It is my understanding that damage was mainly to the helicopter and the flight deck due to fire (which is where a crane is located, on port not starboard side). If so, this suggests an above deck explosion, rather than an actual hit on the hull (proximity fuze?). I think fires was the main problem after the explosion (much like it was with previous AShM hits e.g. Sheffield, Coventry, Stark etc)

“An investigation into the incident by the Israeli Navy concluded that the missile was indeed a C-802 which hit a crane in the rear of the ship, that the ship’s radar was not fully functional at the time, that both the ECM and the Barak anti-missile systems were in a two-minute stand-by mode and that the ship’s captain was not aware of that fact.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785086.html

Very old pic of a Saar 5 corvette (before fully outfitted), note exhaust stains on hull, note location of crane.

See also location of exhaust ports on 2 of the ships while under construction at the Ingalls Shipbuilding shipyard in the US (follow link, double click the image there to get a real big blow up version of pic)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Saar_5_INS_Eilat_and_INS_LAHAV.JPEG

I’ve seen a quote from the then Japanese Defence Agency (now ministry) a couple of years ago saying the ships would carry 3 SH-60 & 1 EH101. That may be their normal load, but it’d leave lots of spare hangar space.

How many? Press reports have spoken of up to 7, which would be about enough for every ASW flotilla to have one, but I don’t know if it’ll happen. Two ordered so far.

It will have hangar space for at least 2 V-22, plus 3 SH60 plus 1 EH101.