I know what you’re talking about. During Praying Mantis, Iranians had ONE barely operable (ie. most systems probably non-operable) missile boat facing very strong USN surface action group, so I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. Iranian frigates did not fare any better.

The Iranian frigates were (and are) essentially large FACs, therefore I included them.

As for the 1991 engagement, Iraqi had captured Kuwaiti missile boats which they had had for few months, which is way too short time to achieve any realistic operational readiness even if you have instructors, which they had not.

You have forgotten the Osa class FACs 😉

Not so leon, please read the main post again…

Ok. But as I mentioned before: the Iranian and Iraqi navies FAC were decimated by the Royal Navy and US Navy in the First and Second Gulf War – in coastal areas and in a conflict between powerful, well funded navy and a small, weak navy. That means in exactly the kind of circumstances, you had in mind.

Obviously FACs were very attractive for small navies, but they were not effective. And I guess that is one of the main reasons, why many navies stop to buy them.

FACs were partly used successful in the dark in times, in which the sensors were much less developed than today – and therefore they could approach their target undetected. Additionally the weapons systems of their times were not as fast reacting and precise as today, therefore FACs were more difficult to hit.

Probably FACs are still built for use in coastal areas on a limited scale – but not to replace cruisers, but have something at all.

Swarm tactics cannot overcame the disadvantages, e.g. the lack of good sensors and fire control, which are too heavy for small hulls. In contrary, most ship types grew considerably in size to accommodate the sensors.

The prices of today’s warships are most determined by the prize of the weapon, command and detection systems – the hull size is largely irrelevant. It is better to built too big ships, because they can be modernised by adding additional systems.

Yes, literally hundreds. FAC’s were quite successful in both World Wars, for starters.

In most cases bigger warships had not problems to deal with FACs – as they had no problem with them in the First and Second Gulf War.

I guess that the main reason for this is the superior fire control equipment.

Well, main armament of most today’s missile boats are exact same missiles used by frigates & cruisers….

It’s not the lack of offensive power, but staying power, which is the issue.

The have the same anti ship missiles, but rarely have anything to defend themselves, i.e. no SAM, no sophisticated radar, fire control, ESM, ECM etc.

The abilities of today’s warships strongly depend on their sensors command systems. Smaller hulls cannot be equipped with them.

As Jonesy pointed out they lack also endurance. E.g. the German Navy is replacing their FAC by corvettes, because the FAC cannot be used outside the coastal areas.

I think that there is only one successful example for this kind of tactic: the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat.

In the First Gulf War the Iranian FACs had not chance against the US Navy, the same happened in the Second Gulf War (Iraqi FACs against Royal Navy and US Navy).

(there are also older examples for this, e.g. the Japanese protected cruiser Yoshino against Chinese torpedo boats).

Here photos of Teg, when she was in Hamburg:

http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php?option=com_imagebrowser&view=gallery&folder=teg-hamburg&Itemid=55
Source

Thank you very much for the photos!

These pics were taken on 22nd December 2011, the day after HMAS Choules arrived. I was surprized at just how big HMAS Choules was.

Here some photos of HMAS Choules still as Largs Bay:
http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php?option=com_imagebrowser&view=gallery&folder=rn-rfa-l-m&Itemid=55
(photos 17-21)

9. The Mast of the WW1 Vessel HMAS Sydney- Australia’s first war loss- not the flying white ensign

This is the mast of the HMAS Sydney of the Chatham class, the WWI vessel – she was never lost, but scrapped after 1928.

The only HMAS Sydney, which was lost, was Sydney II, a light cruiser of the Amphion (modified Leander) class – sunk in 1941 by the German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran.

Thanks I know what it was, Wasp has SAMs, the statement on these new ships states that they will have SAMs, cruise missiles and anti submarine armament,

Did you read any more detailed specifications? Which weapon systems exactly? For me the statement, which you mentioned, appear to be very imprecise language (or translation!), which could also mean some small decoy launchers, small guns and a short range anti missile system…