Missile Boats are a blatant waste of money considering the slim chance of sucess even in a well coordinated attack.

…. and therein lies the rub. A slim chance is all thats needed.

Let’s try a scenario out where you have an environment like the Straights of Hormuz with a determined and co-ordinated attack by groups of smaller FAC with say a crew of 20 and armed with 2 missiles. These are supported by longer-ranged truck launched AShM from the coast. Lets say 7 or 8 of these vessels are sunk, but they manage to sink a destroyer with a crew of say 250, with 50% casulaties.

Who has won here? Politically and materially I reckon the defender has. And perhaps after that scenario assets are pulled further away, and more resources are put into combatting the threat. That’s also a victory of sorts.

Now, my scenario is based on the premises of relatively cheap smaller boats, and an almost suicide type mission. Yet……. both these conditions, materially and historically, exist in a nation that sits beside the Straights of Hormuz.

Then you have the coastline of Norway for example, that is studded with thousands of islands where a FAC can lurk. The Norwegian Navy recognised this and equipped themselves accordingly.

I think the missile boat still has a very definite role to play, but that would depend on the size, tactics, and coastline from where they operate.

Chaffers
Unfortunately missile boats make rather naff naval vessels. Great for looking warry and posing with lots of missiles but difficult to use effectively.

They were seen as a cheap way of defeating large vessels but they arn’t all that cheap, have limited sensor fits which often don’t work particularly well due to poor seakeeping

I would not use them as such on the open ocean, but rather for what they are actually designed for – coastal strike in certain environments.

Webpilot
The subtext of this must have been that a high degree of destruction of civilian life and property would be expected but that is somewhat different from the suggestion that the object of the attacks was _purely_ to hit the civilian population.

And what was Dresden then?

I agree with Creaking Door here, and we should not hide from it whether we agree with the industrial slaughter of civilians or not during wartime.

A central aim of the Bomber Offensive was to ….. ermm… “dehouse” the German workforce (population), whether they were in the houses or not. And it is obvious that it was preferred that they be in occupation of their houses at the time. Over and over, examples can be found. But to be lazy and use just your short quote above:

NFORMATION

The importance of H A M B U R G. the second largest city in Germany with a population of one and a half millions, is well known and needs no further emphasis. The total destruction of this city would achieve immeasurable results in reducing the industrial capacity of the enemy’s war machine. This, together with the effect on German morale, which would be felt throughout the country, would play a very important part in shortening and in winning the war.

2. The ‘Battle of Hamburg’ cannot be won in a single night. It is estimated that at least 10,000 tons of bombs will have to be dropped to complete the process of elimination. To achieve the maximum effect of air bombardment, this city should be subjected to sustained attack.

Tangmere1940;1405520]The argument will rage forever about the value of bombing German cities by the RAF/USAAF but the fact remains that the Germans were quite content to carpet bomb British cities in 1940 and carry out other indiscriminate raids on civilian targets

Find out who authorised the first raid aimed purely at civilians. Not the accidents, but the first intentional raid aimed at civilians between the British and Germans. You may be surprised…

What they got back was no more than they collectively deserved. Yes, it was sad civilians were involved and I have nothing against the Germans, per se, and today count many Germans amongst my friends.

:rolleyes:

If a thousand German infants deaths saved even one or two allied ones then it was worth it on that count alone.

Fixed it for you….:(

I am sick and tired of the revisionist/apologists who sit in their comfortable armchairs and decry the bombing campaign as evil – especially as the by product of that criticism often tarnishes and besmirches the valour and dedication of the crews of Bomber Command who took part. Sitting back now and passing moral judgement in high indignation about the bombing campaign, its value, its leaders, the designers of our weapons etc etc by applying todays “values” is wrong….not the bombing campaign itself.

Claptrap.

There were many who were deeply discomfitted by the scale of civilian carpet bombing going on. A quote from Bomber Harris himself shows no misunderstandings: “If we had of lost the war it would have been me standing trial and hanged”

Churchill on Dresden, written during the war:
“It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.”

There were definitely qualms being raised about the bombing campaign at the time. They are out there if you bother to research them. It is not purely a case of hindsight/revisionism/apologists… And it has nothing to do with the undoubted courage of the lads from Bomber Command.:confused:

Didn’t the Russians demand she be scrapped?

She was not bought from Russia.

Further news.

Denel Missile Development Highlights Tech Transfer

RIO DE JANIERO – South Africa’s Denel is developing a fifth-generation air-to-air missile with the Brazilian defense industry in what is a model for defense technology transfer between countries, a Denel executive said at a seminar for visitors at the Latin America Aerospace and Defense (LAAD) conference.

Denel Dynamics, a division of Denel, is developing the short- to medium-range A-Darter missile that can be used on the Gripen fighters South Africa is receiving from Saab and on Brazil’s F-5 aircraft. It also could be used on whichever fighter Brazil procures in its FX-2 fighter competition, said Col. Ian van Vuuren, director for the A-Darter program at Denel Dynamics.

Van Vuuren gave a basic “how-to” seminar on establishing a framework for technology transfers between countries.

“One of the typical problems with technology transfer is everybody agrees to do it, [but] it takes two and a half years for the client receiving the technology to put the establishment team in place in his own country,” van Vuuren said. In that time, knowledge is lost and training loses its effectiveness.

How to establish an effective framework is “not that obvious when you’re in a middle of a program, having to launch it, apply the funding, find the people, put the mechanisms in place,” he said.

Van Vuuren’s presentation focused on the process Denel and the governments of South Africa and Brazil used to establish a framework for the technology transfer as part of the A-Darter program. Key to the process is having over-arching government support, formalized in cooperation agreements, and creating a joint contracting body to award the contract to companies. With restrictions on advanced missile technology from developed countries, it’s hard for non-aligned countries to equip their aircraft, van Vuuren said.

Production of the first A-Darter missiles is planned for 2011, with one or all of Brazilian companies Avibras, Opto Electronica and Mectron producing a portion of the missiles.

http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDL&i=4043462

Unless it moved under its own power then no, it isn’t news.

It has no engines. It may be moving to be refitted. That may include propulsion machinery.

It may also be moving just to make space at the quay, but taken with the fact that it has had some work done on it recently, including painting, and the fact that noises out of China are that they are embarking on a carrier programme…..

…of course this is news. Whether this will culminate in any ground breaking changes is another matter.

Old shape, off the top of my head, I believe the leading edge of the hammerhead’s head contains sensors that are either vibration or magnetically sensitive. I remember watching a Sunday afternoon documentary whilst dozing that stated something like this, but due to the fact that I was half asleep I might actually be talking nonsense.