PDA

View Full Version : OT: The new DREADNOUGHT



leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 08:14 AM
Looks like the Royal Navy has the jump on everybody with HMS DARING---as revolutionary as DREADNOUGHT was exactly 100 years ago. Makes the USN ARLEIGH BURKE class look antique.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=J...8/15/nwarship115.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JB25SMRVF3UN5QFIQMGCFFWAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/15/nwarship115.xml)

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 08:14 AM
Looks like the Royal Navy has the jump on everybody with HMS DARING---as revolutionary as DREADNOUGHT was exactly 100 years ago. Makes the USN ARLEIGH BURKE class look antique.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=J...8/15/nwarship115.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JB25SMRVF3UN5QFIQMGCFFWAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/15/nwarship115.xml)

ploughman
08-15-2007, 08:18 AM
"The Type-45 destroyer, which is already exceeding targets, will now start taking on board Aster missiles which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound."

Betcha' Shane Warne could take it out.

hi_stik
08-15-2007, 08:27 AM
when a selling point about the new "super vessel" is that it's "eco-friendly", then that navy is ******ed. I bet the Icelandic tuna fishing squadron could take it on...Firing tuna harpoons...Laced with bacon...


EVERYONE LOVES BACON

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hi_stik:
when a selling point about the new "super vessel" is that it's "eco-friendly", then that navy is ******ed. I bet the Icelandic tuna fishing squadron could take it on...Firing tuna harpoons...Laced with bacon...


EVERYONE LOVES BACON </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

electric creates a lower IR and accoustic signature *******

MEGILE
08-15-2007, 08:34 AM
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n235/Goose_Green/HMSDARING1.jpg

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 08:40 AM
Its about time we built some cutting-edge warships anyway

SUPERAEREO
08-15-2007, 08:54 AM
Why has it got a giant Dalek behind the bridge?

Alien technology?

This looks suspicious. At least I know what they have done with my tax money (apart from decommisioning half of the RN beforehand, that is...).

Sergio_101
08-15-2007, 09:52 AM
Lucas electrical systems?

"Lucas, Prince of Darkness"

looks nice, when the lights don't flikker.

Sergio

csThor
08-15-2007, 09:58 AM
Though I found the HMS Dreadnought to be much more aesthetically pleasing than this ugly bucket of bolts ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Sergio_101
08-15-2007, 10:02 AM
It reminds me of the Saunders Roe "Princess" flying boat
or the Britsol "Brabazon" airliner.

But at least it's ugly.

Sergio

TheVoodooPriest
08-15-2007, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Why has it got a giant Dalek behind the bridge?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To EXTERMINATE everyone and everything?

M_Gunz
08-15-2007, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Lucas electrical systems?

"Lucas, Prince of Darkness"

looks nice, when the lights don't flikker.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From an owner of a 70's MG:

Why do the British drink their beer warm? Because they have Lucas refrigerators!

SUPERAEREO
08-15-2007, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheVoodooPriest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Why has it got a giant Dalek behind the bridge?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To EXTERMINATE everyone and everything? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you have stairs in your house?

ploughman
08-15-2007, 10:56 AM
That a destroyer could climb up? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Bobario
08-15-2007, 11:07 AM
I think its just a great big waste of UK taxpayers money. The Falklands proved that surface vessels are very inneffective at destroying enemy aircraft, which will be the Type 45`s main role. It would only take a few aircraft or surface vessels launching several missiles simulaneously to overwhelm the ships Astor launchers. The best way to down enemy aircraft is with aircraft of your own. Plus the project is WAY over budget and way over schedule. The ships cost about 1 billion each so if we scrapped the project we could afford a few nice new aircraft carriers which would actually be able to provide a defence against air attack. PLUS, we ain`t likely to be going to war with anyone who can actually give us cause to USE the type 45. A few new carriers off the coast of Iraq or maybe eventually Iran would be much more useful. Also, if BAE`s track record is anything to go by, it will be another 20 odd years before these things are fit for service. Remember the Merlin helicopter, the SA80, the new Nimrod and the Chinook HC3 fiasco. As one last word of warning, these things run on WINDOWS for gods sake.

DuxCorvan
08-15-2007, 11:18 AM
A supermodern essay on a completely obsolescent warfare concept. An expensive useless experiment.

avimimus
08-15-2007, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hi_stik:
when a selling point about the new "super vessel" is that it's "eco-friendly", then that navy is ******ed. I bet the Icelandic tuna fishing squadron could take it on...Firing tuna harpoons...Laced with bacon...


EVERYONE LOVES BACON </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Recent studies suggest that pigs may be as intelligent as apes. They are now on my do not eat list (along with humans, cetaceans, elephants, great apes, corvids and humans).

DO NOT EAT CLEVER THINGS.

P.S. Militarys (with the exception of those people maintaining large "zone's of influence") aren't used very often and spend much of their time going in circles. Ecofriendliness makes sense if it doesn't do any real harm to the design capabilities.

Waldo.Pepper
08-15-2007, 11:22 AM
1. I DO NOT understand the appeal of Dr. Who!
2. I do love bacon.

Lastly what is the literary origin of Dreadnought again? I know it has a literary/poetic origin. "Go forth and fear noteth kind of thing." I just can't place it anymore.

EDIT typo!

Enforcer572005
08-15-2007, 11:34 AM
The Falklands proved that poorly armed warships designed with cost as the main priority rather than effectiveness are doomed....especially if they don't have air support. The new CVs will need effective escorts that can fight surface battles if need be. there's only gonna be two of em.

Glad they remembered that they need an effective navy. Now if they just brought back some Sea Harriers till the new carriers came along....

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 12:34 PM
"Fear God and Dread Nought."

The ship is intended to be an escort for the carrier. Carriers will always require surface ship escorts for ASW, AA, and surface warfare---combined arms. What the lousy weapons systems the RN had in 1982 and this ship promises could be two different things. I am worried by the two year work-up which means the ship does not have all of its systems yet. The ABM aspect is obviously a major selling point---the USN plans to use surface ships as ABM defense for the continental U.S.

No matter what, at least it looks like Britain, finally, since pre-WWI, has a warship which was not bought on the cheap, and looks like it is ahead of the pack. British warship design and procurement since 1918 has been largely disgraceful. If the Navy had not had brains and a powerful spirit of aggression, I don't know how it could have made it through the disaster of WWII.

Blutarski2004
08-15-2007, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
... at least it looks like Britain, finally, since pre-WWI, has a warship which was not bought on the cheap, and looks like it is ahead of the pack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... and (unless there are some hidden follow-on costs in that 2 year work up period) appears to be considerably less expensive than our US DDX corporate boondoggle.

erco415
08-15-2007, 01:16 PM
Nice ship, how does it stack up against Aegis/SM2?

Bobario
08-15-2007, 01:26 PM
Carriers need surface ships able to fight surface battles? Why dont we just do the sensible thing and attack them with Sea Harriers or F35`s from the carriers? Carrier escorts are needed against subsurface vessels and as a last resort, to get in the way of any missiles headed for the carrier. Dont sail too close to land and you are invulnerable to land based missiles, or if you have to close in, take out the sites with the aircraft. If you spot incoming aircraft, set your CAP on em. If you spot incoming surface ships load your planes with ASM`s and sink em. Aircraft have been the primal source of naval power since WW2. The RN are not going to fight a surface engagement in the forseeable future. We need to move on from the battle of Jutland. Blutarski, the USA can AFFORD the DDX out of the $12 trillion they spend on defence. 1 billion per ship makes a big hole in our 30 billion budget.

Bobario
08-15-2007, 01:28 PM
Sorry, US defence spending is $439 billion. My mistake.

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
Sorry, US defence spending is $439 billion. My mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A destroyers a hell of a lot easier to go and say set up close defence of a port

Oooh its faster as well, its stealthier, and you can have lots of them to surround a carrier giving you an incredibly flexible fighting force.

A shipboard radar has a much shorter range than an Awacs. If the awacs gets nailed, or jammed then your air-defences are pzwned. Destroyers allow you to create an extra protective SAM ring around your protective barrier. Which is great because its entirely conceivable that your intercept group may get shot down.

Then aircraft perhaps stealthy ones, may slip under the radar and pop up. This being the case you will not have time to deploy your fighters.

Destroyers are also great for fighting asymetrical warfare. We can deploy one of these to a 3rd/2nd world hotzone without a carrier and be quite confident of being able to carry out a succesful mission.

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 01:50 PM
If I had six Russian missile destroyers heading for my carrier in the middle of a black night, I would prefer to smash them with the task force's lurking submarines, and, if any escape their tender ministrations, I'd trust a surface ship with its radar (assuming it hasn't been KOed by a airburst nuke) to deal with any lucky survivors. Aircraft are still not as efficient at destroying ships under low vis conditions as ships.

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
If I had six Russian missile destroyers heading for my carrier in the middle of a black night, I would prefer to smash them with the task force's lurking submarines, and, if any escape their tender ministrations, I'd trust a surface ship with its radar (assuming it hasn't been KOed by a airburst nuke) to deal with any lucky survivors. Aircraft are still not as efficient at destroying ships under low vis conditions as ships. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah aircraft can launch what...two medium rangeish anti-ship missiles....they may well get nailed in attempting to do so.

Oh yes and BAE are developing a railgun with a range of 500km, maybe we'll see the return of the gun armed warships.

Everything has their place, Aircraft do but they dominate sea power less than they did even 10 years ago.

Enforcer572005
08-15-2007, 02:10 PM
there's only gonna be 2 CVs. I agree that AC and offensive thinking are the way to go, but you gotta have surface combatants and subs etc to have a complete navy. THis new class of DDG is long overdue for the RN. Despite its cost, it will be very cost effective in the future. Now all the USN and RN need to realize is that there is a need for a bigger gun than 5 in on a few surface ships for fire support of land forces. There's gonna be circumstances that are not foreseen, and a versatile well armed surface force helps prepare for this. A fleet without air power, surface ships, submarines, and support vessels is just a coastal defense force. You need all of them, and they have to be effective....unlike the type 42 DDs as they were equipped in the Falklands.

And no matter how well armed this new class of DDG is, a lack of well equipped carriers is gonna undermine its effectiveness as well. By well equipped, I mean BVR capability and Airborne warning capability to. (As in Sea Harriers/F-35 and Hawkeye/Gannet class AC).

Relying on RAF Harrier GR-7s with Sidewinders instead of Sea Harriers with AIM-120s is a poorly thought out mistake. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Bobario
08-15-2007, 02:15 PM
And what kind of stealthy airthreat would you be needing a 1 billion ship for in a 2nd/3rd world hotzone? A low flying one is the answer you are looking for. And your 1 billion ship doesnt have a radar that can detect aircraft flying very close to the sea. Neither did the Type 42`s in the Falklands. HMS Sheffield was armed with an advanced (for its time) ASM system that was almost totally useless because she could not spot aircraft till they were almost on top of her. An AWACS however, because it is not limited to a dish on the top of a pole, can spot threats a very very long way away, giving you time to get ready and deploy your impressive ASTOR missiles or send off a few of your nice new F35`s to shoo away the bad guys. So its really no use sending these ships off on their own to impress the king of Bongo Bongo land because they`ll only get sunk by a few obsolete jet fighters carrying anti ship missiles, or a gunboat loaded with fanatics carrying RPG`s and explosives like the USS Cole. These ships are not much good away from the carrier group, and the pricipal fighting platform of the group is actually the carrier and its aircraft. Trust me on this one, the USS Ronald Reagan will kill you much deader, much quicker than a destroyer will.

major_setback
08-15-2007, 02:27 PM
Here's a picture of the new Swedish steath ship:
http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/places-and-sights/_more...-water-fish-1-MY.jpg (http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/places-and-sights/_more2002/_more01/Cuba-Trinidad-Caribbean-Sea-Playa-Ancon-clear-water-fish-1-MY.jpg)

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 02:27 PM
SHEFFIELD was an on-the-cheap abortion with a terrible missile system for air defense and was caught with her knickers around her ankles due to a freak electronics foul-up. She was a 1960's first-gen missile ship with all the defects of that period.

Enforcer572005
08-15-2007, 02:32 PM
Um, I don't think we disagree on your point that large well equipped CVs are the way to go (see my post above). It's just that you gotta have well equipped surface combatants also. carriers did not do ALL the fighting since 1940, but they are the backbone of naval power, and airborne warning is vital.

However, we are talking about a navy with TWO CVs, in the future at that. Its surface ships are vital to its effectiveness, just as the USN's are as well. A CV is doomed without them.

You can't compare those lousy type 42 targets, I mean destroyers, to a modern DDG like this one or the Burke class. They CAN provide considerable in depth medium range air and misle defense that is very effective. Remember what the two Sea Wolf armed BRoadsword class frigates accomplished in defending the Hermes and Invincible. If they had a few more of those, they would have suffered far less losses.

I agree with your stand that large carriers are vital, but without good surface ships, they are little more than targets themselves. The new class can engage surface ships and land targets as well much more effectively than the older type 42s and past era ships.

And as far as Preparing only for what's "likeley", a few mos before the Falklands deal, I had an issue of Air Force magazine (from the USAF assoc) that stated "armed conflict between Argentina and England over the Falklands is HIGHLY UNLIKELY". You don't prepare just for the most likely threats, you prepare for ALL of them, or you will get bit on the posterior.

I don't disagree with most of what you say, but limiting naval power to just carriers is not realistic and it ignores history, just as much as the people who badmouth carrier airpower and pre-maturely retired the Sea Harrier did.

Surface combatants are no more obsolete now than battleships were in WW2...they just aren't the primary capitol ship, just as BBs weren't. THey are still needed, just as BBs were still needed (and very valuable) in WW2. History has shown this repeatedly since WW2. You need ALL of them.

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
And what kind of stealthy airthreat would you be needing a 1 billion ship for in a 2nd/3rd world hotzone? A low flying one is the answer you are looking for. And your 1 billion ship doesnt have a radar that can detect aircraft flying very close to the sea. Neither did the Type 42`s in the Falklands. HMS Sheffield was armed with an advanced (for its time) ASM system that was almost totally useless because she could not spot aircraft till they were almost on top of her. An AWACS however, because it is not limited to a dish on the top of a pole, can spot threats a very very long way away, giving you time to get ready and deploy your impressive ASTOR missiles or send off a few of your nice new F35`s to shoo away the bad guys. So its really no use sending these ships off on their own to impress the king of Bongo Bongo land because they`ll only get sunk by a few obsolete jet fighters carrying anti ship missiles, or a gunboat loaded with fanatics carrying RPG`s and explosives like the USS Cole. These ships are not much good away from the carrier group, and the pricipal fighting platform of the group is actually the carrier and its aircraft. Trust me on this one, the USS Ronald Reagan will kill you much deader, much quicker than a destroyer will. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didnt you read the type 45 can monitor aircarft taking off and landing within a 200km radius. Im guessing it can detect pretty damn low in theat case.

And you completely missed my point, destroyers are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more flexible than an aircraft carry for small counter-insurgency type operations. Where you might...just MIGHT meet a mig. These ships are FAR more capable than the old type 42 which was obsolete when it was built, a limeted attack by anti-ship missiles is going to be no problem for it. You think we're going to send a carrier half way round the world to bomb a couple of drug lords?

And I already said Awacs can be knocked out, the whole idea of these destroyers is to create a defensive network ring 20 to 50 km away from the carrier.

And enforcer, with the intorduction of the railgun surface combat ships may well see a huge resurgance. Why send fighters to attack inland targets, when you can launch precision artillery stikes against it from 500km away.

Bobario
08-15-2007, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SHEFFIELD was an on-the-cheap abortion with a terrible missile system for air defense and was caught with her knickers around her ankles due to a freak electronics foul-up. She was a 1960's first-gen missile ship with all the defects of that period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but at the time, I remember the MOD were touting the 42 as state of the art. It was only with the benefit of hindsight that her defects became apparent. They are saying the same about the 45`s, but despite all the fancy kit they suffer from the same basic faults that the 42`s did. Dont get me wrong, I`m a Brit and I`m proud of our forces, it`s just that the MOD spending patterns get me very agitated sometimes. I think they could have done away with some of the bells and whistles and still come up with a good carrier escort destroyer. That way they could have saved money and spent it on better carriers and aircraft. The ASTOR is going to cost a small fortune alone never mind all the fancy radars and ECM/EECM kit.

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SHEFFIELD was an on-the-cheap abortion with a terrible missile system for air defense and was caught with her knickers around her ankles due to a freak electronics foul-up. She was a 1960's first-gen missile ship with all the defects of that period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but at the time, I remember the MOD were touting the 42 as state of the art. It was only with the benefit of hindsight that her defects became apparent. They are saying the same about the 45`s, but despite all the fancy kit they suffer from the same basic faults that the 42`s did. Dont get me wrong, I`m a Brit and I`m proud of our forces, it`s just that the MOD spending patterns get me very agitated sometimes. I think they could have done away with some of the bells and whistles and still come up with a good carrier escort destroyer. That way they could have saved money and spent it on better carriers and aircraft. The ASTOR is going to cost a small fortune alone never mind all the fancy radars and ECM/EECM kit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Name those basic faults. Most experts believe the type 45 has addressed the short comings of the type 42.

Its the type 23 you should be moaning about

Bobario
08-15-2007, 02:52 PM
Her radar is limited by the curvature of the earth. An AWAC`s isnt. And she may have a very long range radar, but modern ASM`s have longer ranges too.

Enforcer572005
08-15-2007, 02:57 PM
Good god man, we are not disagreeing with the fact that AWACS has far greater range than ship mounted radar and air launched weapons are far longer range. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

We agree that carrier aviation is the basis of modern naval power sir. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Read what we are saying again....modern surface ships are vital for SUPPORT and augmentation of carrier aviation, not as a substitute. Those surface ships must have modern capability that is availible and much longer ranging than the old ships they are replacing.

btw...check out this neat video of a Sea Dart gone wrong on a modernized type 42 (I think). This could happen to any missle system, but it fits in well here. I hope this link works.
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=145799&wh=wh

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
Her radar is limited by the curvature of the earth. An AWAC`s isnt. And she may have a very long range radar, but modern ASM`s have longer ranges too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASMs have a maximum range of 350km

Despite the curvature of the earth, the type 45 can detect targets at very low alt out to 200km.

The RN have also been thinking of equiping some of the destroyers with early-warning helicopter platforms or even developing a blimp with a radar attached.

You also forget the phlanx system, which in itself is effective can be replaced by the Tactical Laser Defence System which should be ready in a few years.

Your thinking lags behind the pace of development, anti-ship missiles are on their way out. Defence systems are getting infinately more effective to the point that the only way round them is to saturate them. This is why the railgun is being developed.

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 02:59 PM
As for depending entirely upon aircraft for all combat situations, bon chance. If there is one lesson history relentlessly teaches, and that is never depend on one weapon system. With attack radar jammed, aircraft would be as blind as early WWII aircraft at night, and would have to deliver their weapons at point-blank range. Be prepared for all contingencies with balanced forces.

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 03:05 PM
In a limited strike the only airborne weapon I can see being a problem would be an anti-ship missile programed to a Hi-lo-Hi attack pattern, whereby within a 100 km radius it would deploy say 50-100 guided cluster munitions.

That would be insanely difficult to do though, especially the guidance for the cluster munitions. It would probably have to be a laser guidance system. Which can always be jammed.

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 03:09 PM
Besides, in total war the task forces' battle would likely be decided by the exchange of airburst nucs, not dramatic WWII-era carrier strikes.

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Besides, in total war the task forces' battle would likely be decided by the exchange of airburst nucs, not dramatic WWII-era carrier strikes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We need dozens of subs really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

A good idea would be to fit a sub with a small hangar for an airborne early warning blimp and fit it with Aster missiles. That could be depoyed from just below the surface.

That would be the ultimate naval weapon. In fact I dont think many things could get near to such a vessel, without being at serious risk.

Bobario
08-15-2007, 03:25 PM
And how many Tactical Laser Defence systems and railguns can we afford out of our 30 billion? How much would the ships cost then? Preparing for all eventualities is all well and good if you have enough cash. Our boys should be equipped with not just effective weapons systems, but enough of them to make a difference. IMHO 10 good weapons are better than 1 Super Weapon. Futuristic death ray weapons are the realm of the USN, not the RN. I realise that we need to have a balanced navy and I`m not advocating a purely carrier based fleet. But we need to spend our money on things that could make a difference. Better carriers and maybe more ships would make more of a difference than these things. The Phalanx systems are present on the 42`s, they dont stop bombs. They may have been upgraded but they still dont stop bombs.

Bobario
08-15-2007, 03:33 PM
I know, why dont we just invent a Super-Duper Mega Laser O`Death and fill it with nuclear missiles and blast everyone into oblivion? That way we wont have to bother with ships at all! And then the nasty men in planes and ships who live in the real world wont be able to come and get us. And we can give our care bears an extra special squeeze and drop right off to sleep.

Airmail109
08-15-2007, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
And how many Tactical Laser Defence systems and railguns can we afford out of our 30 billion? How much would the ships cost then? Preparing for all eventualities is all well and good if you have enough cash. Our boys should be equipped with not just effective weapons systems, but enough of them to make a difference. IMHO 10 good weapons are better than 1 Super Weapon. Futuristic death ray weapons are the realm of the USN, not the RN. I realise that we need to have a balanced navy and I`m not advocating a purely carrier based fleet. But we need to spend our money on things that could make a difference. Better carriers and maybe more ships would make more of a difference than these things. The Phalanx systems are present on the 42`s, they dont stop bombs. They may have been upgraded but they still dont stop bombs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL israel are getting their hands on the ATL, we can afford it. theyre not super expennsive death ray weapons.

The railgun was developed by BAE, the RN will be able to afford it. Especially as it cuts the costs of ammuanition and missile systems. The whole idea of the railgun was to produce a more effective yet less costly weapons platform. Which would partly if not wholly replace missile and gun systems.

You really....really need to do more research.

Bobario
08-15-2007, 03:36 PM
I think you two need to get back to the real world. bye. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

whiteladder
08-15-2007, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Her radar is limited by the curvature of the earth. An AWAC`s isnt. And she may have a very long range radar, but modern ASM`s have longer ranges too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And an Awacs radar isn`t able to see through water. Because if you are a second/third rate naval power and you want to sink a CV you would be smart to be spending a your defence $ on deisel subs and Sub launched missiles. These are extremely hard to detect and very unlikely to be intercept by any CAP. That is why you need a ship like the Type 45 because not matter how good your Airgroup is, no system is perfected. The priciple of a layered defence is long and well established.

No one in the RN believes the Type 45 is capable of single handlely beating off a determined Air attack, but it is a vital component.

Comparing it to the type 42 just make no sense what so ever. The type 42 was designed for a different time and place. The Type 42 was design for one purpose and that was shooting down Soviet ASM`s launched at a carrier group in the mid Alantic. These missile operated at high altitude and high speed, Sea Dart was design to shoot them down.

What it faced in the Falkands was a competely differemt threat, small mmanourable jets mainly operating close to land. The type 909 tracking radar didn`t have MTI capability and couldn`t track targets low over land. The Scanner also suffered from large side lobes that made tracking low level targets difficult.

It is true that in the attack on the Sheffield the warning from the ships own sensors would have given littile warning, but the Sheffield was lost for a completely different reason. The number of satelite communication systems within the task group was severily limited, at the time of the attack Sheffield was helping clear the backlog of signal traffic, Unfortunalety the Scott Satelite system she was using was in the same frequency as the radar in the Exocet and effectely masked it tranmissions. In fact some of the other ships( with much less sophisticated air defence systems) did detect the attack and took appropriate action.

The type 42 was extensively modernised since the Falklands and Sea Dart was completely updated. The ships got CIWS, the tracking radars were improved, and the Sea Dart updated. Sea dart had all its electronics updated with a solid state system, a auto pilot that doulbed its range to 80 miles and a new fuse.

The Type 42 and Sea Dart remains the ONLY naval system to ever shoot down a enemy missile in combat when HMS Glouster destroyed a silkworm missile aimed at the USS Missouri in the first Gulf war.

Which proves the point of having a destroyer providing Air defence, in a war that saw almost complete allied air superiority.

ImpStarDuece
08-15-2007, 03:42 PM
The fact is that the Type 45 fills a large gap in the RN capabilities spectrum, one that it feels needed to be filled.

Historically, anti air warfare (aircraft, missles) ships have been something of the ******* child that no-one really wanted in the RN.

This ship is not the Dreadnought of its day however. In some respects, due to its relatively small size (its a destroyer), it lacks capabilites that some anti aircraft platforms posses, like persistence. It will not revolutionise naval affairs. This is an idea that has already had several generations of ships pass through it.

It will be one of the key companents on any future RN naval task force. And that is an important job.

The RN is building for theoretical future threats, not suicide bombers or in Iraq or Iranian light attack boats in the Persian Gulf. Some might deride them for relevance, I choose to applaude them for vision. Afterall, no-one predicted the Flaklands war.

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 03:52 PM
Well, in pure physical staying power, any supercarrier trumps a contemporary destroyer, but the modern destroyer is primarily an electronics platform, and she uses electronics as her armor. The whole definition of defense has been transformed since WWII. What a carrier gains by massive armor, subdivision, and pure mass, she loses by unstealthiness, and combustibility. I meant "DREADNOUGHT" in terms of a radical new surface ship design which incorporates many new features, not an armored capital ship.

AWACS blimp + sub = brilliant!

Didn't know that about the venerable Sea Slug, all power to it!

Blutarski2004
08-15-2007, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
SHEFFIELD was an on-the-cheap abortion with a terrible missile system for air defense and was caught with her knickers around her ankles due to a freak electronics foul-up. She was a 1960's first-gen missile ship with all the defects of that period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... not to mention the fact that the Argentinians (quite intelligently) were using the land elevation to screen their tactical approach to the anchorage. The British ships were at a considerable situational disadvantage versus any Argentinian a/c that leaked through the CAP - a confined anchorage with surrounding elevated terrain.

MEGILE
08-15-2007, 04:31 PM
Tommy you are holding onto the past.

A carrier group with a layerd defence force of Uber destroyers, frigates, the carrier ofcourse and its arsenal of planes, plus some nuke-subs watching their backs from the deeps... and its gg N.Korea

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 07:03 PM
Layered defense---yas, yas. Right Megile---that is the key, absolutely.

SHEFF was clobbered by an Exocet at sea, B, not in San Carlos Water.

fordfan25
08-15-2007, 08:33 PM
such a pretty boat.. ahhg i mean ship.

http://content9.flixster.com/photo/30/90/31/3090319_gal.jpg
JoHnNy DepP - Johnny Depp - Flixster Photo

Waldo.Pepper
08-15-2007, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"Fear God and Dread Nought." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant! That led me to the answer I was looking for. Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher (taking the motto "Fear God and dread nought" on his coat of arms as a reference to Dreadnought), just before his retirement in 1910.

Thanks.

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 09:48 PM
There had been several DREADNOUGHTS dating back to, at least, the 18th century. If I am not mistaken, "fear God and dread nought" is straight out of the English liturgy. Fisher was deeply religous.

FlyFisher73
08-15-2007, 11:06 PM
The 1 billion pound cost reminds me of the saying...(may I paraphrase) "some day the government will only be able to afford one plane, the navy will use it in the morning, the air force in the afternoon"

leitmotiv
08-15-2007, 11:51 PM
HMS HOOD cost a million pounds in 1920. With 87 years of inflation, a bil is just about right. The modern destroyer is the capital ship of the age.

Sergio_101
08-16-2007, 12:07 AM
Lucas, Prince of Darkness....

Lucas electric, the inventor of the self dimming headlight.

Lucas produced one product that did not suck, a vacum cleaner....

Settings for the Lucas headlight switch. Dim, Flicker, off.

While Lucas did not invent the short circut, it refined it to a high art.

At one time Lucas tried to get "Ohms Law" repealed.

Contrary to popular beliefe lucas alternators use alternating current, but it's at random output and frequecy.

Lucas motto "Get Home BEFORE Dark"

Why do the English drink warm BEER? Because they have Lucas refrigerators.

Lucas starters are why most MG owners prefer to live on a hill.....

Sergio

woofiedog
08-16-2007, 02:32 AM
An article on...

Link: http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html

Warship Vulnerability

Surface warships and transport vessels are highly vulnerable - and susceptible - to air and missile attacks. This ugly reality has been demonstrated repeatedly since the early 1940s, but the message seems to be forgotten with remarkable regularity.

Anti-Shipping Strike Combat Losses - Post 1966


Warship/Vessel
Type/Class
Campaign/Operation
Year
Cause
Damage
Notes

USS Liberty
AGTR-5 SIGINT
Arab/Israeli Conflict
1967
multiple air attacks (+ torpedo boats)
Damaged
34 dead

Eilat (Israel)
Destroyer
Arab/Israeli Conflict
1967
4 x P-15 Styx ASCM
Sunk
47 dead
PNS Khaibar Destroyer
India/Pakistan Conflict 1971
P-15 Styx ASCM
Sunk
-

PNS Muhaviz
Minesweeper
India/Pakistan Conflict 1971 P-15 Styx ASCM Sunk
-

PNS Shahjahan Destroyer
India/Pakistan Conflict 1971 P-15 Styx ASCM Damaged
-

PNS Dacca
Fleet tanker
India/Pakistan Conflict 1971 multiple P-15 Styx ASCM Damaged -

Venus Challenger Transport
India/Pakistan Conflict 1971 P-15 Styx ASCM Sunk
-

HMS Antelope
Type 21 Frigate
Falklands / Operation Corporate
1982
2 x 1,000 lb dumb bomb
Sunk
2 dead

HMS Antrim County Destroyer
Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 dumb bomb
Damaged
-

HMS Ardent Type 21 Frigate Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 multiple dumb bomb/rocket
Sunk
22 dead

HMS Argonaut
Leander Frigate
Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 2 x 1,000 lb dumb bomb Damaged 2 dead
HMS Broadsword Type 22 Frigate Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 1 x 1,000 lb dumb bomb Damaged
4 injured

HMS Coventry
Type 42 Destroyer
Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 2 x 1,000 lb dumb bomb
Sunk
19 dead

HMS Glamorgan
County Destroyer Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 MM38 Exocet ASCM
Damaged
13 dead

HMS Glasgow
Type 42 Destroyer Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 dumb bomb
Damaged
-

HMS Sheffield
Type 42 Destroyer Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 AM39 Exocet ASCM
Burned/Sunk
20 dead

RFA Sir Galahad
LSL
Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 multiple dumb bombs
Burned/Sunk 48 dead

MV Atlantic Conveyor
RORO Transport
Falklands / Operation Corporate 1982 AM39 Exocet ASCM
Burned/Sunk 12 dead

USS Stark
FFG7 Frigate
Persian Gulf
1987
2 x AM39 Exocet ASCM
Damaged
37 dead

Joshan (Iran)
Combattante-II FPB
Operation Praying Mantis
1988
2 x AGM-84 ASCM
Sunk
-

Sahand (Iran)
Saam Class Frigate
Operation Praying Mantis 1988 multiple AGM-84 ASCM / GBU-10 LGB
Sunk
-

Sabalan (Iran)
Saam Class Frigate
Operation Praying Mantis 1988 multiple GBU-12 LGB
Damaged
-

INS Hanit (Israel)
Sa'ar 5 Missile Boat
Lebanon Blockade
2006
C-802 (CSS-N-8 Saccade) ASCM
Damaged 4 dead

mynameisroland
08-16-2007, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"Fear God and Dread Nought."

The ship is intended to be an escort for the carrier. Carriers will always require surface ship escorts for ASW, AA, and surface warfare---combined arms. What the lousy weapons systems the RN had in 1982 and this ship promises could be two different things. I am worried by the two year work-up which means the ship does not have all of its systems yet. The ABM aspect is obviously a major selling point---the USN plans to use surface ships as ABM defense for the continental U.S.

No matter what, at least it looks like Britain, finally, since pre-WWI, has a warship which was not bought on the cheap, and looks like it is ahead of the pack. British warship design and procurement since 1918 has been largely disgraceful. If the Navy had not had brains and a powerful spirit of aggression, I don't know how it could have made it through the disaster of WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nelson and Rodney werent bought on the the cheap, they were world class units http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blutarski2004
08-16-2007, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"Fear God and Dread Nought." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant! That led me to the answer I was looking for. Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher (taking the motto "Fear God and dread nought" on his coat of arms as a reference to Dreadnought), just before his retirement in 1910.

Thanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Another motto associated with Lord Fisher was "Fiat justitia; ruat coelum.", which translates as "Do right and damn the rest."

He was quite a notable and unusual historical character, one who deserves one of those BBC or Grenada TV dramatic historical mini-series. I'd propose Tom Baker (minus about 50 lbs) to portray the elder Fisher.

ploughman
08-16-2007, 04:28 AM
It seems it's often been this way. Many of the best RN ships during the sea wars of the late 18th and early 19th Century were captured enemy vessels, both in terms of design and quality of build. Spanish ships were particularly admired.

leitmotiv
08-16-2007, 05:28 AM
WARSHIP had an excellent series of articles on French frigates of the 18th century, their sterling attributes which were inspirational to British designers. Conclusion: as nice as they were, the stouter construction of British frigates mattered more + British rapid fire was murder inc. Spanish ships at Trafalgar were magnificent.

NELSON class were extensively hacked down versions of the immediate post-was design maximum solution battleships and battlecruisers designed for massive firepower, massive strength, and high speed. They were slow tubs with notoriously bad manuverability---Treaty constrained, cheap and nasty versions of what the Admiralty wanted, but the Govt wouldn't buy. NELSON class main battery turrets were non-functional almost until WWII due to incredible complexity. Huge unprotected sides of these liners with a thin belt made them highly vulnerable. RODNEY outshot BISMARCK and wrecked her ruthlessly fast on 27 May 1941---one of the great feats of naval gunnery. Except for the British battlecruisers at Jutland, and HOOD in May 1941, British capital ship gunnery was second to none (even the untrained PRINCE OF WALES shot brilliantly under the circumstances in Denmark Strait---one of the heroic moments of the WWII RN, and now forgotten).

Airpower is efficient enough in daylight against warships (the British ships in San Carlos Water were constrained by lack of maneuvering space and terrain blocking radar and guns, not to mention other ships). LIBERTY was a sitting duck. I wouldn't want to try to KO fully alert, manuvering ships with current aircraft at night or in poor visibility or in bad weather.

mynameisroland
08-16-2007, 05:51 AM
Re the Nelson class.

They were only chopped down because of the Washington Treaty not because the Government wouldnt buy them. Money was made available for two full G3 BattleCruisers and provisions were being made for a further two before the Washington Treaty saw them cancelled. They were two of the fastest battleships built - faster than the entire USN battlefleet and only the QE class and Nagatos were faster *until newer battleships were built in the 30's*.

Their main gun mounts suffered from teething problems as did all new battleships, but to describe them as non functional isnt correct. They did have poor manuverability but only when steaming at slow speed, at speed they actually manuvered quite well. Their 14" inclined belt wasnt actually all that shallow. It was certainly no shallower than the 13.5" belt of the US Standards or the 13" belt of the QE's and R Class. Their belt was the best designed yet (when they were built) and you are missing the point by saying the rest of the ship was unarmoured - that was the point of 'All or Nothing' armouring.

Infact all most all of the ships deficiencies were a result of the Washington Treaty restrictions. Had the ships been unrestricted they would have ofcourse been superior but that wasnt the Royal Navys or the constructers fault.

Blutarski2004
08-16-2007, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Re the Nelson class.

They were only chopped down because of the Washington Treaty not because the Government wouldnt buy them. Money was made available for two full G3 BattleCruisers and provisions were being made for a further two before the Washington Treaty saw them cancelled. They were two of the fastest battleships built - faster than the entire USN battlefleet and only the QE class and Nagatos were faster *until newer battleships were built in the 30's*.

Their main gun mounts suffered from teething problems as did all new battleships, but to describe them as non functional isnt correct. They did have poor manuverability but only when steaming at slow speed, at speed they actually manuvered quite well. Their 14" inclined belt wasnt actually all that shallow. It was certainly no shallower than the 13.5" belt of the US Standards or the 13" belt of the QE's and R Class. Their belt was the best designed yet (when they were built) and you are missing the point by saying the rest of the ship was unarmoured - that was the point of 'All or Nothing' armouring.

Infact all most all of the ships deficiencies were a result of the Washington Treaty restrictions. Had the ships been unrestricted they would have ofcourse been superior but that wasnt the Royal Navys or the constructers fault. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Re maneuverability of NELSON Class, from my little storehouse of information -


14 knots at 35 deg rudder angle = 620 yards tactical diameter and 180 deg turn in 2m 24s.

Here is a comment from a captain of NELSON: "...the ships handled badly, especially in shallow water or in a wind. They were slow in starting to turn after helm was put over. Once they started to swing a very considerable amount of opposite helm had to be applied a long time before they reached the course on which it was desired to steady them. In a following sea they yawed badly, and steered badly when going astern and with sternway."

Oscar Parkes wrote that it took 5 years after completion to sort out the gun turret machinery.

luftluuver
08-16-2007, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
It seems it's often been this way. Many of the best RN ships during the sea wars of the late 18th and early 19th Century were captured enemy vessels, both in terms of design and quality of build. Spanish ships were particularly admired. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>More the French ships than the Spanish ships.

ploughman
08-16-2007, 09:46 AM
I wonder if there is an institutional memory at work in the Ministry of Defence, Treasury and Admiralty that they need to get over.

The maintenance of the fleet has, historically, been a fantastically expensive proposition with each unit costing vast sums of money and the network of bases and institutions and the manpower to run the whole shebang costing another vast pile of cash. The whole thing placed a significant burden on the exchequer and must have induced a desire to create a good rather than Gucci warship. Now we're in a position where we cant' rely on quantity and have to rely on quality in our navy (by which I mean the ships themselves, not the men and women who man them who've always been quality) to ensure they prevail in their mission but we've still got that cheap and cheerful attitude of yesteryear.

Look at the helicopter carrier Ocean - built to commercial specification.

leitmotiv
08-16-2007, 02:52 PM
Fisher and the Liberals managed to buy the huge pre-WWI fleet without busting the budget thanks to the enormous wealth of the pre-WWI British empire. Two world wars busted the British government (there was no Marshall Plan for them). The one constant has been British financial power which remains to this day which keeps Britain a major player in the world even as Wall Street implodes. Ploughman is right---seems even Labour understands a few great ships are better than "austerity" ships.

NELSON class went far beyond the USN "all or nothing" armor scheme. They presented a huge unprotected side (very high freeboard), and scanty belt which would have made USN design boards fall over backwards in their chairs. The so-called "teething troubles" of the NELSON class turrets persisted for years, as did the troubles with the County class 8" turrets. In THE "BISMARCK" EPISODE, Grenfell heaps scorn on the "teething trouble" excuse. Roskill, the WWII RN official historian and gunnery officer also deplored the turret failures of British heavy units. British heavy gun turrets were plagued by failures throughout WWII in the KGV class. KGV was nearly disarmed by failures in the BISMARCK engagement, and even DUKE OF YORK was still suffering failures in the SCHARNHORST engagement. Beatty (First Sea Lord) wanted the maximum solution, as did the Navy. The NELSONs were imposed by government and treaty. Further naval decadence of the period: the horrendous County class heavy cruisers which, too, had enormous presented high freeboard and pathetic protection. I love British ships and have built fleets of models of them, but I recognize their limitations.

Sergio_101
08-16-2007, 11:39 PM
My favorite British Aircraft is to fly again somtime in the next 45 days.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/756516/the_last_flight_of_the_vulcan/

Avro Vulcan will fly again!

I fell in love with this bird when I saw one fly at AAFB Guam on two different occasions.

Sergio

Bobario
08-17-2007, 01:42 PM
Surface vessels are very bad at defending against air attack, the best way to counter enemy aircraft is with aircraft of your own. Thats why we developed EFA. I realise we have to have a layered defence against incoming vampires, but the escort ships are a last resort, and should be able to shoot down an incoming enemy missile before it hits something vital (as long as there arn`t too many of them). I`ve been thinking about this since a couple of people tell me i`m living in the past, and the only reason I can come up with for having these techno marvels is to defend against a first world power like Russia.

Anybody who thinks two carriers and 8 type 45`s are going to fend off the russkies is a lunatic imho. The days when Brittania ruled the waves are long gone. The US navy now rules the waves. Anyone who thinks the USA is going to bail us out if we kick off on the Russians is a lunatic imho. The USA will intervene only if it is in their interests to do so, as they have proved in WW1 and WW2. So the sensible thing to do is to NOT antagonise the Russians or Chinese and pick on someone we CAN deal with, like maybe Iran or North Korea. The only thing is, Iran or North Korea dont have any Uber tech death weapons the size of a cricket ball for our Aster missiles to shoot down. They only have older Migs and a few F14`s. Should we park our type 45`s off the coast of Iran and take down their airforce? No, they are needed to protect aginst something REALLY usefull, the carriers. We build the type 45, they come up with something to counter it. This is known as a cold war. And the world has spent billions and billions of pounds on it since 1945. The only thing you have to guard against is the enemy gaining such a technological advantage that they think they can take you on and win. As long as we keep pace with Russia and China and whoever, we are okay. What people dont seem to realise is that we are currently engaged in a war, the War On Terror. And we need weapons we can use now or in the near future. Building the 45`s is great, its a great morale boost for the UK, and makes us look like a first world power for a short time. But when are we going to use them? Are we going to park them off the coast of Iran and take down their airforce with them? Do you think a type 45 would be any more use than HMS Cornwall off the Shat El Arab?

Someone mentioned the Hood as costing roughly equivalent to 1 billion when she was launched in the 1930`s (1933?). Look what happened to her. She faced off against the WW2 variant of the uber tech death ship and lost. Only 3 of her crew survived. You may point the blame at the skipper having an obsession with fire rate and having powder charges outside her magazine, but she was still outclassed and out gunned. What exactly happened to those uber ships the Bismark and Tirpitz. What was it that finally sunk them? Surface ships played a part, but what was it that caused their final downfall. Aircraft. Look it up on Google if you dont know.

I hate to go down this road, and I`ve been trying to stay true to the origional post all the way through, but the reason I`m so riled is because the story of the HMS Darings launch was on the opposite page to a story about 2 British infantrymen who had been killed in action. Despite the MOD`s blurb, the most valuable asset to the British forces today is the infantryman in the light role. We are spending billions on high tech stuff we will never really have a chance to use unless we are backing up the USA.

Maybe we should build a high tech SAM or artillery system that can shoot the ****** off a gnat at 200km distance? Then we could park it out of the way where it never gets touched or never gets used, and our infantry lads can die for the want of a 500 ballistic vest.

Just my 2p worth.

leitmotiv
08-17-2007, 01:58 PM
piffle

Bobario
08-17-2007, 02:18 PM
piffle? people are dying for your right to say piffle my friend

Blutarski2004
08-17-2007, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
Surface vessels are very bad at defending against air attack, the best way to counter enemy aircraft is with aircraft of your own. Thats why we developed EFA. I realise we have to have a layered defence against incoming vampires, but the escort ships are a last resort, and should be able to shoot down an incoming enemy missile before it hits something vital (as long as there arn`t too many of them). I`ve been thinking about this since a couple of people tell me i`m living in the past, and the only reason I can come up with for having these techno marvels is to defend against a first world power like Russia.

Anybody who thinks two carriers and 8 type 45`s are going to fend off the russkies is a lunatic imho. The days when Brittania ruled the waves are long gone. The US navy now rules the waves. Anyone who thinks the USA is going to bail us out if we kick off on the Russians is a lunatic imho. The USA will intervene only if it is in their interests to do so, as they have proved in WW1 and WW2. So the sensible thing to do is to NOT antagonise the Russians or Chinese and pick on someone we CAN deal with, like maybe Iran or North Korea. The only thing is, Iran or North Korea dont have any Uber tech death weapons the size of a cricket ball for our Aster missiles to shoot down. They only have older Migs and a few F14`s. Should we park our type 45`s off the coast of Iran and take down their airforce? No, they are needed to protect aginst something REALLY usefull, the carriers. We build the type 45, they come up with something to counter it. This is known as a cold war. And the world has spent billions and billions of pounds on it since 1945. The only thing you have to guard against is the enemy gaining such a technological advantage that they think they can take you on and win. As long as we keep pace with Russia and China and whoever, we are okay. What people dont seem to realise is that we are currently engaged in a war, the War On Terror. And we need weapons we can use now or in the near future. Building the 45`s is great, its a great morale boost for the UK, and makes us look like a first world power for a short time. But when are we going to use them? Are we going to park them off the coast of Iran and take down their airforce with them? Do you think a type 45 would be any more use than HMS Cornwall off the Shat El Arab?

Someone mentioned the Hood as costing roughly equivalent to 1 billion when she was launched in the 1930`s (1933?). Look what happened to her. She faced off against the WW2 variant of the uber tech death ship and lost. Only 3 of her crew survived. You may point the blame at the skipper having an obsession with fire rate and having powder charges outside her magazine, but she was still outclassed and out gunned. What exactly happened to those uber ships the Bismark and Tirpitz. What was it that finally sunk them? Surface ships played a part, but what was it that caused their final downfall. Aircraft. Look it up on Google if you dont know.

I hate to go down this road, and I`ve been trying to stay true to the origional post all the way through, but the reason I`m so riled is because the story of the HMS Darings launch was on the opposite page to a story about 2 British infantrymen who had been killed in action. Despite the MOD`s blurb, the most valuable asset to the British forces today is the infantryman in the light role. We are spending billions on high tech stuff we will never really have a chance to use unless we are backing up the USA.

Maybe we should build a high tech SAM or artillery system that can shoot the ****** off a gnat at 200km distance? Then we could park it out of the way where it never gets touched or never gets used, and our infantry lads can die for the want of a 500 ballistic vest.

Just my 2p worth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I think you are missing the point. This new destroyer is not a vote in favor of surface ships. It is an upgrade to the air defence escort of the carrier which will be the focal point of any task force to which this new destroyer is assigned. A carrier cannot be expected to simultaneously carry out offensive strike mission and provide for its own air and a/s defense. The presence of multiple escorts takes that load off the shoulders of the carrier and provides integrated protective coverage. In return, the carrier will provide CAP coverage to ensure that its escorts are not attacked by enemy a/c. It is an analog to the US development of its Aegis cruisers.

Bobario
08-17-2007, 02:28 PM
Unfortunately, the Aegis crusers have fallen out of favour lately because we dont have any enemy`s to actually use them against. The RN`s high tech ships fired 17 rounds in the latest conflict. THE Army`s 105mm light gun is much more useful. Also, what if we put the new fany radar and Aster launchers on the carrier itself?

Bobario
08-17-2007, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... I think you are missing the point. This new destroyer is not a vote in favor of surface ships. It is an upgrade to the air defence escort of the carrier which will be the focal point of any task force to which this new destroyer is assigned. A carrier cannot be expected to simultaneously carry out offensive strike mission and provide for its own air and a/s defense. The presence of multiple escorts takes that load off the shoulders of the carrier and provides integrated protective coverage. In return, the carrier will provide CAP coverage to ensure that its escorts are not attacked by enemy a/c. It is an analog to the US development of its Aegis cruisers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


A carrier cant provide its own CAP? Cant provide its own EWS and formulate its own strike missions? Then why have a carrier? Why not Tomnnahawk them from a distance? Then we dont need the USN&gt;

Bobario
08-17-2007, 02:55 PM
What if we bolted the Aster lunchers and the new fancy high alt radar to the carrier?

Bobario
08-17-2007, 03:02 PM
****ers, our boys are dying to save your hides

Bobario
08-17-2007, 03:02 PM
please respond

joeap
08-17-2007, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
What if we bolted the Aster lunchers and the new fancy high alt radar to the carrier? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, but really what kind fo surface escort would you "design"? I also think subs are really important to protect carriers btw.

Oh and no need to get angry.

Blutarski2004
08-17-2007, 07:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... I think you are missing the point. This new destroyer is not a vote in favor of surface ships. It is an upgrade to the air defence escort of the carrier which will be the focal point of any task force to which this new destroyer is assigned. A carrier cannot be expected to simultaneously carry out offensive strike mission and provide for its own air and a/s defense. The presence of multiple escorts takes that load off the shoulders of the carrier and provides integrated protective coverage. In return, the carrier will provide CAP coverage to ensure that its escorts are not attacked by enemy a/c. It is an analog to the US development of its Aegis cruisers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


A carrier cant provide its own CAP? Cant provide its own EWS and formulate its own strike missions? Then why have a carrier? Why not Tomnnahawk them from a distance? Then we dont need the USN&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


(1) ..... Sure a carrier provides it own CAP. But what about 50 or 60 supersonic guided anti-ship missiles coming in over the horizon? Carriers simply aren't equipped to combat that sort of threat; that's one reason why they need escorts. Carriers are also terrible ASW platforms. That's another reason why they need escorts.

(2) Because a weapon has never been fired in anger does not mean that it is or was a bad investment. Deterrence has a value, even if it's not always easy to measure.

(3) If you'll pardon me saying so, the reason that those British soldiers getting shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have bullet-proof vests is because the UK doesn't have a reasonable or realistic defence budget.

Blutarski2004
08-17-2007, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
****ers, our boys are dying to save your hides </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Do you know, in terms of total deaths, what the worst terrorist attack was upon British citizens? I'd suggest that everyone out there on the lines is fighting to save OUR hides. But then that's just my personal opinion.

SkyChimp
08-17-2007, 08:10 PM
It's a test bed for some of the technology developed for America's new classes of ships.

ake109
08-18-2007, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Maybe we should build a high tech SAM or artillery system that can shoot the ****** off a gnat at 200km distance? Then we could park it out of the way where it never gets touched or never gets used, and our infantry lads can die for the want of a 500 ballistic vest.

Just my 2p worth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Putting aside current or short-medium term needs.

A leading nation like the UK needs to maintain its strategic military R&D for the long term.

You can spend all your sterling on Mandalorian Power Armour for the Infantry now but if you ignore the fancy but 'rather useless for anti-terror' Star Destroyer and Plasma Torpedo Type 'Uber-Tech', in another 50-75 years, some other nation who had kept up the R&D might just park the Death Star off the Thames and all the Best Infantry Body Armour in the world isn't going to help when up against Particle Beams that can shoot the left gonad off a fly at 2000km.

Blutarski2004
08-18-2007, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ake109:
Particle Beams that can shoot the left gonad off a fly at 2000km. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Who's leaked my research data ?!?

Airmail109
08-18-2007, 06:40 AM
From what I heard Tommy the army are waiting until better flexible body armor is available over the next few years! Most of the guys over in Iraq and afgahnistan are wearing body armor now, from what I heard many of them take the plates out though...so their just as effective as flak vest. Lots of guys are still getting killed whilst wearing them even with the rifle protection....they dont cover the whole of the upper torso...their are plenty of places where rounds can get through....if the enemy snipers are using armor piercing rounds its even less effective and you have to start wearing the really bulky level IV armor. Then theres the fact that body armor isnt particually good at protecting against IEDs.

Have you ever tried wearing a full set of level IV body armor with the side and back inserts?

Their a ***** to move in. Anway Im all for better body armor but realise it doesnt make our troops invunerable.

Oh and your idea of just putting the air defence SAMS and radar on the carrier...is plain stupid. The idea of destroyers is to create a ring around the carrier further out to sea giving it a better defensive radius. Aircraft arnt the whole answer to carrier defence either, fighters can quite easily slip past your combat air patrol. They can also shoot your CAP down as well.

whiteladder
08-18-2007, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The RN`s high tech ships fired 17 rounds in the latest conflict. THE Army`s 105mm light gun is much more useful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but the more you talk the more you sound like a Buffon. If you want to have a intelligent conversation about this subject at least have the courtesy to get your facts straight, because you clearly do not have the first clue about what you are talking about.

The RN didn`t fire 17 rounds the Allied task group(HMS Marlborough, HMAS Anzac, HMS Chatham and HMS Richmond) off the Al Faw peninsula conducted 17 FIRE Missions on the opening day of the invasion. In those 17 fire misssions they fired 155 rounds at maximum range.

And guess why they needed to use NGS? The weather was too bad for the carrier aircraft to support 40 commando. One 4.5 inch gun on a Type 23 frigate has the same firepower of a whole battery of 105mm guns.

So if you do insist on carrying on in this thread please at least try to get some facts right, because as much as you find the way the MOD release the news of the launch the type45 distastful I find your dismissing of the contribution of members of the RN equalling so.

For anybody interested in what really happen on the March 21 2003:

"Five Inch Friday: HMAS Anzac on the Gunline

At 0604 on 21 March 2003, the Western Australian based frigate HMAS ANZAC, often called the 'Lighthorse', commenced Naval Gun Fire in direct support of the British lead Royal Marine 40 Commando assault on Al Faw Peninsula in Southern Iraq.

The assault on the Al Faw Peninsula began shortly before midnight on Thursday 20 March 2003, when HMAS ANZAC was tasked as 'Scene of Action Commander', guarding the massive offshore oil terminals known as Kaaot and Mabot. Operating in sight of both pumping stations, less than 12 miles from the Iraqi coast, ANZAC was to challenge and intercept any vessel that approached the terminals. As in previous conflicts with Iraq, there was a very real fear the Iraqi military would quickly sabotage and detonate the terminals, causing a massive environmental disaster and force the coalition ships to abandon the assault on the Al Faw Peninsula. Shortly before midnight, ANZAC was informed that the US Navy Special Forces (SEAL) had successfully seized vessels containing explosives and sea mines and took control of the giant oil terminals of Kaaot and Mabot, heralding the next phase of our mission.

At 0130, under the surreal moon-lit stillness of the northern waters of the Persian Gulf, HMAS ANZAC, received orders to proceed up-stream of the Khawr Abd Allah (KAA) waterway in company with HMS MARLBOROUGH to a position close to the Al Faw Peninsula and prepare for gun action.

With the ship closed-up at Action Stations and machinery running in a quietened state in case sea mines had been laid, ANZAC crept up the murky brown waters of the KAA to within 7 miles of Iraqi-held territory. As ANZAC slowly entered the waterway, the sound of explosions and huge thuds rang clearly through the night, often shaking the ship with the percussion blows. Huge bright red and white flashes were seen in the distance and the air quickly filled with smoke and the acrid smell of cordite and sulphur. One of the lookouts said 'it was like standing down-wind of a bush fire'. This was an eerie and unforgettable moment for the people of ANZAC. Secretly, we all knew the mission would be defining point in our lives.

Once in position at 0530, HMAS ANZAC reported 'Guns Up, Ready for Call to Fire' to the Royal Artillery 'spotter' on the nearby Al Faw peninsula. Shortly after dawn, ANZAC commenced firing her 127mm (5 inch) high explosive gunnery shells on military targets and, for the first time in 31 years, the Royal Australian Navy engaged in combat naval gunfire support.

Over the next 3 days, ANZAC shook and shuddered as the firing of her 5-inch gun launched barrages of high explosive shells in support of the Royal Marines of 40 Commando. ANZAC conducted seven fire missions in total, with all rounds hitting Iraqi bunkers, destroying artillery strongholds and key military installations. All of ANZAC's rounds fell on their military targets with none harming civilian infrastructure.

The Naval Gun-Fire Support began with HMAS ANZAC and was accompanied by the Royal Navy frigates HMS CHATHAM, RICHMOND and MARLBOROUGH. More than 70 rounds of navy artillery was fired during the bombings in what has been dubbed 'Five-Inch Friday' in recognition of the damage done by ANZAC's 127-millimetre gun.

After removing set targets with surgical precision, HMAS ANZAC continued to provide fire support to the Royal Marines as they fought their way through the Iraqi forces on the peninsula to seize the township of Al Faw and the deep water port of Umm Qasr. More action occurred over the following two days, when ANZAC conducted several fire missions to provide cover to the Royal Marine advance, including the silencing of an Iraqi 155-millimetre medium artillery field gun that was firing on the commandos.

As HMAS ANZAC withdrew from the gun-line position she held for 3 days, the following message was received by the 40 Commando - 'The Al Faw Vegetation Belt has been successfully cleared of all enemy and the airport and other key military installations are now secure with no enemy resistance. Success was largely due to aggressive use of Indirect Fire assets and the swift and lethal response of respective units. Your bombardment and destruction of key military installations had a huge impact on the ground and shattered the enemy's will to fight."

woofiedog
08-18-2007, 12:26 PM
whiteladder... A link with photo's of the action you discribe...

NAVAL FORCES SPEARHEAD 'OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM': http://www.warshipsifr.com/attack_on_iraq_special.html

Bobario
08-18-2007, 01:38 PM
whiteladder are the RN still putting rounds down on our enemies? Nor is the Royal Artillery.

ploughman
08-18-2007, 01:41 PM
39 Reg RA fired GMLRS for the first time in Afghanistan in the last three weeks. I don't know who the target was but if they weren't 'our enemies,' then trouble's afoot.

clickety click (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/PrecisionRocketSystemFiredForTheFirstTimeInAfghani stanvideo.htm)

whiteladder
08-18-2007, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">whiteladder are the RN still putting rounds down on our enemies? Nor is the Royal Artillery </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point is what exactly?

leitmotiv
08-18-2007, 03:20 PM
Good luck getting a cogent reply, whiteladder. This gent is working out some grievance, not debating. I've seen some magnificent persecution complexes, and messiah complexes, but this guy is definitely top echelon in both.

MEGILE
08-18-2007, 04:34 PM
All this talk of defense and we haven't touched upon the next Gen of aircraft for the RN.

Lightning II vs. A navalized Typhoon.

The US finally agreed to let the British have full access and control of the systems on the F35, but apparently the guy in charge of the purse strings is still considering the Typhoon.

I'm not sure which would be the ideal buy.
I dare say a handful of each would be interesting, but I am doubtful they will choose both planes.

We know the Eurofighter is a formidable aircraft, but the F35 is no slouch either.. especially with the aesa radar, it is going to be a serious BVR contender.

oh to have a few billion, what would ye buy

Enforcer572005
08-18-2007, 05:07 PM
I can't understand his point at all. I mean that respectfully, but I just don't understand his approach.....now not only are destroyers needless but so is artillery? Or just British artillery? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Sounds much like Neville Chamberlain debating with Churchill before the war. I know how Winston must've felt. No insult intended, I'm just confused.

And yeah, I think both the STOVL F-35B and the Typhoon would be pretty versatile. I just found out that the RN has only got 25 surface combatants. Even sold some frigates built since the Falklands. That just makes no bloody sense whatsoever. Does anyone in the Brit govt read any history books? (alot like ours).

woofiedog
08-18-2007, 05:31 PM
Fully Agree with your statement Enforcer572005.

Destroyer's and Artillery are just as nessary as the Foot Soldier. All are part of the Frontline Offence and Defence. And should also add the Air Arm of both the Navy and Air Force.
Neither of the above arm's can operate without the other.
A solid Defence is a forward Offence... so just a question of my own to him is what soures are he using... a T.V. show he show or a magazine picture????

joeap
08-18-2007, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
whiteladder are the RN still putting rounds down on our enemies? Nor is the Royal Artillery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you answer my earlier question to you?

ake109
08-18-2007, 11:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ake109:
Particle Beams that can shoot the left gonad off a fly at 2000km. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Who's leaked my research data ?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You shouldn't leave your computer on at lunch time when your busty blonde secretary is around...

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 01:47 AM
Spies are everywhere (he said nervously peeking out his window).

BillyTheKid_22
08-19-2007, 10:57 AM
http://www.marinekameradschaft-muenchen.de/bilder/neu3-type45-5.jpg



http://www.marinekameradschaft-muenchen.de/bilder/neu3-type45-1.jpg



http://www.marinekameradschaft-muenchen.de/bilder/neu3-type45-7.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blutarski2004
08-19-2007, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://www.marinekameradschaft-muenchen.de/bilder/neu3-type45-5.jpg



http://www.marinekameradschaft-muenchen.de/bilder/neu3-type45-1.jpg



http://www.marinekameradschaft-muenchen.de/bilder/neu3-type45-7.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It really does look like a Dalek mother ship. Call "The Doctor".

fordfan25
08-19-2007, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ake109:
Particle Beams that can shoot the left gonad off a fly at 2000km. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Who's leaked my research data ?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I saw raiiiid typeing something earlyer about ****** soooo.......

Bobario
09-14-2007, 02:08 PM
Mandalorian power armour might actually be of some use if your troops are engaged in ground combat. Uber death ships are no use if the war is in the desert. MLRS or the RN might have blown up some camel herders tent in the desert, but on the whole they are of limited use. Dont kick off on the Russians or Chinese and we have no need of these ships, we can stay safely hidden behind the USN. I`m surprised nobody picked up on my very emotive comments about the Bismark and Tirpits though, the Bismark was sunk by a torpedo from HMS Dorsetshire, and the Tirpits was sunk by a midget sub after many attempts by the RAF to put her out of action. But aircraft DID have a major part to play in both these ships demise (and the Yamato fwiw). It looks like we may pull our forces out of Iraq in the next few months, so the need for light infantry will diminish, but do we then start looking for enemies for our HMS Darings to oppose? I think you will find that the USN will do most of the dominating and the UK will provide troops in a support role to the US, much as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In case you fellas hadnt noticed, we dont have an empire anymore, so we need to look at kit we can use and not kit we would need if we took on a major world power.

KG66_Gog
09-14-2007, 04:40 PM
Looks like it will burn nicely!

Divine-Wind
09-14-2007, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Though I found the HMS Dreadnought to be much more aesthetically pleasing than this ugly bucket of bolts ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah... To be honest I like the look of old warships (As in WWII era and before) to the boxy, angular style of modern ships. The HMS Dreadnought was a darn cool looking boat though.

... Duhm, ship, I mean.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by avimimus:
Recent studies suggest that pigs may be as intelligent as apes. They are now on my do not eat list (along with humans, cetaceans, elephants, great apes, corvids and humans).

DO NOT EAT CLEVER THINGS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Studies conducted by McDonalds and A&W have shown that eating clever things makes you cleverer.

EAT MOR BAYCUN

ImpStarDuece
09-14-2007, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
Mandalorian power armour might actually be of some use if your troops are engaged in ground combat. Uber death ships are no use if the war is in the desert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And who says the "next war" will be in the desert?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> but do we then start looking for enemies for our HMS Darings to oppose? I think you will find that the USN will do most of the dominating and the UK will provide troops in a support role to the US, much as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In case you fellas hadnt noticed, we dont have an empire anymore, so we need to look at kit we can use and not kit we would need if we took on a major world power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't look for specific enemies when you design a weapon system, you look at specific threats.

A guided missile destroyed fills a specific hole in the capabilities of the RNs fleet. Its not there to combat anyone in particular, its there to counter the threat of aircraft/guided missiles being fired at RN ships.