Those new Navy destroyers (armed forces question)
Reading on the BBC site about these new destroyers, it says they are for an anti-aircraft role. But this got me thinking – how can shipping really defend itself against air attack? Do they just have longer range missiles than planes? Or do they have some kind of anti-missile missile so they can defend themselves. I mean what’s to stop an attacking plane letting off a couple of AGM65s from 30 miles away and then scarpering?Posted 9 years agoaracerSubscriber
You could always read the article you link to:
The Principal Anti Air Missile System (Paams) is the Type 45’s primary weapons platform and is designed to combat enemy missile attacks on ships.
Paams consists of a 48-cell vertical missile launcher that allows the destroyer to engage targets from 360 degrees.
ie anti-missile missiles.Posted 9 years agotree-magnetMember
So we’re getting 6 of these at £605m each. What sort of threat/conflict situation are these going to be used? Just struggling to see the need for them.
Used to protect our aircraft carriers generaly. The idea is that you can park an aircraft carrier in the gulf/off the coast of the next place wePosted 9 years ago
invadeliberate to provide air support for our troops.IanMunroMember
“the ammo was keept at the opposite end of the ship from the gun”
Reminded me of a boast from a trade magazine in which they were extolling the virtues of the new automated munitions management system on the ship that would be using the same conveyor technology as terminal 5..Posted 9 years agoBigDummySubscriber
It is right I think that Russia has been selling missiles to the Iranians that would make operating in the Gulf rather riskier if Iran decided it would not tolerate our ships there.
The basic point presumably is that Western armed forces achieve a huge dominance of all battlefields on which they fight, but the strength in depth and capacity to replace is not there. If one carrier gets severely damaged by a lucky missile that is an enormous proportion of next year’s defence budget down the tubes, almost certainly fighting a conflict that does not make votwers at home think that they may be speaking German next year or whatever. Better to have the carrier over-protected than under-protected.
Also, presumably, putting fleet either into the Baltic to protect Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania or the Mediterranean/Black Sea to protect Ukraine/Georgia from Russian intervention must be explicitly planned for. If the navy found itself in those situations again then theoretical Russian capacities to do our ships harm are very great.
Do the Chinese have carriers? Or aircraft in East Africa?Posted 9 years ago-m-Member
Since launching HMS Daring, BVT Surface Fleet Ltd has launched three more Type 45s, Dauntless, Diamond and Dragon.
Defender is expected to launch in October, 2009, leaving only Duncan of the original six Type 45s ordered by the navy.
So, Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon and…. Duncan? They’re not serious? Hardly intimidating is it? 😉Posted 9 years agoAnalogueAndyMember
But surely it’d be better to use the aircraft based on an aircraft carrier to combat enemy aircraft? Are anti-missile missiles really that good? I thought they were ****.
PAMMS really is that good. A step change above anything we’ve had before. A really big step change. It can track 2000 targets simultaneously, supersonic missiles coke can size up to aircaft. All 48 missiles are “ready to fire” within seconds. Maximum theoretical range against aircraft is over 100km, against missiles 25km. Not just over the sea but over land from the sea.
As well as carrier protection they will serve a number of roles – integrity of UK waters, counter piracy and ‘insertion’.
Plus even with PAMMS being a collaborative project, remember most of the money they cost has been spent with UK companies.Posted 9 years ago
The topic ‘Those new Navy destroyers (armed forces question)’ is closed to new replies.