Those new Navy destroyers (armed forces question)

Home Forum Chat Forum Those new Navy destroyers (armed forces question)

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Those new Navy destroyers (armed forces question)
  • Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    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?

    marty
    Member

    they’ve got a giant butterfly net hidden in the sticky up bit )that they claim is a radar) and catch the missiles in that.

    hth.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    if they told you how it worked it wouldn’t be a suprise and then it might not work

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    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.

    nukeproof
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    in case the dam reds come back

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    “in case the dam reds come back”

    don’t worry, they’ll all be in jail for illegal activities in night clubs soon.

    tree-magnet
    Member

    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 we invade liberate to provide air support for our troops.

    shreck
    Member

    On the ships i was on type 22 batch 3,seawolf missiles anti missile,missiles and goalkeeper for things closer in a big gattling gun that spnked bullets for fun,a git to load as it used so many and the ammo was keept at the opposite end of the ship from the gun.

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    “the ammo was keept at the opposite end of the ship from the gun”

    that’s the sort of military genius that this country excels at.

    shreck
    Member

    Oh seawolf can also takeout aircraft.

    simonfbarnes
    Member

    “the ammo was keept at the opposite end of the ship from the gun”

    it’s to stop the sailors getting fat

    I wonder how many forests you have to plant to offset THAT lot of carbon…

    IanMunro
    Member

    “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..

    pjt201
    Member

    seawolf missiles might be a bit harder to come by now seeing as I just knocked down the manufacturing plant.

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    you 5th columnist, pjt201!

    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.

    Posted by NukeProof so for him they probably are unecessary

    God Damn Jerries, eat lead and die mofoers!!

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    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?

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    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 shit.

    shreck
    Member

    Going to have a look at this ship tonight,is it a sexy one haha.

    cbike
    Member

    In the Documentary. “In The Wake of HMS Sheffield”, I’m sure they showed some intended designs which looked a lot like the type 45. Way back in the mid 80’s I think. Navy Procurement takes a while I guess.

    -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? 😉

    Premier Icon jimmy
    Subscriber

    in case the dam reds come back

    we’re gonna have to get our gas off the Ruskies soon

    shreck
    Member

    I dont think the russians will be worried about our tiny navy,saling in st perersburg ages ago was amazed how many ships and subs they have around,most of them rust buckets but if needed im sure they could do somthing with them.

    Premier Icon funkynick
    Subscriber

    Oooooh.. my Dad was one of the engineers who designed the Seawolf system, which I would imagine was a precursor to the Paams system used here.

    I presume their main role would be in picket defence for the carriers.

    AnalogueAndy
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    Do the Chinese have carriers? Or aircraft in East Africa?

    I understand that they are in talks with Sudan to have an Overseas Naval port there. I think the Chinese are developing their naval capacity with a mind to rival the US.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    PAMMS really is that good. A step change above anything we’ve had before.

    Presumably it also doesn’t interfere with SCOT and so get switched off when you’re using that? 😕

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)

The topic ‘Those new Navy destroyers (armed forces question)’ is closed to new replies.