Those don't exist anymore, besides those were impractical for all but the largest ships.Box launcher?
WillS
Is this what you were thinking of ??Box launcher?
WillS
Hmm?there are very few nations now that have an air arm that could mount an attack against shipping.
Type 45 may well have been designed/envisaged as an AAW destroyer, & will no doubt undertake the role as part of the new UK CBG, but don't forget about the Type 22's / 23's, they were designed for ASW / ASuW.The type 45 is an AAW destroyer but there are very few nations now that have an air arm that could mount an attack against shipping.
With a fully functioning carrier the threat should be kept away from any task group by its own air wing without having to rely on an aaw destroyer. I would have thought that the biggest threat to any carrier group is going to be submarines.This is certainly the approach of China.The ship I would be buying would be a next generation asw frigate.
You don't understand why the Type 45 was built - it's because the Type 42s were reaching the end of their lives and their equipment was becoming obsolete. The RN desperately needed a strong AAW ship to defend against anti-ship missiles, which can be land and submarine-based, not just launched from aircraft. It's not enough to rely on point-defence systems - you need an outer cordon, which the Type 45s supply.The type 45 is an AAW destroyer but there are very few nations now that have an air arm that could mount an attack against shipping......The ship I would be buying would be a next generation asw frigate.
I entirely agree with you. Priority isn't necessarily against enemy fighterbombers, it's against missiles of all sorts. Even the smallest countries can have Exocets or Silkworm SSMs, and most hostile countries are very well equipped in anti-ship missiles launched from batteries inland.Defending assets against coordinated swarms of shorebased AShMs in the Persian Gulf?
Exactly. While the Iranian Navy may lack trained crews to operate a Kilo against a military convoy, they certainly know how to launch the Chinese SSMs from FACs, land-based batteries, and they are used to minelaying. Since I would expect them to initiate hostilities, they would have the advantage of time.In the Iranian scenario (depending on intensity), Iran using F4 and other fighters in a anti-ship role should also be expected, just like in 1987/88 by both Iran and Iraq in the Tanker War (and against the USN).
It would be extremely surprising if the RN didn't consider the mine warfare, littoral FAC use and fighter cover/strikes that Iran used in the Tanker War for any future conflict in the area.
Yep. The only point that will help us is that we'd have a bunch of AWACS assets in the air that would be able to spot the IRIAF planes before naval radars do. This should limit bad surprises.In addition, the coastal area of Iran is rather hilly - with ridges reaching up to 2000 feet and above within 30 miles of the coast. A strike aircraft could probably appear out of the ground clutter within anti-ship missile range with some good luck in this area.
In 1980-86, Iranian F-4E got plenty of experience damaging and sinking ships using both AGM-65 and simple bombs, while their helos mostly went after unarmed ships with AS.12 missiles. With Iranian aircraft carrying modern C-802 and the Iranian derivatives, i'd expect an attempt at a repeat of that.
The question would be whether it turns out like Operation Earnest Will this time.