The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[harryriedl]

This boils down to one missile, ESSM, & the lack of an equivalent for Sylver, since Aster 15 has the same diameter booster as Aster 30.

It's partly compensated for by the Sylver launchers being considerably lighter (A50 ca 40% lighter than Tactical length Mk41), & having a smaller footprint, than Mk41, so you can put more of them in the same space. If you want to carry large numbers of area defence missiles, Sylver has the edge in missiles in a given space, but self-defence length Mk41 can pack a lot more ESSM into a space than Sylver A43 can fit Aster 15, even allowing for being able to fit more A43 cells.

i know Quad packing is nice and all and a much improved missile over the old sea sparrow but when has any ship been overwhelmed by missiles alone Anti Ship missiles have hit the ships when they were at reduced readinesses or had their ESM systems of line ambushing them[Falklands and Haniti in Lebanon]. So how much of an advantage it the extra Quad Packing except for stats and the mythical 1000 missile strike by Russian of Chines forces.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

i know Quad packing is nice and all and a much improved missile over the old sea sparrow but when has any ship been overwhelmed by missiles alone Anti Ship missiles have hit the ships when they were at reduced readinesses or had their ESM systems of line ambushing them[Falklands and Haniti in Lebanon]. So how much of an advantage it the extra Quad Packing except for stats and the mythical 1000 missile strike by Russian of Chines forces.

All of the examples you just quoted were asymetric, ambush, single shot threats. ANYONE who knows what they are doing and has a decent marritime strike capability will use swarm tactics. AFAIK it is part of RAAF doctorine. In addidtion to being overwhelmed in a single action more missiles, especially ones intended for self defence (point defence?!?) rather than area defence (EG SM2) means less time between reaming, which is a bitch at sea. So thats also handy. Also more missiles allows you to throw multiples at incoming targets. So i think more missiles, in general are a good thing.

 

[Aussie Digger]

i know Quad packing is nice and all and a much improved missile over the old sea sparrow but when has any ship been overwhelmed by missiles alone Anti Ship missiles have hit the ships when they were at reduced readinesses or had their ESM systems of line ambushing them[Falklands and Haniti in Lebanon]. So how much of an advantage it the extra Quad Packing except for stats and the mythical 1000 missile strike by Russian of Chines forces.

I think the "quad packing" ability is more useful in other areas, rather then improving overall defensive capability. As you rightly point out, when has "overhwelming" ever proved to be a viable ASM tactic?

The ESSM for instance can be loaded in the Mark 41 vertical launch system. But there are actually 3 different Mk 41 systems as I understand it, with "strike" length VLS used on most ships that can accomodate it.

Strike length Mk 41 VLS enables use of Tomahawk, SM-2/3, but ESSM can use shorter length Mk 41 VLS systems.

The new RAN F-100 plus Air Warfare Destroyers for instance may not even mount ESSM in the "forward" VLS system, but elsewhere on the vessel, leaving the forward mounted "strike length" VLS for SM-2 and whatever else the Austalian Governmant and ADF may decide is appropriate for the RAN Destroyers... :nutkick

 

[swerve]

...

The ESSM for instance can be loaded in the Mark 41 vertical launch system. But there are actually 3 different Mk 41 systems as I understand it, with "strike" length VLS used on most ships that can accomodate it.

Strike length Mk 41 VLS enables use of Tomahawk, SM-2/3, but ESSM can use shorter length Mk 41 VLS systems.
...

Strike length Mk 41
Tactical length
Self-defence length

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-tactical.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-41-vls.htm

 

[harryriedl]

I think the "quad packing" ability is more useful in other areas, rather then improving overall defensive capability. As you rightly point out, when has "overhwelming" ever proved to be a viable ASM tactic?

The ESSM for instance can be loaded in the Mark 41 vertical launch system. But there are actually 3 different Mk 41 systems as I understand it, with "strike" length VLS used on most ships that can accomodate it.

Strike length Mk 41 VLS enables use of Tomahawk, SM-2/3, but ESSM can use shorter length Mk 41 VLS systems.

The new RAN F-100 plus Air Warfare Destroyers for instance may not even mount ESSM in the "forward" VLS system, but elsewhere on the vessel, leaving the forward mounted "strike length" VLS for SM-2 and whatever else the Austalian Governmant and ADF may decide is appropriate for the RAN Destroyers... :nutkick

the problem which i have is what would the diffrence be if ESSM could only be doble packed or single packed and you could still use it on the verious diffrent diffrent VLS MK54 MK41 ect.
i don't see why Quad packing is thought to give the US [an US based vessels] over eqiverlent PAMMS vessles.
Yes more missiles is nice but when have you last run out of missiles on OPs.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

i don't see why Quad packing is thought to give the US [an US based vessels] over eqiverlent PAMMS vessles.

Numbers of missiles isn't as important as the performance of what you have. If you're having to bang off 2 or 3 for every incoming target the advantage of having a larger arsenal is reduced. Whereas a smaller number are more effective if you only need 1 or 2 per enemy missile.

Aster is a very agile and powerful missile, even compared to the SM-2 and ESSM. When coupled with SAMPSON and the S1850M you've got yourself a first-class package. Any fool can pack his ships out with lots of munitions - how he uses them is key. The Type 45 should be able to intercept targets with more accuracy than any other ship out there at the moment.

 

[overlander]

some news about the 2 extra type 45 destroyers ??, i think they are very important for the future r.n. and the government must to approve them if not another big error in defence policy for labour such as the withdrawal of sea harriers.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

the problem which i have is what would the diffrence be if ESSM could only be doble packed or single packed and you could still use it on the verious diffrent diffrent VLS MK54 MK41 ect.

Say what???? Then you would have a smaller missile load wouldnt you? Now wether ESSM by itself has an advantage over ASTER 15, i dont think so, they are comperable. However you would have a smaller load out, which means less missiles for a single raid and less missiles throughout the campaign. Unless loading ASTER 15's while operational, at sea and in reasonably heavy sea state is feasible, but i doubt that.

i don't see why Quad packing is thought to give the US [an US based vessels] over eqiverlent PAMMS vessles.
Yes more missiles is nice but when have you last run out of missiles on OPs.

This question if "when has a ship been overwhelmed" is a moot point if you ask me. When was the last time any of these vesseles faced a real ASM threat i ask you??? falklands, please. But they are out there, Anyone who knows what they are doing are going to throw as many missiles as they can at you at once. PLAAF, RuAF, IAF, USAF, even smaller nations like the RAAF would all throw missiles at you en masse. When has anyone faced any of their maritime strike's in real life???? Pluss what happens if there are multiple raids? Sure you might have enough for the first one but what about the next one, or the one after that? With Multi-squadron raids (say 2 missiles per platform so 40+ incoming) a couple of daring's missile mags would be dry mighty quickley.

Numbers of missiles isn't as important as the performance of what you have. If you're having to bang off 2 or 3 for every incoming target the advantage of having a larger arsenal is reduced. Whereas a smaller number are more effective if you only need 1 or 2 per enemy missile.

This may be true when comparing ASTER 15 & PAAMS to a Sovmerney say. However this is a comparison to ESSM and AEGIS. I would have an incredibly hard time believing that ASTER 15 would achieve a markably better kill ratio than ESSM, maybe slightly, but no where near needing "ESSM to throw 2 missles to every 1 incoming". Maybe 1.1 to 1. However you CAN throw 2 missles at a single incoming with ESSM to ensure a kill, which is handy when you're the target, were ASTER 15 you have 1/4th the ammount of shots to play with. If you cant see this as an advantge then i'm not sure what you would reguard as an advantage. Comeperable missle systems with 4 times the shots per launcher.

Aster is a very agile and powerful missile, even compared to the SM-2 and ESSM. When coupled with SAMPSON and the S1850M you've got yourself a first-class package.

I dont doubt the capabilities of PAAMS and its various componants. However in this case you have a comperable system which, untill PAAMS, has been without peer in terms of maritime are defence. You would have a hard time argueing that PAAMS offered any more capability than SPY1D, SM2BKIV, ESSM, SM3 and the AEGIS combat system.

Any fool can pack his ships out with lots of munitions - how he uses them is key.

Is that what the designers of the Arleigh Burke destroyer familly (including the Korean KDX-III) are? Fools who pack their ships with lots of munitions???? Those munitions are some of the most capable in service anywere, utilised by a system as batlle proven and capable as AEGIS. Hardly packing their hulls with hundreds of SA2's are they???

The Type 45 should be able to intercept targets with more accuracy than any other ship out there at the moment.

Really???? I'd bet half a dozen other navies would disagree with you on that one, including the french and italians who use the same missle system as the daring class.

Look i dont want to get into a nationalistic argument of AEGIS vs PAAMS, AFAIK they are BOTH excellent systems. All i was pointing out is that ESSM's ability to be quad packed in the Mark 41 VLS is an advantage over ASTER 15 and Sylver VLS. Thats all. Basically you get more bang for your VLS. More missles mean more capability to an extent and more persistance. Its not hard to see, comperable missle system and more missiles = a good thing. Now this isnt a US vs EU thing, if a slimer version of ASTER 15 can be developed and quad packed then bingo bobs your uncle. However i dont know if its a deal breaker as it stands.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

PLAAF, RuAF, IAF, USAF, even smaller nations like the RAAF would all throw missiles at you en masse.

And which of those air forces is the Royal Navy likely to come into conflict with on their home turf? The answer is: none.

If you cant see this as an advantge then i'm not sure what you would reguard as an advantage.

Did anyone say it was NOT good to have more missiles? I think you're rather twisting what people here have said. You've implied that the Type 45s won't be as good as other ships because they have a smaller arsenal. People have tried to point out that there are lots of other things to take into account.

I dont doubt the capabilities of PAAMS and its various componants. However in this case you have a comperable system which, untill PAAMS, has been without peer in terms of maritime are defence.

Your point being? If there's no decent competition of course a system will be without peer.

Is that what the designers of the Arleigh Burke destroyer familly (including the Korean KDX-III) are?

I didn't say people who use lots of missiles are fools, I said that anyone can load out their ships.

Geez, lighten up and learn to read people's posts rather than react on auto-pilot.

Really???? I'd bet half a dozen other navies would disagree with you on that one, including the french and italians who use the same missle system as the daring class.

Missiles yes, radar no. I'm surprisied you didn't know that.

All i was pointing out is that ESSM's ability to be quad packed in the Mark 41 VLS is an advantage over ASTER 15 and Sylver VLS. Thats all.

Then why did you keep banging on about it? You try to imply you weren't making a big deal about it but you kept going on and on. If you keep wanting to have the last word then it's obvious you do think it's a big deal.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

And which of those air forces is the Royal Navy likely to come into conflict with on their home turf? The answer is: none.

So your saying the Daring class is not designed to deal with a teir 1 maritime strike capability? Or that its so unlikely that it doesnt warrent discussion? How likely was the falklands in '82? imagine a similar scenario with someone who really has their act together.

Did anyone say it was NOT good to have more missiles? I think you're rather twisting what people here have said.

ahem....

i don't see why Quad packing is thought to give the US [an US based vessels] over eqiverlent PAMMS vessles.

Actually the people i adressed my post to dismissed the armermant inferiority of the Type 45 as irelevent. Hence my reply...

You've implied that the Type 45s won't be as good as other ships because they have a smaller arsenal. People have tried to point out that there are lots of other things to take into account.

When did i ever state that a type 45 was less capable in agregate terms, or even imply that??? What i did clearly state was that the ability to quadpack ESSM was a definate advantage AEGIS/MK41 equiped vessels have over PAAMS/Sylver equiped contemporaries. I never made any judgements on overall capability. "People" (you included) countered this by saying how good a type 45 was and dismissed the notion that the number of missiles carried was an important factor. Your contention seems to be that the quality of the missile system is paramount. I agree, however this is irrelevent (or at least alot less relevent) when comparing comperable missile systems. I was attempting to stress this point because you continually seem to miss it.

You seem to be a bit defenceive about PAAMS and Daring mate, basically all i said was a quadpackable ASTER 15 needs to be developed in order to have an equivelent payload as an F100 and that right now this was a disadvantage. I never said anything about a daring bieing a bad platform, your bringing that to the discussion.

Your point being? If there's no decent competition of course a system will be without peer.

My point, well, you countered a point about larger missile payload on AEGIS equiped ships with one about how good PAAMS was. Which indicates you think PAAMS is a significantly better system, hence my reply...

I didn't say people who use lots of missiles are fools, I said that anyone can load out their ships.

You replied to a point about AEGIS eqiuiped vessels having more missiles, by saying:

Any fool can pack his ships out with lots of munitions - how he uses them is key.

I dont think an objective person could be blamed for assuming you were refering to AEGIS equiped vessels, since thats what we were talking about.

Geez, lighten up and learn to read people's posts rather than react on auto-pilot.

I dont see how i've been unreasonable here.

Then why did you keep banging on about it? You try to imply you weren't making a big deal about it but you kept going on and on. If you keep wanting to have the last word then it's obvious you do think it's a big deal.

LOL.... nice one mate, obviosly i'm out to get your prescious ship.

My first post on the matter:

Inability to quadpack a point defence weapon is a serious disadvantage for PAAMS compared to AEGIS at the moment. The equivelant of a Type 45, an F100 has the same tube count, 48, but because of ESSM has a load out either 40 SM2/SM3 and 32 ESSM, or 32 SM2/SM3 and 64 ESSM. Thats 72 and 96 missiles compared to 48 on the Type 45. A slimeline, quadpackable Aster 15 is definatly needed IMO.

Simply making an observation, that a quadpackable ASTER 15 was needed. I made the same observation when the F100 was chosen for the AWD design for the RAN. harryriedl (and you) implied my point was irelevent, so i defended it. Your the one who's haveing a sook about it. If you dont want to have a discussion on such matters, like the effect of Darings missile payload, then whats the point of a thread like this.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

So your saying the Daring class is not designed to deal with a teir 1 maritime strike capability?

Don't answer a question with a question. Out of the countries you listed which do you think the Royal Navy is likely to come into conflict with on their home turf.

ahem....

Again, you're twisting what he said. He didn't say having more missiles was not good, he argued it didn't necessarily mean AEGIS vessels were better.

My point, well, you countered a point about larger missile payload on AEGIS equiped ships with one about how good PAAMS was. Which indicates you think PAAMS is a significantly better system, hence my reply...

That isn't a good enough justification. You seemed to be showing AEGIS' technical superiority in the past as being representative of something today, whereas I rightly pointed out there was no real competition until PAAMS came along.

I dont think an objective person could be blamed for assuming you were refering to AEGIS equiped vessels, since thats what we were talking about.

Any objective person who thought about his/her response first wouldn't react as you did.

LOL.... nice one mate, obviosly i'm out to get your prescious ship.

You're hardly going to convince anyone to the opposite if you're going to use words like "precious" - a lot of people would take that negatively.

Simply making an observation, that a quadpackable ASTER 15 was needed.

Needed for what? Daring isn't a multi-role ship. It's designed to escort big ships and that's pretty much it. If it really needed anything it would be more cells for the Aster 30s.

But if you really were interested in the Royal Navy you'd know that MBDA is developing a replacement for Rapier, Seawolf and ASRAAM - the sea-launched version would be slim enough to be quad-packed. I've already said that once on this thread.

If you dont want to have a discussion on such matters, like the effect of Darings missile payload, then whats the point of a thread like this.

What's the point of the thread? Oh, I don't know. Talking about news and more mature topics, rather than the childish "this needs more guns; this needs more missiles" rambles.

 

[Dave H]

I would think that the ability to survive a multiple attack depends on the capability of the combat system and as classified information it would be hard to assess PAAMS vs Aegis or Aster vs ESSM. Beedalls site says Aster 15 can take on sea skimming missiles at 25 km or about 15 miles. My maths is crap but that would be about 80 seconds for an exocet type weapon, PAAMS is claimed, on the Beedall site to be able to handle 8 missiles in that role simultaneously. So get more than ten missiles within a few miles arriving at the same time, then any platform would have problems. It then comes down to close -in weapons and the ability of jammers and decoys. You dont necessarily have to shoot down every missile but if you dont they can of course fly on and hit other ships.

Sure you could detect 40 plus sea skimming missiles being launched 50 miles away, but I doubt you can actually start shooting at them until they come to within 20 miles, it then becomes a toss up between active misisles, or ones needing illumination or interupted continuous wave illumination, hit percentages and good old fashioned luck.

The chances are that a ship can be overwhelmed long before the combat system could fire all the misiles. That big VLS, loaded with missiles then must be an absolute nightmare as far as damage control goes.

I think people make the cosy assumption that in a naval engagement you wont lose ships, Adm Woodward knew He would lose ships in the Falklands campaign and the RN did, getting hit hard. I would like to see more tubes on the Type 45 at refit but if each missile costs close to £1 million quid on top of the cost per cell then I would rather go for more ships with fewer missiles. An Arleigh Burke must bust the bank just to arm it. It would be cheaper buy a few 22 tube RAM 's and add them onto a Type 45 if needed in a particular scenario.

I would assume that a T45, not needing individual illuminators has a freer pattern of manouevering like hell in the face of an attack? By that I mean the doctrine around the exocet circa 1982 was to turn stern or bow onto the threat, making the radar signature smaller. Would that make any difference today in the face of better technology? HMS Glamorgan manged such a stern on turn just before it was hit by exocet and that saved the ship minus a wrecked hanger and 13 dead. Having fore and aft VLS's packed with TLAMS, Scalp and missiles must make a ship vulnerable to battle damage?

The Aster looks like a missile with potential but it is entirely possible that it never gets fired in anger like many similar weapons systems. In fact I cant think of many that have....sea cat, sea wolf, sea dart. Any others used in the Balkans, GW1 and GW2?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I would rather go for more ships with fewer missiles. An Arleigh Burke must bust the bank just to arm it. It would be cheaper buy a few 22 tube RAM 's and add them onto a Type 45 if needed in a particular scenario.

Indeed. As I've always said, I would prefer more ships with fewer missiles than fewer ships with more missiles. As you rightly say, there is a maximum of Asters a Type 45 can control at any one time - more ships means you can multiply that number. Plus if one ship is hit the potential loss in terms of AAW cover is reduced.

If there is a need for better close-in protection against mass attacks then RAM is what we want. But currently the priority is the number of ships in the class. Only when we're clear that no more will be produced should discussion be about how they should be upgraded.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Don't answer a question with a question. Out of the countries you listed which do you think the Royal Navy is likely to come into conflict with on their home turf.

Likely, hmmm. in the current strategic environment probably not, but then again how likely is it that the daring will ever fire an air defence shot in anger? Not very. So if we take your logic a step further,i.e. if something isnt "likely" it shouldnt be considered, if the type 42's could continue to do the job hey?

Again, you're twisting what he said. He didn't say having more missiles was not good, he argued it didn't necessarily mean AEGIS vessels were better.

No mate. I said IT WAS AN ADVANTAGE, not that AEGIS is better, he said it was not. Look, if your english i assume you can read it:

i don't see why Quad packing is thought to give the US [an US based vessels] over eqiverlent PAMMS vessles.

Its a bit messy but my enterpretation of that is "i dont see why quadpacking is thought to give the US [on US based vessels] (an advantage) over equivelant PAAMS vesels". But your right i'm just twisting everyones words around because obviosly he wasnt saying, clearly that quadpackable ESSM was not an advantage that AEGIS equiped ships enjoy over PAAMS.

Mate your clutching at straws here. I never said, or implied quadpackable ESSM makes AEGIS a better system. I clealy stated that it was an advantage. (i'm sick of repeating myself on this) Harryried clearly stated that he disagreeed that it was an advantage. Hence the discussion on the merits of having a biger missile load with comperable missiles.

IF all you intended to point out was that there was more envolved than a missile load i'm not sure why you felt you needed to. I CLEARLY i.e. in clear plane english, stated that missile load was an advantage AEGIS held over PAAMS, and for the life of me i have no god damn idea how you could have constued that i was claiming AEGIS was the superior system. I will post my original comment (the only one previous to our conversation that mentioned PAAMS directly) AGAIN so you might, finally get it...

Inability to quadpack a point defence weapon is a serious disadvantage for PAAMS compared to AEGIS at the moment. The equivelant of a Type 45, an F100 has the same tube count, 48, but because of ESSM has a load out either 40 SM2/SM3 and 32 ESSM, or 32 SM2/SM3 and 64 ESSM. Thats 72 and 96 missiles compared to 48 on the Type 45. A slimeline, quadpackable Aster 15 is definatly needed IMO.

See? understand? See how it says "advantage" and that it even notes that it is a temporary one by saying "at the moment". Were does it say "AEGIS is better" or "PAAMS is crap"????? Guess what it doesnt. It doesnet even remotely imply that, unless you have a very active imagination. What seems more likely to me is that you are offended that i critised, constructively, PAAMS, due to your own nationalistic investment in the system and the vessel.

That isn't a good enough justification.

lol.. for what exactly?

You seemed to be showing AEGIS' technical superiority in the past as being representative of something today, whereas I rightly pointed out there was no real competition until PAAMS came along.

Yea mate, thats exactly what i was doing.

I'm getting sick of repeating myself and i'm getting sick of reposting stuff from earlier to set you streight. So instead of reposting 4 post's i'll summerise. You replied to the topic that AEGIS equiped vessels having a biger missile load for the same cells by stating how good PAAMS was, here, i'll show you:

When coupled with SAMPSON and the S1850M you've got yourself a first-class package. Any fool can pack his ships out with lots of munitions - how he uses them is key. The Type 45 should be able to intercept targets with more accuracy than any other ship out there at the moment.

This statement clearly implies (in addition to clearly stating, ) that PAAMS was a better system, my dog would contrue that considering the context of the conversation. i.e. "how he uses them is key" impleying that PAAMS is better able to use them (this is a comparison between AEGIS and PAAMS afterall), in adition to "the type 45 should be able to intercept targets with more accuracy than any other ship out there at the moment" pretty hard to misinterperate that!

SO i figured AEGIS needed to be defended somewhat, and the fact that it is a battle tested system that has been in service, and evolveing, for years and at the time had no comperable system. All of those points indicate the systems capability.

Any objective person who thought about his/her response first wouldn't react as you did.

Your right, i'm so sorry, it was so immature of me to reply to this:

Any fool can pack his ships out with lots of munitions

with this:

Is that what the designers of the Arleigh Burke destroyer familly (including the Korean KDX-III) are? Fools who pack their ships with lots of munitions???? Those munitions are some of the most capable in service anywere, utilised by a system as batlle proven and capable as AEGIS. Hardly packing their hulls with hundreds of SA2's are they???

So immature! You were absoloutly right to have a major sook about that, i was so far out of line!

You're hardly going to convince anyone to the opposite if you're going to use words like "precious" - a lot of people would take that negatively.

i wasnt saying anything negative about the ship, only YOUR attitude towards it. See how i said "your" then "precious" indicating your defenceive attitude towards the platform and "ship' meaning ship. Again i dont see how someone could see a statement about your attitude towards the subject as something negative about the platform envolved.

Needed for what? Daring isn't a multi-role ship. It's designed to escort big ships and that's pretty much it. If it really needed anything it would be more cells for the Aster 30s.

Have you even been reading the thread??? Needed to negate the advantage equivelant AEGIS vessels hold in this reguard, i.e. number of mid ranged sams carried for the same amount of cells. THAT was the whole god damned point of the discussion.

Anyway i thought no one was disputing that the ability to carry more missiles is a good thing? isnt that what YOU said?

But if you really were interested in the Royal Navy you'd know that MBDA is developing a replacement for Rapier, Seawolf and ASRAAM - the sea-launched version would be slim enough to be quad-packed. I've already said that once on this thread.

"but if i was really interested", c'mon mate! Is this now about who knows more about the RN? You wanna have an intelectual pecker measuring contest? We can test out metal on who know more about X or Y or even Z. keep clucthing mate.

If MBDA is develping a quadpackable system then super, why didnt you just say so, instead of trotting on about how good PAAMS was and how Daring is the most acurate AAW system on the seas ect ect. Next gen quadpackable MR SAM would indeed negate this advantage, and IMO is something that would be very usefull for Daring. Thats ALL i was trying to say.

What's the point of the thread? Oh, I don't know. Talking about news and more mature topics, rather than the childish "this needs more guns; this needs more missiles" rambles.

nfloorl:

Your a laugh a minet mate.

Ofcource your right any discussion of an AAW destroyers missile loadout is immature, "childish" even. And all of the points i have made can be described as a "childish ramble".

If its just a "childish ramble", then i'm sure you'll be able to rebut all of the points is made in my "childish ramble" about "more guns" & "more missiles". Hmm? Like persistance in a realistic high intencity air threat environment, or being swamped by any tier one (ore even 2) air threats. But you havent have you bud? Maybe because missile payload an maximising it is an important thing to discuss, and th epoints i made were valid, and your pouting because someone critisized, constructively Daring class.

So, in conclusion, It is my contention that quadpackable ESSM is an advantage AEGIS holds over ASTER 15 and PAAMS. By no means do i think that makes it a better system. I also believe that missile loadout is an important consideration and Daring relatively small load is something that the RN should rectify, and one way would be a quadpackable ASTER 15 (or equivelant). I understand that there is more to it than missile load out and i have no idea why you think i didnt understand that fact. END OF GOD DAMNED STORY! There you go, nice and clear.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Dave, A well thought out post. I agree with most of what you have said. However there are a few things i disagree with. You're assuming all of the incominsgs will enter the missile envilope at the exact same time. However if the incomings are on multiple bearings it would be very hard to co-oidinate the diffent groups of the raid to launch at the same ranges at the same time. Even a minet or two difference would allow 8 to 16 more missile to get into the air. Only if they all came in on one bearing would they conceavably all enter the missile envilope in the same, 60 second period.

You're also assuming that the threat will be sea skimming. Although AFAIK all of the new russian, european, chinese and US systems are, there are still plenty of high altitude AShM's around. The russians made thousands of those suckers and there are still plentty around.

Anyway the LOS limitations of current naval SAM's which as you have rightly pointed out are exploited by sea skimming AShM's will be negated by the next generation of naval SAM. SM6 is equiped with an active seeker and coupled with AEW will be able to engage low altitude targets at maximum ranges over the horizon.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Likely, hmmm. in the current strategic environment probably not, but then again how likely is it that the daring will ever fire an air defence shot in anger? Not very. So if we take your logic a step further,i.e. if something isnt "likely" it shouldnt be considered, if the type 42's could continue to do the job hey?

Don't be so stupid. The Type 42 has been shown to lack the ability to take on modern anti-ship missiles. We need something like the Type 45 to counter that. But to blither on about the threat from countries we would not realistically be confronting on their home turf really is a red herring.

So immature!

Yes, you were - it's a shame you can't accept that. In your book everyone else is wrong - you're right. :

i wasnt saying anything negative about the ship, only YOUR attitude towards it.

Sure, start back-peddling now.........

Needed to negate the advantage equivelant AEGIS vessels hold in this reguard

Huh, is this a competition? Is there a prize to be handed out? Grow up.

"but if i was really interested", c'mon mate! Is this now about who knows more about the RN?

Well if you're going to come here and keep going on about quad-packed ESSM then it might help if you'd bothered to keep up-to-date.

If MBDA is develping a quadpackable system then super, why didnt you just say so

I did on the previous page - why should I have to repeat myself because you can't be bothered to read the thread?

Ofcource your right any discussion of an AAW destroyers missile loadout is immature, "childish" even.

If you're going to break it down to a mere matter of numbers, then yes it is immature.

END OF GOD DAMNED STORY!

So shut up already and move on. As I said before if you're going to keep repeating yourself and try to get the last word in then statements like that are meaningless.
:nutkick

Even a minet or two difference would allow 8 to 16 more missile to get into the air.

Sure the enemy air force will just line up and give you that extra minute. If they're going to try to swarm a taskforce's defences they're not going to give enough time to do that.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Thanks that was fun. :lol3

by the way did you read your last quote or is that a joke???

And did you mean last word, like this one?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Or this one?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Or this one?

Please continue - I'm not going to stop you from making yourself look like a big kid...

 

[Dave H]

Something to hope for is a return for the RN of a truly offensive punch in the form of the F35. Im not sure what the plans are for an anti ship capability but I would assume Harpoon could be integrated?

A link to sadden the heart is from blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk. This gives a glimpse of what the Fleet has been missing. A strike package of 6 buccs with 4 Sea Eagles each could split into two groups of 3, fly 40 miles apart and co-ordinate 24 missiles to arrive from multiple access, all in a 10 second window. Now that was an aircraft!!! They should have made a Bucc 2.

By the time the carriers arrive it will be close to 40 years since we had that kind of punch so despite the sceptics, things are looking up, hopefully we will have a sufficient force to win air superiority and to carry out deep strikes on land targets and destroy surface groups. A stealthy anti ship missile would be nice but overall I think there is much to cheer about. If we can entagle ourselves from Iraq more money should become free for various tweeks and upgrades to the Fleet.