Skip to comments.Great Britain: Don't Dare mess with us (HMS Daring billed as world's most advanced warship)
Posted on 01/30/2006 2:29:38 AM PST by Stoat
|Don't Dare mess with us|
By TOM NEWTON DUNN
THIS is the deadliest ship ever built the Navys awesome new Type 45 destroyer.
What about exocet?
I still think it looks like an ithypallic Aegis.
All modern warships (bar carriers and auxillaries) are effectively light cruisers in size (if not function).
The Royal navy differs from the US in still assigning designations to warships based on FUNCTION, not size.
To the RN, a “destroyer” is something that is principally designed to shoot down aircraft. A “frigate” is something that primarily hunts submarines.
Things like corvettes and Patrol craft still exist.
“they are not going to install the major sonar systems, relying on the single embarked helo as I understand it.”
In bad weather when the helo can’t fly the ship will be blind to submarine threat?
Until they allocate the funds and install the sonar, the ship, outside of its own helo, will have to rely on other vessels in its task force. IMHO, foolish liberal mind set to send such an expensive capital vessel out with such deficincies.
You’d think they’d remember that predators prefer to cull the weakest member from a herd.
Patrol craft are brown water. When we had corvettes it was just another name for a destroyer. I was referring to blue water vessels.
I would hardly include patrol craft (including ridged inflatables) in the same catagory as this destroyer.
It depends, as I said earlier, on whether you categorise warships on size (US Navy) or function (RN). If you are into size it goes Patrol craft-corvette-frigate-destroyer. The fact that the US navy no longer has any corvettes is because they dont see any need for such a small surface combatant. Foreign navies, particularly those that type on function, still do. There are plenty of 1000 ton plus ocean going patrol craft about. The French still use corvettes, allegedly to police their vast colonial empire (??)
IARN Saladin (formerly HMS DARING) is the pride of the Islamic Republic of Anglistan People’s Navy...
It looks like the Brits are borrowing a page from the USN book, which is to call a Cruiser a Destroyer. Congress will not fund Cruisers, since they are so costly, but will fund the "cheaper" (1 billion +) "Destroyers".
Traditionally, "cruisers" weighed in at 17,000 tons, twice the size of HMS Daring.
Our C.O. on the USS Long Beach (CGN-9), 15,500 tons, liked to refer to the ship as "the only real cruiser in the Navy" as the Virginia class cruisers had the displacement of traditional frigates and the Ticonderoga class cruisers had the displacement of traditional destroyers.
There are plenty of 1000 ton plus ocean going patrol craft about.
There are a lot of ocean going vessels well under 1000 tons. The US Army has a fleet under 800 tons. If coastal patrol craft are included why not include armed Boston whalers and ridged inflatables? I served on an ocean tugboat with a Boston whaler work boat - and we used it in the ocean. The LCUs I sailed on spent a lot of time on open ocean runs. I even ran a Mike 8 between Japan and Okinawa, a few times during typhoons.
And, like USN ships, it's so expensive you only get a few.
As soon as China figures out how to sink these babies, the mistake will be realized, too late.
Yeah what Im saying is that there are “patrol craft” around that are fairly significant surface combatants of today. I mean, there were destroyers in WWII that were no bigger (and quite a few even smaller).
These things are very hard to accurately describe because there is probably less of a consensus internationally as to what constitutes a “frigate”, “destroyer”, “corvette” or whatever now than there probably ever has been before. I personally would describe a patrol craft as a moderately fast sea-going gun armed (only) warship, probably with some kind of helicopter carrying (or at least refueling) capacity.
Its actually a pretty big destroyer...at 8000tons plus its basically the size of a WW2 medium sized cruiser.
I take your point about numbers though. I too think we would probably be better off with larger numbers of smaller warships. The only problem with such a strategy is that individually such ships are much more vulnerable to attack and therefore advserse publicity - which seems to be almost more important than actual fighting in this information age.
We will have over fifty very capable and modern AEGIS destroyers and 24 AEGIS cruisers with 11-12 Carrier battle groups and 11-12 Phibrons. In addition, if the LCS can actually get into production, we will end up with fifty plus very capable frigate sized vessels.
Not to mention well over fifty very capable nuclear attack subs.
Those are still formidable numbers in today's world.
Just the same, your point is well taken. The Chinese are rapidly developing and building their own new ships in numbers and ultimately, the numbers game can tell.
IMHO, we need to get back to Ronald Reagan's vision of a 600 ship Navy with well over half of them being major surface (and sub-surface combatants).
They may not have to tap their biscuits any more ...
but they’ll still, on occasion, have to choose the lesser of two weevils.
HMS Daring eases through first sea trials
By Thomas Harding on HMS Daring
Last Updated: 3:57am BST 20/08/2007
I knew it!
The beginning of the fine surrender tradition.
I haven't seen that spec yet either, but isn't that sort of thing regarded as secret on modern warships?
I knew it!
The beginning of the fine surrender tradition.
I don't know, let's ask the NYT.
If this is a ping list, kindly remove me.
I personally would describe a patrol craft as a moderately fast sea-going gun armed (only) warship, probably with some kind of helicopter carrying (or at least refueling) capacity.
Being an old timer I'd define a patrol craft as a vessel designed to patrol a river or harbor with a limited coastal mission. The above definition would have applied to nearly every ship but carriers in the old Navy.
The first destroyers I encountered were off the coast of Viet Nam forty years ago. I look at today's destroyers and they seem more like the old cruisers than destroyers in size Guns seem to be relegated to the role of maintaining tradition. I havent run into a Navy GMG in years.
My war was a long time ago - and we depended on Naval gunfire for a lot of our support. A destroyer could stand near our operation and deliver a massive number of five inch shells in a matter of minutes. A gun cruiser was reason for celebration. Trouble from a tree line? Call on the Navy and the trees would disappear. Tunnels and holes on a hill? Call on the Navy and the problem would ease if not disappear. We even preferred the old prop A-1 Sky Raider to the jets. It could hang around for hours. Jets came in, dropped a load and had to leave to refuel.
Am I starting to cry in my morning coffee? Maybe. Before I retired the Army went to high tech for the sake of high tech - following the lead of the Navy. I noticed the trend in the very early 80s. Some of what we bought for the sake of high tech was junk - the LACV 30 was a good example.
It’s all show. The once proud Brits are now a nation of useless wimps who kiss the arse of Muslims.I’m sure they would have to bring a team of lawyers with them on the ship to make sure that they don’t offend anyone in battle. I’m surprised it wasen’t named the HMS Mohammad .
thank you for those few kind words...
The functions of the designations change with time. “Destroyer” is actually short for “torpedo boat destroyer” and was a ship designed to protect battleships from nasty little torpedo boats back at the turn of the 20th century, when these things were becoming quite a threat. Then it was realised that they were better at delivering the torpedo attacks themselves than the torpedo boats were, so they took that role on for WW1. Then come WW2 they were pressed into service as sub hunters (largely because there were lots of them) and then they became general purpose escorts, and now (in the RN anyway) anti-aircraft ships.
Guns are still useful. Missiles are more accurate and destructive and have a much longer range, but guns are cheaper and much more versatile. You got to remember that the single Mk45 5” gun on US destroyers today shoots further than the old 5” guns of the Viet Nam era, will certainly be far more accurate, and can probably pump out as many shells as three or four of the older guns. Still I take your point - the worlds navies have largely given up on naval gunfire support. In the era of the guided missile its reckoned to be too dangerous for ships to loiter close to a hostile shore. Ground support is a job for the flyboys now.
Ground support is a job for the flyboys now.
Yep. Most naval assets seem to be dedicated to protecting the carriers. Fortunately the Army and Marines have their own air assets available - and dont depend on airports. Carriers have to be concerned with their own safety first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.