HMS Sheffield -Declassified Report
All of which conveniently ignores the fact that the best defence against air & missile attack for a naval force has always been (preferably organic) AEW and DCA fighters. Something which someone else had said they'd provide. But couldn't. And still can't.
I suspect that most western navies (and their systems at the time) would have struggled against that threat.
I suspect that most western navies (and their systems at the time) would have struggled against that threat.
Returning to the RAF notion, are you really saying we had RN ships bobbing about hundreds of miles or more from land expecting the RAF to provide a defensive CAP?
Far from it. You don't come in at low level with a long range stand off missile - particularly ones with the flight profile of AS4/AS6. Which is why the USN based their fleet defence around F14+AIM54/E2/EA6 as the Outer Air Battle. LL threats would primarily be tacair and much shorter range weapons. Either way, the best counter to the threat is AEW and DCA (or are you disputing that?) - something that the RN had, but was then removed with the explicit promise that "someone else" would defend the fleet. That is indisputable fact. No credible Navy attempts to operate against a serious air threat without DCA of its own. Indeed Corporate only served to validate that tenet. So late 70s, early 80s, DCA was most definitely required to defend the amphibious force - and given that the RN had lost it's carriers, that could only come from two sources, USN CVBG or land-based air (be that Noggie, RAF from Lossie/Leuchars or USAF from Keflavik).
I note you haven't addressed the ability of other contemporary systems/navies to address that threat, probably because it denudes your argument that it was all down to RN arrogance.
Still, never mind.
I note you haven't addressed the ability of other contemporary systems/navies to address that threat, probably because it denudes your argument that it was all down to RN arrogance.
Still, never mind.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm certain there is a vast difference. Nevertheless, in one case the ship was abandoned/evacuated by her crew and taken under tow by another vessel. And in the other case the crew was able to control the damage, maintain power, and steam away under her own power. And in the case of the abandoned ship the senior officers were never punished or even censured in any way, while in the other case two senior officers were sacked. I personally don't see how the relative locations of the two incidents account for those differences.
Last edited by KenV; 31st Oct 2017 at 12:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One was an "unfortunate incident" in a war we won - the other was a one off with no other news around it.... you can appreciate why there was a reluctance to spoil the narrative......
If you are pointing at the US Navy - well they had their 'gulp' moment regarding the threat posed by the Soviet aircraft at the turn of the '70s. Phalanx CIWS prototypes were being evaluated on land by 1972 and afloat by '73. By the Falklands the system had been in full production for a number of years. Their leap forward in integrated combat systems and associated radars & missiles was arguably even more significant.
Meanwhile we were producing Type 42s.
Well aware of Soviet naval SAM capabilities, thanks. Used to have to do WEP to achieve useful Pk against them. That said, late 70s early 80s, they were only just bringing SAN7 into service. It's predecessors were SAN3 and SAN4 both of which were broadly equivalent to GWS30 in terms of technology (if not engagement envelope) and both of which suffered from the same launcher type / CoF restrictions. So highly unlikely to have been any more effective.
Likewise, the USN. In 1982, their state of the art AD ships were the SM1/SM2 fitted CGN - again with limited launcher and CoF. They didn't get SPY1 till 1983 and VLS a few years later. Incidentally, not necessarily particularly effective against sea-skimmers either.....
Nor were USN Phalanx fits particularly prevalent until the mid-80s. Just like GWS25 which was designed and fielded over a similar period, but a very different solution to the same problem.
The Sov philosophy of covering their ships with SAMs and guns like AK630 was also partly due to their recognition that they would be fighting at a disadvantage in terms of air cover. It also had the slightly unfortunate effect of making their ships very large (~8000te). Given that the RN is castigated every time it tries to buy "large ships" it is perhaps no wonder that we were still producing Type 42s. With their very highly regarded ADAWS C2 system and one of only four nations (IIRC) able to design and build Area AD naval SAM.
So, other than having similar SAM systems to the two superpowers of the time, but on much smaller ships on cost grounds and having to fight without a major component of capability (AEW), it was obviously all down to RN arrogance.
Likewise, the USN. In 1982, their state of the art AD ships were the SM1/SM2 fitted CGN - again with limited launcher and CoF. They didn't get SPY1 till 1983 and VLS a few years later. Incidentally, not necessarily particularly effective against sea-skimmers either.....
Nor were USN Phalanx fits particularly prevalent until the mid-80s. Just like GWS25 which was designed and fielded over a similar period, but a very different solution to the same problem.
The Sov philosophy of covering their ships with SAMs and guns like AK630 was also partly due to their recognition that they would be fighting at a disadvantage in terms of air cover. It also had the slightly unfortunate effect of making their ships very large (~8000te). Given that the RN is castigated every time it tries to buy "large ships" it is perhaps no wonder that we were still producing Type 42s. With their very highly regarded ADAWS C2 system and one of only four nations (IIRC) able to design and build Area AD naval SAM.
So, other than having similar SAM systems to the two superpowers of the time, but on much smaller ships on cost grounds and having to fight without a major component of capability (AEW), it was obviously all down to RN arrogance.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 31st Oct 2017 at 13:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Soviet ships may have been big butthey were covered in weapons - the RN ships had (comparitively) very few weapons at all.....................
Look at the T45 now -7000 tons full displacement, 48 Surface to air missiles, no Surface-to-surface missiles, 1 gun and 2 x Phalanx
Udaloy II (commisioned 1999) - 9000 ton max displacement
8 x SSM, 8 x SAM, Anti sub Missiles, 8x torpedos, 2x Anti sub mortars 2 Gun turret
Or the Gephard Frigates (2012) 2000 ton displacement 8 x SSM, 2x SAM, 4 torpedo, 1 gun, 1 Anti sub mortar, 48 mines
and our allies have
Forbin FDA class - (2011) 7000 ton max displacement 8 x SSM, 48 x SAM, 2 guns, 2 torpedo, 2 close in guns
Look at the T45 now -7000 tons full displacement, 48 Surface to air missiles, no Surface-to-surface missiles, 1 gun and 2 x Phalanx
Udaloy II (commisioned 1999) - 9000 ton max displacement
8 x SSM, 8 x SAM, Anti sub Missiles, 8x torpedos, 2x Anti sub mortars 2 Gun turret
Or the Gephard Frigates (2012) 2000 ton displacement 8 x SSM, 2x SAM, 4 torpedo, 1 gun, 1 Anti sub mortar, 48 mines
and our allies have
Forbin FDA class - (2011) 7000 ton max displacement 8 x SSM, 48 x SAM, 2 guns, 2 torpedo, 2 close in guns
Well Soviet ships may have been big butthey were covered in weapons - the RN ships had (comparitively) very few weapons at all.....................
Look at the T45 now -7000 tons full displacement, 48 Surface to air missiles, no Surface-to-surface missiles, 1 gun and 2 x Phalanx
Udaloy II (commisioned 1999) - 9000 ton max displacement
8 x SSM, 8 x SAM, Anti sub Missiles, 8x torpedos, 2x Anti sub mortars 2 Gun turret
Or the Gephard Frigates (2012) 2000 ton displacement 8 x SSM, 2x SAM, 4 torpedo, 1 gun, 1 Anti sub mortar, 48 mines
and our allies have
Forbin FDA class - (2011) 7000 ton max displacement 8 x SSM, 48 x SAM, 2 guns, 2 torpedo, 2 close in guns
Look at the T45 now -7000 tons full displacement, 48 Surface to air missiles, no Surface-to-surface missiles, 1 gun and 2 x Phalanx
Udaloy II (commisioned 1999) - 9000 ton max displacement
8 x SSM, 8 x SAM, Anti sub Missiles, 8x torpedos, 2x Anti sub mortars 2 Gun turret
Or the Gephard Frigates (2012) 2000 ton displacement 8 x SSM, 2x SAM, 4 torpedo, 1 gun, 1 Anti sub mortar, 48 mines
and our allies have
Forbin FDA class - (2011) 7000 ton max displacement 8 x SSM, 48 x SAM, 2 guns, 2 torpedo, 2 close in guns
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well 3 of the T45' s have Harpoon but only until next year when the system is going to be withdrawn................. and those systems were scabbed from the T22's.......
You have a point re the old Soviet Navy but we're not even as heavily armed as the French and Italian vessels and it's not new - the old County Class were seriously underarmed as well for their day....................
as for "built on a 'fire one salvo before we lose it' approach." sounds like Jackie Fisher "Hit first ! Hit hard !"
You have a point re the old Soviet Navy but we're not even as heavily armed as the French and Italian vessels and it's not new - the old County Class were seriously underarmed as well for their day....................
as for "built on a 'fire one salvo before we lose it' approach." sounds like Jackie Fisher "Hit first ! Hit hard !"
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think the RN losing its AD missiles is a good thing. This possibly inflammatory opinion is based on numerous JMC, TASMO and MACEX sorties where the aim of the game was to get through the gate without being (exercise) engaged by the people you were supposed to be supporting! Far too many such sorties went into the 'unsuccessful' bucket for this reason.
"Hit hard! Hit fast! Hit anything!" (RN Manual of Air Defence at Sea, 1980, Vol 2)
"Hit hard! Hit fast! Hit anything!" (RN Manual of Air Defence at Sea, 1980, Vol 2)
Reminds we of the wonderful quote from a British comedy film which included illustrating a WW2 U.K.AAA battery:
" Two bob for every one you shoot down lads!!"
.
.
.
"Half a crown if it's German."
" Two bob for every one you shoot down lads!!"
.
.
.
"Half a crown if it's German."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, Fortissimo!
Roger Waitout and his cronies were never where they said they'd be, nor going in the briefed direction, nor able to recognise friendly traffic at the Gate! But they'd often invent yet another way of trying to confuse everyone about which of the handful of available frequencies would be in use...
On one JMC, the NATO AWACS crew told the fish-heads that the next time they were engaged by dark blue on blue, they'd RTB, fly an approach and return to the exercise area, leaving the boat people without any AEW for the entire period. Which got their attention!
Roger Waitout and his cronies were never where they said they'd be, nor going in the briefed direction, nor able to recognise friendly traffic at the Gate! But they'd often invent yet another way of trying to confuse everyone about which of the handful of available frequencies would be in use...
On one JMC, the NATO AWACS crew told the fish-heads that the next time they were engaged by dark blue on blue, they'd RTB, fly an approach and return to the exercise area, leaving the boat people without any AEW for the entire period. Which got their attention!
Suspicion breeds confidence
A couple of points if I may.
Soviet ships always looked top heavy because of the need to duplicate just about everything due to the unreliability of their systems. They are still a decade behind the west in most cases in terms of sensors.
The T42s were designed specifically and exclusively to counter the Soviet threat from medium to high level. That is what the budget was spent on and for the most part it worked pretty well.
Soviet ships always looked top heavy because of the need to duplicate just about everything due to the unreliability of their systems. They are still a decade behind the west in most cases in terms of sensors.
The T42s were designed specifically and exclusively to counter the Soviet threat from medium to high level. That is what the budget was spent on and for the most part it worked pretty well.
Source: House of Commons Hansard; posted Oct 15, 2017)
Question Asked by Andrew Bowie
(MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
on: 14 September 2017
Ministry of Defence -- Antiship Missiles (n° 105167)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the Royal Navy's decision to withdraw the Harpoon anti-ship missile by the end of 2018 on the capabilities of the Royal Navy.
Answer:
Answered by: Harriett Baldwin on 10 October 2017
The Royal Navy continuously reviews the capabilities it requires. While work is in hand to consider options for the replacement of the Harpoon missile system, the Navy has decided to extend its service life beyond 2018.
Question Asked by Andrew Bowie
(MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
on: 14 September 2017
Ministry of Defence -- Antiship Missiles (n° 105167)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the Royal Navy's decision to withdraw the Harpoon anti-ship missile by the end of 2018 on the capabilities of the Royal Navy.
Answer:
Answered by: Harriett Baldwin on 10 October 2017
The Royal Navy continuously reviews the capabilities it requires. While work is in hand to consider options for the replacement of the Harpoon missile system, the Navy has decided to extend its service life beyond 2018.
The RN has deferred a decision to retire its Harpoon anti-ship missiles The move will partially alleviate a capability gap in RN anti-ship missile capabilities Boeing Harpoon heavy anti-ship missiles will remain in service on Royal Navy (RN) Type 23 frigates after the UK Ministry of Defence deferred a decision to retire the weapon in 2018 without replacement.
Speaking at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) 2017 defence exhibition, held in London from 11-15 September, senior RN sources told Jane’s the sea-skimming GWS 60/Harpoon Block 1C missiles would remain in service at least until 2020. “There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension in service,” said one source.
Speaking at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) 2017 defence exhibition, held in London from 11-15 September, senior RN sources told Jane’s the sea-skimming GWS 60/Harpoon Block 1C missiles would remain in service at least until 2020. “There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension in service,” said one source.
A couple of points if I may.
Soviet ships always looked top heavy because of the need to duplicate just about everything due to the unreliability of their systems. They are still a decade behind the west in most cases in terms of sensors.
Soviet ships always looked top heavy because of the need to duplicate just about everything due to the unreliability of their systems. They are still a decade behind the west in most cases in terms of sensors.
A. Normally works when you switch it on 999 times out of 1000 and..
B. ...Has quite easy to use manual over-rides on everything which allow you to shoot a weapon off if the electo-mechanical computer has a fit due to ECM thanks to almost everything having a TV camera aiming system fitted (unlike Sea Wolf and its software driven sulks in 1982).
Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 4th Nov 2017 at 14:14.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points if I may.
Soviet ships always looked top heavy because of the need to duplicate just about everything due to the unreliability of their systems. They are still a decade behind the west in most cases in terms of sensors.
The T42s were designed specifically and exclusively to counter the Soviet threat from medium to high level. That is what the budget was spent on and for the most part it worked pretty well.
Soviet ships always looked top heavy because of the need to duplicate just about everything due to the unreliability of their systems. They are still a decade behind the west in most cases in terms of sensors.
The T42s were designed specifically and exclusively to counter the Soviet threat from medium to high level. That is what the budget was spent on and for the most part it worked pretty well.
