HMS Dauntless...
 

...going to the Falklands.

Goody, here we go.

It could sit 12 miles off any enemy airbase and splash anything that takes off. that should rattle their cages.

And Harpoon, although I doubt that will happen. Two Lynx with Sea Skua will have to do.

It's probably going to the gulf anyway, just messing with the Argentinians for a giggle....

Fantom, "goody here we go" really?
Ask any of the vetetans from the 82conflict if they share your naive enthusiasm!

You are too quick.

Goody 1: We still have something to send,
Goody 2: It is being sent to protect our interests.

Or would you rather we do nothing?

Much too much being read into this. According to the BBC story, Dauntless will be routinely deployed to the Falklands in due course.

So, just like HMS Montrose replaced HMS Edinburgh at the end of last year, it sounds like Dauntless will be here when the Montrose has done her time.

Enemy only understands one thing which is force and the willingness to use it. The govt are doing the right thing, lets make sure she's tool'd up for the job and let enemy see her off their coast.

On the one hand it could be considered routine.

On the other hand we're replacing a T23 with a T45. Earlier posters in the other thread were commenting on the lack of air defence radar on the islands, Dauntless plugs that gap and allows us to monitor all air traffic right back to the mainland. That's not a replacement, that's an upgrade.

Hmm given that T23 replaced T42, I don't see why replacing T23 with T45 is anything particularly significant given the numbers of T42 left...? As for lack of air defence radar, umm.... maybe I mistook those big golf balls in the hills for something else?

Are all of her systems actually fitted and functioning or was she obtained through the "Smart Procurement" process?

12 miles...that's a little close for comfort isn't it?

If it was too dangerous to even get airborne, I'd just park the jet on the end of the runway pointing out to sea, makes the Butt (sp?) switch and loose off a couple of anti-ship missiles if that were the case. :}

I do hope the ijot who decided the Harriers' demise is shuffling nervously in the corridors of power.If it all kicks off and the Argies do lob one onto Stanleys runway scratch the use of 4 Typhoons..wheres our air defence then...you cant rely on one super sophisticated warship. I'd like to think some one somewhere is earning their pay and coming up with a preemptive plan....but somehow I think not...If there are huge oil reserves to be tapped into then we need to bolster the islands defences in the long term.Just how many aircraft could the type 45 defend at the same time anyway?

You really want the answer to that on an open forum?

Quote:
Just how many aircraft could the type 45 defend at the same time anyway?

But, how many combat capable anti-ship aircraft could Argentina REALISTICALLY sortie at one time anyway?

HQ2,

depends how much warning they get, and how much they get to hit the credit card for spares.

despite all the nay-sayers about slagging the argentines down for being chaotic and unable to shoot themselves in the foot, let alone invade, there's only one country invovled in this dispute that has doubled its defence budget in the last two years, and they haven't bought any tanks.

the open sourse stuff i've read suggests twenty airworthy fast jets with 10 or so those at some degree or other of combat capability. the problem is of course that the FI AD set-up won't be able to tell which jets are merely airworthy, and which are dangerous. any RAF officer who couldn't come up with a plan to do the deed with those assets facing an adversary with four fast jets, probably quite restrictive ROE, one tanker, one runway and no AWACS ought to be applying for redundancy...

And which ship will replace HMS Dauntless, the day after Flt Lt Wales finishes his detachment?

Probably operating from the same airfield that the AD force has been using for..oh..about 25 years. Clue..it's not Stanley.

:ugh::ugh:

Not only that - MPA could take an absolute pounding before there isn't enough concrete left for a Typhoon to get airborne off a minimum operating strip. With the number of aircraft available to the Argies, airfield denial would need a comprehensive GPS-guided bomb plot to 'plink' all the critical intersections and taxyways. A 'lucky' bomb from a stick straddling the runway just won't cut it - success with dumb bombs would required dozens and dozens of missions to get over the target, highly unlikely I would suggest...

It's almost like they designed it that way :ok:

Not only that - MPA could take an absolute pounding before there isn't enough concrete left for a Typhoon to get airborne off a minimum operating strip. With the number of aircraft available to the Argies, airfield denial would need a comprehensive GPS-guided bomb plot to 'plink' all the critical intersections and taxyways. A 'lucky' bomb from a stick straddling the runway just won't cut it - success with dumb bombs would required dozens and dozens of missions to get over the target, highly unlikely I would suggest...

It's almost like they designed it that way http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif

Probably did design it that way...........Which makes it such a shame that any attacker from any country (unless they were 'light blue' minded attackers) would not waste their time bothering to attack the concrete runway/taxiways.

It does get a bit silly listening to folks wondering how any baddies would prevent aircraft from operating by using other aircraft, when for many years there have been VERY cheap and VERY quick and easy ways to render all Falklands airfields useless for defence in about 10-20 minutes (by green minded attackers). Plus, by simply destrying aircraft on the ground, or as they leave the threshold it then leaves the strip usable for the new occupiers.

I have heard many stories from light blue or green airfield defenders how naughty men in cammed up faces can get in and around airfields pretty easily........I wonder if the Argentinians have thought about using men like this....Of course they have......And with modern kit they don't even have to get close to guarantee destroying the aircraft.

Sorry to dampen all you warmongerers but lets be honest there wont be another war down there anytime soon! Dauntless is just a gentle reminder.

Jayand,

could you sort me out with fridays eurolottery numbers - but by PM is you can, i don't want to share it with all these perverts and drunkards!

Amazingly it can shoot down missiles as well as aircraft.

I think the problem is that the advances in technology aren't readily obvious, but suffice to say that a single T45 is more capable in the air defence role than everything sent down in 82.

Thats all fine but 40 missiles followed by same followed by same and pretty much end of ball game as MOD is not keeping hundreds on board.

Relying on defence assets is great but they all have to work at the same time and keep doing so................

Lets hope they've issued this ship more than 4 missiles...:hmm:

And lets hope the CIWS/Phalanx/Goalkeepers have finally been fitted too....

Phalanx fitted last summer.

Hmm whether she runs out of reloads or targets first methinks....

Seeing as how no Navy has EVER had to face an attack by anywhere near 40 missiles at the same time in the missile age I think that T45 with its 48 Sea Vipers will be fine. Isn't that more missiles than the Argentines have fast jets?

Lets hope the bean counters have given them a full magazine and a few reloads.

Otherwise it's cowpats at 25 yards:E

No Navy ever lost a ship to an airplane until the 1st one.........

Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it will never be done.

USS Cole lost out to something a lot less than a missile.

Maybe so, but eggs and baskets spring to mind in this scenario.

48 missiles but only 8 launchers?
How fast can it reload?
DON'T answer that - hypothetical / rhetorical point only

"48 missiles but only 8 launchers?"

Irrespective of your question being "hypothetical / rhetorical", what launchers and what reload? The Type 45 has a VLS (Vertical Launch System) incorporating silos. 48 Sea Vipers in a VLS is a vast improvement on a twin launcher with 22 Sea Darts (Type 42 Batches 2 & 3) or 40 Sea Darts (Type 42 Batch 3).

The classic layer-defence system would have CAP taking out most of the shooters (air or surface) before they got within target acquisition / identification range anyway leaving the Type 45 to deal with any leakers with its hard kill and soft kill countermeasures.

Each launcher has 8 slots and there are 6 on the deck, hence 48 slots.

Should the entire Argentine air force arrive, all 48 could be fired in 10 seconds.

The classic layer-defence system would have CAP taking out most of the shooters (air or surface) before they got within target acquisition / identification range anyway

Anyone care to spot the obvious capability holiday?

Bear in mind that target acquisition is now 'when they take off', so unless you're planning a bombing mission on the mainland I don't see how that would work.

Are all of her systems actually fitted and functioning or was she obtained through the "Smart Procurement" process?


My thoughts exactly.

"for many years there have been VERY cheap and VERY quick and easy ways to render all Falklands airfields useless for defence in about 10-20 minutes (by green minded attackers)."

Quite.

Shout "Fore!" and use a driver off the tee?

The T-45 has no "launchers", irregardless of what that article mistakenly says.

The VLS cells come in a "box" of 6, there are 8 "boxes" aboard... but all 48 cells have their own lid, and the missiles inside can fire independently of any other cell.