Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Also, naval battles (of which there have been precious few since WW2) are no longer conducted by lines of opposing battleships lobbing shells at each other. The aircraft carrier, not the battleship, is the capital ship of a modern blue-water navy and a major international naval confrontation would look more like the Battle of Midway than the Battle of Jutland.

In any case, there are no battleships left anywhere in the world since USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin were retired. HMS Dauntless is an air defence destroyer and in that role, guided missiles designed to take down aeroplanes are the primary armament. Incidentally, she has the capability to down every military warplane in the whole of Latin America, if that helps shed a little light on why the Argentines are so peeved.

Okay. Stupid question time...

According to wiki the Dauntless has a 48 missile array. Does that mean they have loads more below deck, or do they only carry 48? If the latter, how do they shoot down every military warplane in Latin America with just 48 missiles?

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

It's never to late to cancel or postpone

Even if they are half built?

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Okay. Stupid question time...

According to wiki the Dauntless has a 48 missile array. Does that mean they have loads more below deck, or do they only carry 48? If the latter, how do they shoot down every military warplane in Latin America with just 48 missiles?

I'm sure Kymmy will be able to explain this better, and correct me if I'm wrong. But the way I understand it is that it can in theory launch up to 48 missiles at the same time. And that it has plenty more in the stores.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Even if they are half built?

Yep

[Kymmy]

Yep, just look at the 2nd one, already slated to be partially built and mothballed which means it might never be used and could be sold in 20+ years time without being fully outfitted

Originally Posted by danielf

Okay. Stupid question time...

According to wiki the Dauntless has a 48 missile array. Does that mean they have loads more below deck, or do they only carry 48? If the latter, how do they shoot down every military warplane in Latin America with just 48 missiles?

i think that refers to the amount of missiles it can launch in one salvo ,there should be many more below decks waiting to be used .

I say should because this article suggests that the navy is a bit stingy when allocating missile quantities ,at least for the subs so the chances are that Dauntless is only carrying enough for one salvo

The Navy could run out of Tomahawk missiles after a fifth of the Navy stockpile has been used against Libya, sources disclosed yesterday.
Defence insiders say as many as 12 of the weapons have been fired from the hunter–killer submarine Triumph in the past four days.

If this is correct, the Navy will have used up to 20 per cent of its 64 Tomahawks in the opening salvos of the war, leading to fears that it is "burning through" its armoury.

[Kymmy]

The 48 is the cells loaded at any one time.. this could be a combination of Aster 15 or 30 missiles.

8 of these can be launched every 10 seconds so probably as fast as they can designate targets they can launch.

You also have to remember that the only way of attacking the ship is either via old subs or via exocet. There's only a couple of dozen (if all are flyable which reports suggest they're not) of planes capable of launching the exocet (phlanx(if fitted) or aster15 should deal with them if launched) and although they launch below the horizon they have to pop-up to aquire, it's not the missile system which they will be susceptible to but more than likely the Dauntless in that instance will be used as a targetting system for the typhoons to take out. Especially as the subsonic aircraft won't be able to make it back to base before a typhoon shoves a AMRAAM up it's backside..

Daunless is just part of the system and not the only part with teeth

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I say should because this article suggests that the navy is a bit stingy when allocating missile quantities ,at least for the subs so the chances are that Dauntless is only carrying enough for one salvo

Lets for example say that Argentine has just lost a quarter of it's aircraft without getting close.. Dauntless has now exhuasted the cell launcher.. Argies wouldn't know and probably wouldn't let any more aircraft near the ship long before the cell is exhausted

Even then as I said above daultless makes a good command centre for the typhoons from the falklands to provide cover..

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Yep

That would be a complete waste of money

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

That would be a complete waste of money

The problem is that departments like the MOD work on long term budgets .The carriers in question where commisioned under the labour government ,now we have a new government with a different set of financial obligations .If the project has cost £1billion up to now(example) with £2billion left to spend for completion it rapidly becomes clear that scrapping the whole project will save a lot of money especially when operating costs are taken into account.Yes they have wasted £1billion but saved 2+ billion over a number of years which is all they are interested in .

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

It's never to late to cancel or postpone

As has been seen many times in the past.

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:02 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

The problem is that departments like the MOD work on long term budgets .The carriers in question where commisioned under the labour government ,now we have a new government with a different set of financial obligations .If the project has cost £1billion up to now(example) with £2billion left to spend for completion it rapidly becomes clear that scrapping the whole project will save a lot of money especially when operating costs are taken into account.Yes they have wasted £1billion but saved 2+ billion over a number of years which is all they are interested in .

Correct and the same problems would apply to any massively expensive long term project whether military or otherwise. It can just boil down to the lesser of two evils.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

The problem is that departments like the MOD work on long term budgets .The carriers in question where commisioned under the labour government ,now we have a new government with a different set of financial obligations .If the project has cost £1billion up to now(example) with £2billion left to spend for completion it rapidly becomes clear that scrapping the whole project will save a lot of money especially when operating costs are taken into account.Yes they have wasted £1billion but saved 2+ billion over a number of years which is all they are interested in .

Agreed...unless the next goverment decides that we need carriers again.

[Osem]

As I understand it the current plan is that the first of the new carriers is due to enter service in 2016 with only a helicopter capability. This is because, despite being new, it isn't suitable for the aircraft the UK wants to buy for the role. It was cheaper to build the ship than cancel it. The second ship will enter service in 2020 at which point the first will be mothballed and/or sold unless there's a change of mind within HMG.

http://seawavesmagazine.blogspot.co....ay-not-be.html

The whole thing is a shambles made worse by the harsh economic realities HMG inherited. God only knows how it'll turn out.

[DocDutch]

To reload the cells the boat would have to dock into the harbour and with cranes lift in the new cells that is if the navy has got any near the falklands otherwise nearest reload would be in Plymouth

[danielf]

So Dauntless being able to take out every military war plane in South America is a bit of an exaggeration?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by danielf

So Dauntless being able to take out every military war plane in South America is a bit of an exaggeration?

It could but only with a very good supply of the weapons needed, Considering this could turn out to be all about oil i can see those weapons being supplied. Strange that the yanks have not got an aircraft carrier or three off the coast of the Falklands yet.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Sirius

It could but only with a very good supply of the weapons needed, Considering this could turn out to be all about oil i can see those weapons being supplied. Strange that the yanks have not got an aircraft carrier or three off the coast of the Falklands yet.

Why would they? They aren't supporting us on this unfortunately.