what does the RAF have left that ..

[Dave Fleming]

my point is we dont now have a dedicated anti shipping weapon / aircraft why? many other countries have them including germany! surely a island nation with overseas island territories should have some form of dedicated weapon

for me this was a fact finding question for use in a future WIF build im doing and has given me options and ideas

what i have gained is that a anti ship missile would be good but..... if not anything else that goes bang will work it 1, enough of them are put on target and 2 we are ready to take losses

The Harpoon capacity was withdrawn from the Nimrod in 2004. The bean counters, sorry, strategic planners decided that we were unlikely to face a blue water naval threat that could not be dealt with more effectively by submarine/ship launched weapons, or from RN Helicopter launched weapons (Sea Skua)

[heloman1]

Someone at MOD has found a hanger full of low hours Javelins, the idea is to build linear radar into the leading edges of the wings and Sea eagle radar form the obsolete Sea harriers in the nose and equip it with Harpoon missiles. Alternately redundant Canberra glass noses for a prone missile aimer, the strength of the Javelin will allow it to fly low level ala the Buccaneer! Painted like an F-35 it will endow it with shot take off capability!

Colin on Africa Station

[Mark M]

Someone at MOD has found a hanger full of low hours Javelins, the idea is to build linear radar into the leading edges of the wings and Sea eagle radar form the obsolete Sea harriers in the nose and equip it with Harpoon missiles. Alternately redundant Canberra glass noses for a prone missile aimer, the strength of the Javelin will allow it to fly low level ala the Buccaneer! Painted like an F-35 it will endow it with shot take off capability!

Colin on Africa Station

now there s a though for an aircraft to join my 'Atlantian' airforce

Edited November 14, 2011 by markmarples

[Wafu]

Boy's, Boy's, Boy's, what we seem to be overlooking is the expendability of RN/RAF aircrew. Having seen a Westland Wasp and Westland Sea King fitted with the big bucket of sunshine it makes you realise that getting the aircrew and Aircraft back is not always on the minds of the Gold Top's.

Let's face it it's all down hill from here.

With that its bye from me the Woo.

[Irishgreek]

Could always call the French to use their big, shiny carrier and it's air wing...

[Speckled Jim]

So what in reality we need is an Unmanned drone equipped with an EMP bomb, dropped strategically near the middle of the enemy fleet?

James

[Mark M]

So what in reality we need is an Unmanned drone equipped with an EMP bomb, dropped strategically near the middle of the enemy fleet?

James

you have just given me a plan

[Speckled Jim]

Good.... you can Call me Baldrick

[Julien]

You could always drop a paveway III, that will glide about 10 miles I seem to recall.

Of course you would have to have someone lase the target as its moving.

Julien

[Julien]

Considering that apart from the big soviet types no ASM missile can sink a major warship anyway,

I have a friend who was on HMS Sheffield who might argue that point with you.

Also as well as the Russian/Soviet weapons the Chinese still use Anti Ship missiles and indeed have developed the worlds first Ballistic ASM if the various reports are to be believed.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/09/29/ch...are-for-the-us/

Julien

[Giorgio N]

I have a friend who was on HMS Sheffield who might argue that point with you.

We could argue if at less than 5,000 ton displacement the type 42 could really be considered major warships... However even with its limited size the Sheffield was not sunk by the exocet although it was completely disabled. From an operational point of view it makes no difference, as even if the hull could have probably been saved in calmer seas, at that point it would have required a total reconstruction to be back in service.

USS Stark, slightly larger but with lower displacement than Sheffield, was hit by two exocets (one exploded, the other didn't) and while the ship was disabled, it could return to port under its own power after temporary repairs.

You're right about the chinese, that further developed some russian designs, produced their own and have sold them to many users around the world. HMS Gloucester destroyed one of these during GW1 with a Sea Dart while escorting USS New Jersey. Makes sense as for china, as it was or the soviet union, these missiles are a way to counter the USN carriers. In the west there's never been such a requirement, although the anti-ship Tomahawk have quite a big warhead.

[SkippyBing]

We could argue if at less than 5,000 ton displacement the type 42 could really be considered major warships...

I tried that once with the CO of YORK, I didn't get very far...

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

Someone at MOD has found a hanger full of low hours Javelins, the idea is to build linear radar into the leading edges of the wings and Sea eagle radar form the obsolete Sea harriers in the nose and equip it with Harpoon missiles. Alternately redundant Canberra glass noses for a prone missile aimer, the strength of the Javelin will allow it to fly low level ala the Buccaneer! Painted like an F-35 it will endow it with shot take off capability!

Colin on Africa Station

Sorry Colin, these are earmarked for 151 Sqn,SDF (Scottish Defence Force) along with the Wessex which were in the next hangar.

Everybody has forgotton that the onward march of privatisation resulted in the cancellation of the P-8 and the leasing of Ryanair 737s instead. These will have a new two stage weapon which finishes the last 50 miles by bus! A well know decal company have a PFI contract to supply the markings which will be stored until time of conflict.

(Well the truth of this subject is too depressing so might as well joke)

Richard on the Western Approaches.

[gary1701]

Gents,

Only long ranged guided anti-ship weapons in the entire UK inventory nowadays I can think of are Spearfish and ship launched Harpoon. The Spearfish is the standard torpedo on UK SSN's, and the basic surface launched Harpoon is still a standard fit on Type 23 Frigates. Sub-Harpoon has also been withdrawn from use. I don't know if the new Aster fit on the Type 45 has a anti-surface capability, like the old Sea Dart supposedly did.

With first the withdrawal of Sea Eagle from Tornado, then Air launched Harpoon from Nimrod and finally Sub Harpoon from SSN's, it's looked like for some years now the UK has gambled on not being involved in a blue water engagement. Which is properly quite unlikely but history tells you that you don't win by just planning for the likely battles - you'd have thought that they might work that one out one day, as the lesson has been rammed home enough times.

I'd guess a LGB tossed against a decent SAM fitted ship would be far to dangerous nowadays, as the strike aircraft would have to keep high to gain stand off distance, and would remain in line-of-sight for too long. Isn't ALARM the next weapon to be withdrawn as an unnecessary expense? Also it was widely reported that the Exocet that struck Sheffield did not explode, and it was the fire that caused the ship to be abandoned I believe.

Gary

[mrvr6]

is harsh language still acceptable or have health and safety got their teeth into that too?

[Bobski]

Also it was widely reported that the Exocet that struck Sheffield did not explode, and it was the fire that caused the ship to be abandoned I believe.

Correct. The missile passed through the ship without exploding, but it started a massive fire and that was what caused the ship to be abandoned and eventually sink. It didn't help that in order to save money more flammable materials were used during construction than had been in older ships, which led to the fire spreading rapidly. Apparently the Type 21s suffered from the same problem, which is why the fires on Antrim and Antelope also spread quickly.

As for current anti-ship weapons - could one use a Storm Shadow? Failing that I guess we have to rely on the Harpoons on the Type 23s and the Spearfish torpedos of the Submarine force. Not ideal, but I'm sure if it looked like we were going to be attacked by sea then we would see it coming in plenty of time to send some submarines to go and deal with it (surface fleets tend to be large and easy to spot using satellites)

Edited November 14, 2011 by Bobski

[mrvr6]

Correct. The missile passed through the ship without exploding, but it started a massive fire and that was what caused the ship to be abandoned and eventually sink. It didn't help that in order to save money more flammable materials were used during construction than had been in older ships, which led to the fire spreading rapidly. Apparently the Type 21s suffered from the same problem, which is why the fires on Antrim and Antelope also spread quickly.

is that not tantamount (sp) to manslaughter???

i read the missile burried itself inside the ship didnt go off and the rocket motor started the fire?

i cant help but wonder if wed kept a few battleships/battlecruiser in service the armour on them would make exocets very expensive and pretty fireworks would they not?

[Irishgreek]

i cant help but wonder if wed kept a few battleships/battlecruiser in service the armour on them would make exocets very expensive and pretty fireworks would they not?

This was part of the argument/story when the US brought the Iowa class BBs back in service. The only things that would hurt them would be torpedoes or a nuke. Regular ASMs wouldn't do much to the 'important' parts of the ship.

[mrvr6]

This was part of the argument/story when the US brought the Iowa class BBs back in service. The only things that would hurt them would be torpedoes or a nuke. Regular ASMs wouldn't do much to the 'important' parts of the ship.

would a single torpedo (or even 2) take out a full on battleship?

how uch more deadly ar emodern torps compared with ww2 ?

[PHIL B]

Sorry Colin, these are earmarked for 151 Sqn,SDF (Scottish Defence Force) along with the Wessex which were in the next hangar.

Everybody has forgotton that the onward march of privatisation resulted in the cancellation of the P-8 and the leasing of Ryanair 737s instead. These will have a new two stage weapon which finishes the last 50 miles by bus! A well know decal company have a PFI contract to supply the markings which will be stored until time of conflict.

(Well the truth of this subject is too depressing so might as well joke)

Richard on the Western Approaches.

If the aircraft are from Ryanair does that mean the main cabin crew will be working while standing up?

Phil

[corporate]

Bit of an Oxymoron there...

More of a geographical conundrum surely - not many battleships, or naval vesseld generally, in Morden...

Tony

[Giorgio N]

i cant help but wonder if wed kept a few battleships/battlecruiser in service the armour on them would make exocets very expensive and pretty fireworks would they not?

This had been discussed to death back in the days and there's no real answer to this question. It's clear that a battleship armour would not be damaged much by a missile containing less than 200 Kg of explosive like the Exocet. However the problem is always that the missile is not necessarily going to hit the ship where the armour is thicker. A hit over the armour might still disable important components of the ship and cause the ship to retire for repairs. This would be mission accomplished anyway for the enemy.

As Irishgreek said the invulnerability to SSMs wa one of the arguments for the reactivation of the Iowas, but even then maybe thought this was more a PR exercise than else: yes the Iowa armour can withstand an Exocet, but would the result of impact of a bigger missile, with say a 500 kg shaped charge warhead, as used in many soviet types ? The ship would maybe not be sunk, but would suffer enough damage to require a couple of months in a drydock. During GW1 a chinese silkworm type missile was shot at Iowa from a land based ramp but intercepted, had the interception failed we would have known for sure about the effect of such a missile.

Modern torpedoes are very nasty things to every ship. they are designed to explode under the keel of a ship, so generating a series of shockwaves in the water and in the hull. The worst effect is the ship keel is first lifted, then dropped while parts of the ship are still supported by water. In this way the keel breaks under its own weight. Would a single torpedo sink a battleship ? Hard to tell, but again the damage might be enough to force the ship off the line for a while.

As to keeping battleships o similar in service, any ship of that kind would have required a total reconstruction to allow it to serve in the '80s. Older ships had no NBC systems, no modern radars, no AAW or ASW capability.. the Iowas had their own escorts against air and submarine threats, fine if there are enough of these, but what if the number of ships is limited ?

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Lofting an Enhanced Paveway might work. When launched from altitude they have quite a stand-off range which would only be enhanced by lofting. Terminal guidance could be by GPS rather than laser. If a way could be found to update terminal guidance from satelite data, there would be no need for close proximity targetting. I dread to think of the damage an EPW3 would do to a ship.

[rickshaw]

Lofting an Enhanced Paveway might work. When launched from altitude they have quite a stand-off range which would only be enhanced by lofting. Terminal guidance could be by GPS rather than laser. If a way could be found to update terminal guidance from satelite data, there would be no need for close proximity targetting. I dread to think of the damage an EPW3 would do to a ship.

Here is video of a JDAM strike on a ship.

Here is video of the paveway strike on the North Korean freighter Pong Su by RAAF F-111s in 23rd March 2006

[rickshaw]

is that not tantamount (sp) to manslaughter???

Yes but it would be a hard case to prove.

i read the missile burried itself inside the ship didnt go off and the rocket motor started the fire?

The missile apparently hit the Sheffield, broke up and the warhead continued on through while the fuel tank ruptured, spraying fuel around which the motor instantly ignited. This in turn spread rapidly through the ship via the cable runs which were not armoured or shielded. In turn, it also destroyed the main firefighing pipeline which ran down the centre of the ship, which in turn prevented effective firefighing as the pumps couldn't be supplied with water. The blockage of the pipeline also prevented them apparently from being able to draw independently from the surrounding ocean as the water had drained out of the pipes and the pumps couldn't be primed independently. The use of unarmoured cable runs without proper compartmentalisation was what really killed Sheffield. It allowed the fire to spread rapidly and the lack of firefighting water meant it couldn't be fought effectively.