Royal Navy cut to smallest size ever - 25 ships !

[dilbert]

ninja-lewis said:

dilbert said:

In a modern sea war, a surface vessel is simply a target.

We need carriers, because they can't be submarine.

Attack submarines can act as escort for a carrier, so long as the carrier has it's own air defence.

That then leaves the destroyer role, and you have to decide if you're going to do that with Nimrod, or other....

I think we should be aiming to wind out some cheap, fast patrol / torpedo boats myself. Use them to cover the drugs / smuggling angle.

Get Nimrod finished ASAP. Develop a nuclear depth charge that can be dropped from Nimrod. This fills the destroyer role, probably better than a destroyer would.

...And be done with it.

Mine sweepers would be a sad loss, but the amphibian thing is only going to be properly useful if you have full on battleships to back up an amphibian invasion. Not even the Americans envisage the need for battleships now, so I think that's a foregone conclusion.

As long as the carrier is capable of servicing Chinooks then you can do the job of Ocean with a carrier. One carrier serves fixed wing aircraft, the other the landing force.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 10th October 01:35

Except carriers cannot defend themselves with organic air defence fighters and anti-aircraft weapons alone - you need defence in depth. That begins with the combat air patrol 100 miles up-threat. Then the fleet area-defence destroyers (in the air defence picket role, frigates are ASW) 20 miles up-threat to provide long range radar and missile coverage. Further back is the ASW frigate screen, carrying point-defence AA missiles. Between the screen and the High Value Units you place less important auxillaries. Then each HVU has its own goalkeeper - say a shadowing frigate with a point defence system. Finally aboard the carrier you have chaff, CIWS and even a few machine guns as a last ditch measure.

Of course, the escorts are targets - their loss is expected. Their job is put themselves between the threat and the HVUs, with the intention of destroying the threat or at the very least ensuring it hits them and not the HVU.

That's why a carrier and attack submarines are not enough by themselves.

The cheap patrol/torpedo boats - the Future Surface Combatant programme to replace the Type 22 and Type 23 is likely to produce two classes of warships: C1, Type 26 high end ASW frigate; and C2/3, a smaller general purpose patrol vessel. Using Type 22s and Type 23s is somewhat overkill for the some of these roles (arguably the amphibs and auxillaries would be better suited) hence the planning behind C2/3.

MCMV would indeed be a sad loss, one that NATO won't be happy about as we provide a MCMV for the Baltics, Northern Europe and the Atlantic, in addition to those stationed in the Persian Gulf to ensure the sea lanes there are kept open.

You don't need battleships to support amphibious operations - as the Falklands, Sierra Leone and Iraq War demonstrate. The days of D-Day style opposed landings are long gone. Meanwhile the Amphibs are some of the most useful ships in the fleet - in terms of carrying out anti-pirate/drug patrols, providing disaster relief (including evacuating British citizens from Lebanon) and defence diplomacy.

Ocean is more just than a helicopter carrier - she carries her own landing craft and is fitted with a stern ramp to unload vehicles and other supplies onto mexeflotes. Even using Chinooks, helicopters cannot match the logistical effort.

Lastly, the importance of Defence Diplomacy cannot be forgotten. Arguably the most important role of the Royal Navy is showing the flag in far corners of the world - not just omniously plonking a carrier group over the horizon but also carrying out goodwill visits to friendly ports. A cocktail party aboard a RN warship for local dignatories is a powerful tool for British embassies while conducting exercises with local forces builds valuable cooperation.

For example HMS Ocean is nearing the end of a deployment that has included: a joint US/French exercise; taking part in the Canadian Navy anniversary celebrations; providing contingency support to the Caribbean during the hurricane season and counter-drug patrols; a visit to Brazil which included the signing of trade and defence cooperation agreements, exercising with Brazilian forces, carrying out community projects and hosting an exhibition to promote UK trade and industry; taking part in the Nigerian independence celebrations, including training and goodwill missions; a short stay in Sierra Leone to promote peace in the region; and finally on the way to the UK, there will be a number of cooperative operations with Cape Verde law enforcement teams.

In a single 6-month deployment, one warship has probably done more for British interests any politician has done in the past decade. It's why Britain and France still hold a lot of sway around the world, not because of the deterrent but because we make them feel important through diplomacy, trade and cooperation. And you need a sizeable surface fleet to do that.

Jimbeaux said:

jains15 said:

Fabiao said:

The last time these kind of cuts were proposed, the Argentines invaded the Falklands, and a rapid U-turn was made, once it was realised that you can't rely on anyone else to bail you out, and you just don't know you're going to need something until it has gone and you really need it.

Yeah they had all but sold Invincible to the Aussies (pretty much brand new as well), and that ship has only just been pensioned off nearly 30 years later! Falklands proved that we do need a Navy, as you say you can't rely on 'Allies', yanks didn't get involved and the French were selling arms to the Argentinians during the conflict!!

We did get involved in the Falklands in certain ways, that has been discussed here before.

Indeed, the Department of Defense provided significant logistics support down to Ascension. Likewise the French were a close ally, providing Mirages for Dissimilar Air Combat Manoeuvering and actually helping MI6 prevent Argentina obtaining more air-launched Exocets.

I don't know myself. I'm struggling to understand what it is that a carrier launched aircraft performing search functions cannot do that a destroyer can.

In the old days, when battleships did act in support of amphibian activities, communications were poor.

Nowadays, you can put an immensely powerful radar capability on a small helicopter, and be seeing over the horizon. As long as the carrier can communicate with these capabilities, and it has it's own missile defence, it's all going to be fine.

I'd actually present the case that a missile attack (or an attack from a stealthy aircraft) on a ship is more easily seen from a helicopter or small aircraft, than it is from a ship. If you really felt keen, you could hang an over the horizon radar from a blimp tethered to the carrier.

Surely there can be no question that a submarine is going to be better at taking out another submarine, than a destroyer. The same is true of a destroyer. The sub is surely going to be better at taking out a destroyer than a destroyer.

With ever improving military space capabilities, it is possible that real-time satellite imagery could render radar redundant. I accept that's not going to happen next week, but it's coming.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 10th October 15:26

[Fabiao]

Helicopters are a particularly poor solution to AEW. Which is why we need proper aircraft carriers with catapults.

Even if you do have decent AEW, by the time you have your CAP in the right place to counteract an incoming missile, it's probably too late to do much about it.

Which is why carriers never go to sea without an entourage of mixed ability escorts.

[ninja-lewis]

dilbert said:

I don't know myself. I'm struggling to understand what it is that a carrier launched aircraft performing search functions cannot do that a destroyer can.

In the old days, when battleships did act in support of amphibian activities, communications were poor.

Nowadays, you can put an immensely powerful radar capability on a small helicopter, and be seeing over the horizon. As long as the carrier can communicate with these capabilities, and it has it's own missile defence, it's all going to be fine.

I'd actually present the case that a missile attack on a ship is more easily seen from a helicopter or small aircraft, than it is from a ship. If you really felt keen, you could hang an over the horizon radar from a blimp tethered to the carrier.

Surely there can be no question that a submarine is going to be better at taking out another submarine, than a destroyer. The same is true of a destroyer. The sub is surely going to be better at taking out a destroyer than a destroyer.

With ever improving military space capabilities, it is possible that real-time satellite imagery could render radar redundant. I accept that's not going to happen next week, but it's coming.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 10th October 14:40

It's not a case of any one platform being better or worse than another - it's that each has a role to play and together they provide a greater capability.

A destroyer (just to be clear, a destroyer is primarily an Anti Air Warfare warship these days) provides redundancy and support to your air assets. If for some reason, the air defence fighters are unable to intercept the threat or a leaker makes it through, the subsequent layers of defence provide a second chance. In the Falklands, there were several cases where vital systems failed at the wrong moment - the advantage of the surface escort force was that they took the brunt of the damage before the HVU were in danger. The whole point of defence in depth is that is not going to be fine. Furthermore it is not just a case of detecting the threat, you also need to engage it. Air assets are ideal at range but closer in, surface escorts are your main defence.

Secondly, there are High Value Units other than carriers - for example, an amphibious task group. They may have to go into areas where we don't have enough carriers to cover them or the carriers are too far away because we cannot risk them in the area. Again, it was the escort force that provided much of the defence of San Carlos in 1982 - by literally making themselves the target rather than the amphibious forces behind them. Likewise, in 1991 it was HMS Gloucester that shot down two Iraqi Silkworm missiles threatening the USS Missouri and allied minesweepers - again an area where air assets were unable to provide the necessary defence.

It is not necessary the case that a submarine can protect a task group better than a proper ASW screen. A submarine (especially nuclear) is ideal when hunting other submarines in deep oceans but it is not so handy in a crowded littoral zone where it is on the defensive. In other words a submarine is most useful in an offensive capacity (especially with land attack cruise missiles). An ASW screen on the other hand, might involve a couple of ASW frigates with sonar and helicopters. The former have sensitive long range towed sonar. Once a possible contact has been detected, two ASW helicopters can move in with dipping sonar to fix and locate the contact. A third can then be called in to carry out the attack. It is very difficult for a submarine to escape once found by the helicopters and unlike an attacking submarine, the helicopters can act (i.e. use systems that give away their position) with relative impunity.

Meanwhile you're ASW screen is also providing other capabilities at the same time: point-defence AA missiles, its own helicopter and the ability to sustain others too, Naval Gunfire Support to land forces and another sacrifical hull. Again, another example from the Falklands is HMS Alacrity. There were no minesweepers available as they couldn't keep up with the task force yet Falkland Sound needed to be checked for mines. The only solution was to send one of the escorts through and see if they made it out the other end undamaged.

Thus carriers and submarines alone are not enough - to be of any use they need the frigates and destroyers of the escort force.

[tank slapper]

Your points have been answered above. A single ship can't effectively defend itself. A carrier doesn't have space for a comprehensive missile system. If any, it will have point defence systems only.

A surface ship has a big advantage over aircraft - persistance. While airborne radar is powerful and effective, what happens if the weather deteriorates to prevent flight operations? What if there is an accident that puts the flight deck out of action?

A ship can maintain station for relatively long periods, whereas doing the same with aircraft is much harder on aircraft and crews.

[Fabiao]

Another lesson learned from the Falklands is not to underestimate the effect of a bloody big gun battering land forces from a relatively safe distance off-shore.

We were sending in ships to literally hurl hundreds of shells a night at the defending forces at one point.

[Elroy Blue]

HMS Ocean was built to commercial standards, not military. The hull is getting pretty worn out now and they had a serious failure at the stern ramp a few weeks ago. It hasn't got much life left. The current carriers are also getting on a bit. Invincible is nothing more than a gutted hulk. I hope we get the new carriers, but it's no good getting them at the expense of everything else.

As an-RN type, it's all very sad.

[dilbert]

ninja-lewis said:

dilbert said:

I don't know myself. I'm struggling to understand what it is that a carrier launched aircraft performing search functions cannot do that a destroyer can.

In the old days, when battleships did act in support of amphibian activities, communications were poor.

Nowadays, you can put an immensely powerful radar capability on a small helicopter, and be seeing over the horizon. As long as the carrier can communicate with these capabilities, and it has it's own missile defence, it's all going to be fine.

I'd actually present the case that a missile attack on a ship is more easily seen from a helicopter or small aircraft, than it is from a ship. If you really felt keen, you could hang an over the horizon radar from a blimp tethered to the carrier.

Surely there can be no question that a submarine is going to be better at taking out another submarine, than a destroyer. The same is true of a destroyer. The sub is surely going to be better at taking out a destroyer than a destroyer.

With ever improving military space capabilities, it is possible that real-time satellite imagery could render radar redundant. I accept that's not going to happen next week, but it's coming.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 10th October 14:40

It's not a case of any one platform being better or worse than another - it's that each has a role to play and together they provide a greater capability.

A destroyer (just to be clear, a destroyer is primarily an Anti Air Warfare warship these days) provides redundancy and support to your air assets. If for some reason, the air defence fighters are unable to intercept the threat or a leaker makes it through, the subsequent layers of defence provide a second chance. In the Falklands, there were several cases where vital systems failed at the wrong moment - the advantage of the surface escort force was that they took the brunt of the damage before the HVU were in danger. The whole point of defence in depth is that is not going to be fine. Furthermore it is not just a case of detecting the threat, you also need to engage it. Air assets are ideal at range but closer in, surface escorts are your main defence.

Secondly, there are High Value Units other than carriers - for example, an amphibious task group. They may have to go into areas where we don't have enough carriers to cover them or the carriers are too far away because we cannot risk them in the area. Again, it was the escort force that provided much of the defence of San Carlos in 1982 - by literally making themselves the target rather than the amphibious forces behind them. Likewise, in 1991 it was HMS Gloucester that shot down two Iraqi Silkworm missiles threatening the USS Missouri and allied minesweepers - again an area where air assets were unable to provide the necessary defence.

It is not necessary the case that a submarine can protect a task group better than a proper ASW screen. A submarine (especially nuclear) is ideal when hunting other submarines in deep oceans but it is not so handy in a crowded littoral zone where it is on the defensive. In other words a submarine is most useful in an offensive capacity (especially with land attack cruise missiles). An ASW screen on the other hand, might involve a couple of ASW frigates with sonar and helicopters. The former have sensitive long range towed sonar. Once a possible contact has been detected, two ASW helicopters can move in with dipping sonar to fix and locate the contact. A third can then be called in to carry out the attack. It is very difficult for a submarine to escape once found by the helicopters and unlike an attacking submarine, the helicopters can act (i.e. use systems that give away their position) with relative impunity.

Meanwhile you're ASW screen is also providing other capabilities at the same time: point-defence AA missiles, its own helicopter and the ability to sustain others too, Naval Gunfire Support to land forces and another sacrifical hull. Again, another example from the Falklands is HMS Alacrity. There were no minesweepers available as they couldn't keep up with the task force yet Falkland Sound needed to be checked for mines. The only solution was to send one of the escorts through and see if they made it out the other end undamaged.

Thus carriers and submarines alone are not enough - to be of any use they need the frigates and destroyers of the escort force.

Perhaps you're getting me wrong?

In my ideal world, we'd have battleships, proper cruisers, frigates aplenty. They'd all be equipped with comprehensive automated defences, nuclear armed. That's where the Chinese are going.

That's surely not the point. What we're faced with is making something defensive out of what we have.

The current defence is growing holes.

All I did was to propose a solution within the bounds of what we have underway, and what we can afford for the future.

In terms of traditional carrier escort,I cant see T45 being scrapped in the near future. It's possible it'll get blown out of the water though. Has it got proper air defence yet?

Our new carriers will be big enough to actually represent a flexible capability. Much more so than the old ones. Science, Aid, Warfare. They can also be made defensive.

The question whether they should be defensive, depends on what the role for T45 is. If it escorts the carriers, then fine, the carrier can be undefended. If T45 does counter-narcotics in one part of the world, and the carriers do aid in another, then T45 doesn't need air defence, and the carriers do.

The idea that frigates physically shield carriers is as old as the battleships that were condemned earlier. T45 does everything it can *not* to be a target. This shows that those considerations of close support are already gone. The attack subs that act in support of the carrier can do their job at considerable distance from the carrier that they support. This is consistent with the sinking of the Belgrano.

The critical thing in my mind is that we are currently developing a hole in respect of a standalone anti-submarine capability.

We are also developing an even larger hole for air defence. Specifically, an anti-missile capability that an aeroplane alone cannot defend without direct sacrifice.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 10th October 18:02

[FourWheelDrift]

If we need to we can still field some reserves.

HMS Victory
HMS Warrior
HMS Belfast
HMS M33
HMS Trincomalee
HMS Unicorn
HMS Caroline
HMS Cavalier
HMS Plymouth
HMS Bristol
HMS Alliance

[Ayahuasca]

FourWheelDrift said:

If we need to we can still field some reserves.

HMS Victory
HMS Warrior
HMS Belfast
HMS M33
HMS Trincomalee
HMS Unicorn
HMS Caroline
HMS Cavalier
HMS Plymouth
HMS Bristol
HMS Alliance

Drifting slightly off-topic, I wonder what the outcome would be in a close range battle between HMS Victory, with its 104 cannon and a modern destroyer with its single, smaller, quicker gun and HE shells.

I bet when the smoke from the Victory broadside disperses it will reveal the ripples where the metal destroyer sank.

[Fabiao]

Not sure an old cannon would have the power to penetrate an armoured metal hull.

A modern destroyer would only have to get one shot on target to sink an old wooden ship, though.

[ninja-lewis]

dilbert said:

Perhaps you're getting me wrong?

In my ideal world, we'd have battleships, proper cruisers, frigates aplenty. They'd all be equipped with comprehensive automated defences, nuclear armed. That's where the Chinese are going.

That's surely not the point. What we're faced with is making something defensive out of what we have.

The current defence is growing holes.

All I did was to propose a solution within the bounds of what we have underway, and what we can afford for the future.

In terms of traditional carrier escort,I cant see T45 being scrapped in the near future. It's possible it'll get blown out of the water though. Has it got proper air defence yet?

Our new carriers will be big enough to actually represent a flexible capability. Much more so than the old ones. Science, Aid, Warfare. They can also be made defensive.

The question whether they should be defensive, depends on what the role for T45 is. If it escorts the carriers, then fine, the carrier can be undefended. If T45 does counter-narcotics in one part of the world, and the carriers do aid in another, then T45 doesn't need air defence, and the carriers do.

The idea that frigates physically shield carriers is as old as the battleships that were condemned earlier. T45 does everything it can *not* to be a target. This shows that those considerations of close support are already gone. The attack subs that act in support of the carrier can do their job at considerable distance from the carrier that they support. This is consistent with the sinking of the Belgrano.

The critical thing in my mind is that we are currently developing a hole in respect of a standalone anti-submarine capability.

We are also developing an even larger hole for air defence. Specifically, an anti-missile capability that an aeroplane alone cannot defend without direct sacrifice.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 10th October 18:02

Dauntless actually fired the first Sea Viper from a Type 45 earlier this week - although PAAMS itself was extensively tested on the Longbow trials barge and has been in service with the French and Italians for a while now. Phalanx hasn't been installed yet but that is not a major issue since the Type 45s won't be deployed just yet anyway - once they're ready, the sets will be taken off the Type 42s they replace. The real problem with Type 45 is we simply do not have enough of them - the original requirement was for 12 but the previous government reduced that to 8 and now 6. Thus it is highly unlikely that the Type 45s will be carrying out patrols alone - they'll be too busy tasked to protect one of the carriers or an amphibious group. However, that shouldn't be too surprising considering future doctorine is supposed to use low end global patrol vessels for that sort of task rather than high end frigates and destroyers.

The idea that escorts don't physically shield the carrier is not outdated. Ideally, you won't lose any warships because your combat air patrol will shoot down the bandits 200 miles out, the missiles don't pick up the reduced radar cross section of the Type 45, Sea Viper successfully downs the inbound vampires, your chaff decoys it harmlessly into the sea or Phalanx catches it at the last moment. But ultimately when comes down to a Type 45 or the carrier, the former will be sacrificed to protect the latter. That's the fundamental reason why aircraft carriers have escorts - because you need to give the missile an expendable target other than the carrier.

The Belgrano example shows what submarines are good at - it also demonstrates the limitations. Had the order not come back quick enough (or had Conqueror not managed to fix their communications in time), Belgrano could have crossed the Burdwood Bank and lost Conqueror, leaving her loose somewhere in the taskforce's southern flank. What it doesn't tell you is the general ineffectiveness of using a submarine for close in ASW - put a friendly submarine in the same area as your ASW screen of multiple frigates and helicopters and you completely neutralise the latter (blue on blue concern). Meanwhile nuclear boats perform poorly in the noisy, shallow littoral environment that is a haven for diesel submarines by comparison - the latter can simply sit in shallow areas and wait for your task group to approach. Just witness Conqueror missing ARA Santa Fe near South Georgia. Basically there are far more effective uses for submarines than replacing ASW frigates in a task group.

There really isn't such a thing as a standalone ASW capability - ASW is about cooperation between multiple assets (MPA, frigates, helicopters, submarines) to fix and persecute an enemy submarine. This is the point I and others are making - there is no one perfect platform but rather a mixed array of capabilities with redundancy and overlap.

[dilbert]

ninja-lewis said:

dilbert said:

Perhaps you're getting me wrong?

In my ideal world, we'd have battleships, proper cruisers, frigates aplenty. They'd all be equipped with comprehensive automated defences, nuclear armed. That's where the Chinese are going.

That's surely not the point. What we're faced with is making something defensive out of what we have.

The current defence is growing holes.

All I did was to propose a solution within the bounds of what we have underway, and what we can afford for the future.

In terms of traditional carrier escort,I cant see T45 being scrapped in the near future. It's possible it'll get blown out of the water though. Has it got proper air defence yet?

Our new carriers will be big enough to actually represent a flexible capability. Much more so than the old ones. Science, Aid, Warfare. They can also be made defensive.

The question whether they should be defensive, depends on what the role for T45 is. If it escorts the carriers, then fine, the carrier can be undefended. If T45 does counter-narcotics in one part of the world, and the carriers do aid in another, then T45 doesn't need air defence, and the carriers do.

The idea that frigates physically shield carriers is as old as the battleships that were condemned earlier. T45 does everything it can *not* to be a target. This shows that those considerations of close support are already gone. The attack subs that act in support of the carrier can do their job at considerable distance from the carrier that they support. This is consistent with the sinking of the Belgrano.

The critical thing in my mind is that we are currently developing a hole in respect of a standalone anti-submarine capability.

We are also developing an even larger hole for air defence. Specifically, an anti-missile capability that an aeroplane alone cannot defend without direct sacrifice.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 10th October 18:02

Dauntless actually fired the first Sea Viper from a Type 45 earlier this week - although PAAMS itself was extensively tested on the Longbow trials barge and has been in service with the French and Italians for a while now. Phalanx hasn't been installed yet but that is not a major issue since the Type 45s won't be deployed just yet anyway - once they're ready, the sets will be taken off the Type 42s they replace. The real problem with Type 45 is we simply do not have enough of them - the original requirement was for 12 but the previous government reduced that to 8 and now 6. Thus it is highly unlikely that the Type 45s will be carrying out patrols alone - they'll be too busy tasked to protect one of the carriers or an amphibious group. However, that shouldn't be too surprising considering future doctorine is supposed to use low end global patrol vessels for that sort of task rather than high end frigates and destroyers.

The idea that escorts don't physically shield the carrier is not outdated. Ideally, you won't lose any warships because your combat air patrol will shoot down the bandits 200 miles out, the missiles don't pick up the reduced radar cross section of the Type 45, Sea Viper successfully downs the inbound vampires, your chaff decoys it harmlessly into the sea or Phalanx catches it at the last moment. But ultimately when comes down to a Type 45 or the carrier, the former will be sacrificed to protect the latter. That's the fundamental reason why aircraft carriers have escorts - because you need to give the missile an expendable target other than the carrier.

The Belgrano example shows what submarines are good at - it also demonstrates the limitations. Had the order not come back quick enough (or had Conqueror not managed to fix their communications in time), Belgrano could have crossed the Burdwood Bank and lost Conqueror, leaving her loose somewhere in the taskforce's southern flank. What it doesn't tell you is the general ineffectiveness of using a submarine for close in ASW - put a friendly submarine in the same area as your ASW screen of multiple frigates and helicopters and you completely neutralise the latter (blue on blue concern). Meanwhile nuclear boats perform poorly in the noisy, shallow littoral environment that is a haven for diesel submarines by comparison - the latter can simply sit in shallow areas and wait for your task group to approach. Just witness Conqueror missing ARA Santa Fe near South Georgia. Basically there are far more effective uses for submarines than replacing ASW frigates in a task group.

There really isn't such a thing as a standalone ASW capability - ASW is about cooperation between multiple assets (MPA, frigates, helicopters, submarines) to fix and persecute an enemy submarine. This is the point I and others are making - there is no one perfect platform but rather a mixed array of capabilities with redundancy and overlap.

And the point I am making which you aren't really addressing, is that the shortage of T45's you describe is unlikely to be addressed, through financial limitations.

Moreover, a standalone anti submarine capability could really do with expansion, given the way we're a bit vunerable.

If we can't build more T45's and many of the other smaller vessels will be scrapped/end of life and not replaced, then what would you suggest we do to defend the assets that we have, or will have?

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 10th October 19:45

[Dunk76]

Fabiao said:

Not sure an old cannon would have the power to penetrate an armoured metal hull.

A modern destroyer would only have to get one shot on target to sink an old wooden ship, though.

The current ones aren't armoured in any meaningful way though are they?

The wooden boats were remarkably hard to actually sink by all accounts.

[Ayahuasca]

Dunk76 said:

Fabiao said:

Not sure an old cannon would have the power to penetrate an armoured metal hull.

A modern destroyer would only have to get one shot on target to sink an old wooden ship, though.

The current ones aren't armoured in any meaningful way though are they?

The wooden boats were remarkably hard to actually sink by all accounts.

One broadside and one broadside only:

Victory = 52 iron roundshot weighing about half a tonne in all.
Modern destroyer = one 4.5 inch HE shell

[Dunk76]

Ayahuasca said:

Dunk76 said:

Fabiao said:

Not sure an old cannon would have the power to penetrate an armoured metal hull.

A modern destroyer would only have to get one shot on target to sink an old wooden ship, though.

The current ones aren't armoured in any meaningful way though are they?

The wooden boats were remarkably hard to actually sink by all accounts.

One broadside and one broadside only:

Victory = 52 iron roundshot weighing about half a tonne in all.
Modern destroyer = one 4.5 inch HE shell

I wasn't disputing it at all - I was asking if the modern plastic boats are proof against anything.

[Frankeh]

@Nuclear depth charges.

What's the point. You can't use them without then allowing all nations to use ANY nuclear weapons.
Better to perfect conventional weapons imo. Just pretend nuclear weapons don't exist past the intercontinental ballistic missiles.

[tonyvid]

Badgerboy said:

The shiny new 45's primary armament is only capable to Surface to Air, and I'll be surprised if it even works.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/RoyalNavyFiresSeaViperFromType45Destroyer.htm

[Frankeh]

I'll have nothing bad said about the new Type 45. It's an absolutely stunning piece of engineering and it looks fantastic.
Most technically advanced ship currently operating, so that's something to be proud of I guess. Well, until we sell a bunch of them and give away our upper hand.

[V88Dicky]

tonyvid said:

Badgerboy said:

The shiny new 45's primary armament is only capable to Surface to Air, and I'll be surprised if it even works.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/Equi...

[BarnatosGhost]

TheEnd said:

I think there is only going to be 2 wars from now on, the clever ones with long range nuclear weapons, and the scummy ones in sand dunes against terrorist types...

Agreed. Any number of Frigates will only ever be of limited use against some angry shepherds in a bush.