HMS Dauntless to deploy to Falklands

HAVE YOUR SAY

31 January 2012

Let's hope the Argies don't realise that if they send a warship rather than aircraft against Dauntless there's not much the Type 45 can do about it.
Steve Miles - London

31 January 2012

Steve Miles - London

What makes you think that? It can carry 2 Lynx helicopters armed with Sea Skua, it has the ability to very quickly be fitted with Harpoon if the need arises, it has a 4.5 inch gun. Coupled with it's considerable sensor suite, AAW capability and CIWS like the 30mm and Phalanx 1b the Argentines aren't going to be able to touch it...

Furthermore the Argentine Navy doesn't exactly possess any real players in the ASuW department of the surface fleet. With 4 Frigates, 1 Destroyer and 9 Corvettes. The majority of them having between 4-8 Exocet and outdated SAMs. Dauntless will no doubt be supported by the River class OPV station there, possibly a SSN and will also have support from the Typhoons. I'm sure if need be a Type 23 can also be deployed.

The real threat to the Dauntless is a submarine due to the only ASW weapons and sensors being that of it's embarked helicopter.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

31 January 2012

£1bn Destroyer...

Well let's hope they deployment goes well and any 'teething issues' are sorted.
Armchair Admiral

31 January 2012

Anthony - Bristol

If Dauntless deploys with Merlin embarked, you can scratch off the submarine threat. If however, it deploys with Lynx, it will be more vulnerable because RN Lynx do not have sonar or sonobuoys. They do carry Sting Ray ASW torpedoes, but rely on other platform sensors for target detection in order to drop them in the approximate vicinity of the submarine.

Whatever aircraft are embarked, the ship is far more potent than anything the Argentines currently possess. But I will be much happier when the class has Harpoon fitted as standard.
AW Employee - Yeovil

31 January 2012

The article should also state that the ships are only £1bn each because the original number of vessels was reduced to six. Had the original number been built they would have been more like £500m each...

Laskovar - UK

31 January 2012

Is this the same ship that still only has most of its capabilities listed as "fitted for but not with"? Rather send a couple of companies of soon to be redundent infantry to defend the islands rather than a not very effective ship.
Bob M - Surrey UK

31 January 2012

Problem with the South Atlantic is that it's a bit stormy, and the lynx, being a light/medium helicopter isn't best suited for such conditions.

And while I agree the Type 45s can be very quickly fitted with Harpoon, even the most optomistic of us would question how likely such an operation is in mid Atlantic.
Steve Miles - London

31 January 2012

Laskovar; That's the truth and interservice fighting, public ignorance and careful political positioning has made light of this fact... Even with project delays I'm confident that had the political delays not been present we would have got 8-9 of them as opposed to only 6.

AWemployee; Indeed, then again I'd prefer to see them with the extra 16-24 VLS cells, a decent hull mounted Sonar and the 8 harpoon.
Anthony

31 January 2012

Why do we trumpet £1BN as though it is something that elevates the capability of these vessels.
As many have commented, it is an overpriced but capaable vessel. I t will be interesting how she manages the South Atlantic Swell and how the A brackets and Shafts bear up under the strain of a fairly inclement environment. That would for me be more pertinent than any Argentine threat.
Degradable - UK

31 January 2012

I agree with Bob M.I have never understood why a force of destroyers that have been built with their numbers halved but not fitted at commissioning with the weaponry that would make them truly all round capabilty platforms.I note in a recently published photograph of HMS DARING leaving Gibralter on her first major deployment to the Gulf,the bow seems to be riding high,I could be wrong but the cynic in me leeds me to believe there are not many ASTER missiles in the silos.
Howard N. - Farnborough,Hants,UK

31 January 2012

Iranian threat...
Steve - Spain

31 January 2012

Exocet 3

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/exocet_mm40_ds.pdf
Zorro - Toro/Sw/Test

01 February 2012

They wont dare send a warship steve. They're too scared of our submarines!!
tony - doncaster

01 February 2012

Without fixed-wing Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWACS) radar aircraft to compliment Type-45s anti-air missile system, the presence of Type-45s does not improve the defence of the Falklands much...

Why?

Because Type-45s' radars can not 'see' and can not detect objects that are 'over the horizon' (farther than about 20-miles away) and that are flying at very low altitudes- such as sea-skimming cruise missiles....

Type-45s' radars can, on the other hand, detect objects hundreds of miles away that are flying at altitudes of 1000- 70,000 feet...

Due to being operated at high altitudes, fixed-wing AWACS aircraft with their powerful 'look down' radars can detect and identify incoming low-flying aircraft and sea-skimming cruise missiles at ranges in excess of 300 miles- far greater distances than a Type-45's radar's dangerously-limited 20-mile limit....

Once an on-station fixed-wing AWACS aircraft has detected and identified an incoming airborne threat- say 150-miles out- commanders on ships and at land-bases that are linked to the respective AWACS can coordinate defensive reactions...

During the 7-15 minutes remaining until the incoming threat breaks the horizon, ship-based and land-based missiles can be launched, fighters can be scrambled, etc...

Using 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' communications links, CEC-equipped fixed-wing AWACS aircraft and other in-theatre assets such as ships, on-shore missile batteries, etc, can coordinate defensive- and offensive- tactics...

If Type-45 Destroyers had been fitted for CEC and if CEC-equipped fixed-wing flying radar platforms such as the E-2D were based at the Falklands, then incoming Land Attack Cruise Missiles & Anti-ship Cruise Missiles (LACMs & ASCMs) could be engaged much, much farther out by Type-45s' anti airborne threat missiles, while LACMs/ASCMS were travelling at subsonic speeds and not swerving wildly....

Air defence squadrons, of which CEC-equipped fixed-wing flying radar aircraft are a part, can even engage comparatively vulnerable- easy to shoot down- platforms/aircraft that are armed with LACMs/ASCMs long before the platform/aircraft have come within range of a squadron's vessels or land targets.... and before they have launched their ASCMs/LACMs...

CEC is vital for naval squadron/task force self defence against airborne threats (especially low-flying)...
CEC is essential for Integrated Fire Control (IFC) + mission cohesion between vessels and land-based units and aircraft:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Naval-Weapon-Systems/Cooperative-Engagement-Capability-CEC-AN-USG-2--USG-3-United-States.html
http://www.ndu.edu/CTNSP/docUploaded/Case%2011%20%20CEC%20Transforming%20Naval%20Anti-Warfare.pdf
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td/td1604/APLteam.pdf

CEC-equipped fixed-wing AWACS radar aircraft:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/assets/E-2D_Brochure.pdf
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/index.html
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/assets/E-2D_Storybook.pdf
------------------------

The most up to date and capable LACMs & ASCMs marketed by China, India and Russia today will typically travel the initial portion of their flight path (up-to 180 miles) at just below mach 1...

Once within 20-miles or so of an intended target, many LACMs & ASCMs will accelerate to mach 2 to 3.5- greatly shortening time available for defences to detect, identify and react...

It only takes 40-60 seconds for Russia's, India's and China's most up-to-date Land Attack and Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (LACMs & ASCMs) to travel the last 20-miles of their (up-to 200-mile) flight paths- certainly not enough time to scramble fighter aircraft!!!
-------------------

Janes reported late in 2009 that a 'final' decision on whether RN surface combatants- including the integral-to-fleet-air-defence Type-45 Destroyers- will be fitted with 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC) will be made in 2010- but no mention about CEC in the 2010 SDSR and no mention in this year's MoD budget...:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw091201_1_n.shtml or
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065928325

HOW COME NO FIXED-WING AWACS AIRCRAFT BASED IN FALKLANDS??!!!!

HOW COME THE 2010 SDSR DID NOT COMMENT ON COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY FOR UK FORCES??
Roderick V. Louis, - Vancouver, BC, Canada

01 February 2012

The navy has nothing to fear from Argentina.

Their president has found it quite easy to voice off for home public consumption about the Falklands and get nods of approval from their neighbours but it's an entirely different matter authorising military action in international waters.
Zel - Abroad

01 February 2012

Roderick V. Louis, - Vancouver, BC, Canada


Simple answer - a £38Bn blackhole in Defence budget scuppered CEC this time round.

Obviously, capability can be added later (at a cost) and once more units that are able to accept CEC become available (i.e. 6 T45s), CEC becomes a compelling arguement. Hoping that the T26 frigate will have CEC as-built.
AW Employee - Yeovil

01 February 2012

It is being sent to coincide with Prince William being sent to the FI so as to protect him.
G - High Wycombe

01 February 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

Wait to the next round of figures for the blackhole that will be released soon, 38 Bn is just the start. . .
anon - UK

01 February 2012

In answer to a point made above. I believe that the height of the Samson Radar above the sea means that the Type 45 can see a lot further than 20 miles. Considerably more in fact. That's why the ships are so large, to support this radar system. The Type 45s always look high in the water as the boot topping is not a straight line on these vessels, but curves up towards the bow.

I hope that all our Type 45s on active service will have a full complement of Sea Viper missiles, a Merlin and the Harpoon launchers.
Ian R - Durham

02 February 2012

I don't believe the Argentinians in a crisis have the ability to match our forces even after the cuts that are under way with the uk forces. If in a crisis we sent down to the Falklands a type 45 and a frigate plus one SSN extra Typhoons and troops, this would make it very hard for the Argentinians to invade the islands. when it comes to the type 45's i think they should have the harpoon missile and in future years when the economy allows a type of cruise missile if possible,this would give the type 45's the fire power of a cruiser, and would also mean the RN has 13 vessels able to fire cruise missiles, 6 type 45's and 7 SNN'S.
Mike - Chelmsford, England

02 February 2012

@ 'Armchair Admiral'

you state: "...£1bn Destroyer..."

as though this is out-of-line with realistic costs...

The U.S. spends and is planning to spend 25-33% more for its Burke class Destroyers which are in the same class and displacement range as Type-45s...

Japan and S. Korea which both use and have built-under-license Burke class designs spend more than the U.S. on their vessels...

If "competent & capable to-meet-21st-century challenges-and-duties" are principles underpinning a countries' military procurement policies- then £1bn per Destroyer ought to be viewed as acceptable...
Mr. Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 February 2012

IS 1 TYPE-45 DESTROYER's COMPLEMENT OF 48 ANTI-AIRBORNE THREAT MISSILES ADEQUATE FOR FALKLANDS DUTIES??!!!!

Type-45s' maximum missile armament capacity is only 48 anti-air Sea Vipers (32 'long' range (up-to about 48-miles) and 16 short range/point-defence (13-miles)......

Although Type-45s were designed with sufficient spaces to accommodate a 64-cell missile launcher (VLS), the smaller 48-cell VLS is being/has been fitted- in order to save money...

Why is raising the number of weapons/missile cells/silos fitted to Type-45s' important??

Once used (weapons/missiles fired), warships' VLS weapons launchers' individual cells/silos CAN NOT BE RE-ARMED AT SEA

A stable sea-state port or port-like environment is required...

... It's a long, long way from the south Atlantic to Chile, St.Helena or Portsmouth....

Have facilities been established at the Falklands that will enable the re-arming of Type-45s at the Falklands, if required??
==============
==============

- http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf (pages 40, 64, 108)....

- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm :

".... A US Navy warship that runs out of SM-2 Block IVA, SM-2/LEAP or TLAM missiles has to break off its patrol and proceed to port to reload..."

- "'2002 Assessment of the (U.S.) Office of Naval Research's Air and Surface Weapons':
http://books.google.com/books?id=QjTHtT_Bx0IC&pg=PA17&dq=reload+AND+vls&hl=en&ei=NzP_TdmDB-LiiAKb862JBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=reload%20AND%20vls&f=false - (Page #17 )

- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm :
".... A US Navy warship that runs out of SM-2 Block IVA, SM-2/LEAP or TLAM missiles has to break off its patrol and proceed to port to reload..."
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 February 2012

Roderick.

Seriously, you have absolutely no idea about radar, so you should refrain from commenting on them as you just read less than knowledgable.

The scenarios WrT an airborne attack by aircraft or missiles have holes in them. Situations just do not go from cold to hot in a flick of a switch. There is political jostling (much like now); chest pumping manoeuvres (deploying assets to antagonise or for the purpose of prepositioning ones pieces). In these cases, given the historical precedent from 1982; the UK would deploy assets (of which there are few, especially maritime based) to meet any emerging threat.

Importantly, the Argentines do not have any of the capabilities you rattled on about. No supersonic surface attack missiles and no advanced link technologies, such as (again the rattling) CEC.

The UK however does have advanced link technologies (especially in the warships and certain aircraft), and once again CEC is not the 'be all' link you make it out to be. The current links will allow various assets to share tracking and and weapon control functions to negate the very much run-down opposition the Argentine forces currently possess.

------------------------------------------

It is an added bonus that one (of too few) of the UK's most advanced instruments of war in the Type 45 Destroyers will be in the Falklands when HRH Prince William is deployed there also.

The fact remains, with basically 19 warships in total, the RN will obviously deploy these vessels to it various global commitments; including the Falklands. Argentina brought this on itself by invading in the first place, so any efforts on the UK's part can be excused; even if they may appear to rattle the Argies up a bit; which is just a added bonus...
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

02 February 2012

At least 2 Type-45s should be on station in the South Atlantic at ALL times from now until several months after the 2012 Olympics...

AND, due to Type-45s' less-than-optimal ASW capabilities, at least a couple of ASW Type-23s ought to be as well...
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 February 2012

@'Shaun':

you state- "...The scenarios WrT an airborne attack by aircraft or missiles have holes in them...

"Situations just do not go from cold to hot in a flick of a switch..."

And, of course surprise attacks never happen in war...

... and established military doctrine and teachings- which Argentine Commanders would read- say absolutely nothing about the value of surprising one's enemy...

Likewise, established military doctrine and teachings say absolutely nothing about the value concealing one's own capabilities from one's enemy- before launching surprise attacks....

And the increasingly adversarial, threatening and confrontational rhetoric and actions coming from Argentina's politicians and citizens- directed at the UK and the Falklands- is not in the least an indication of unpredictably-aggressive behavior from Argentina...
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 February 2012

@'Shaun':

you also state: "... you have absolutely no idea about radar, so you should refrain from commenting on them as you just read less than knowledgable..."

And, of course everything that the Marshal Institute, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the U.S. Army War College, Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory and Jane's say about what is required- in terms of radar assets- for cruise missile defense is all incorrect and devoid of factual basis...

Cruise Missile Defense AND type of radar required:

http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=480719
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/533.pdf
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/522.pdf
http://openscenarios.ida.org/scenarios/261-The_Cruise_Missile_Challenge.pdf
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065926691
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Naval-Weapon-Systems/Cooperative-Engagement-Capability-CEC-AN-USG-2--USG-3-United-States.html
http://www.ndu.edu/CTNSP/docUploaded/Case%2011%20%20CEC%20Transforming%20Naval%20Anti-Warfare.pdf
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td/td1604/APLteam.pdf
---------------------------

China's, Russia's and other countries' weapons manufacturers doing business in and/or attempting to do business in Argentina would all have senior executives that have read established military doctrine and teachings about the value of surprising one's enemy...

But, of course, China's, Russia's and other countries' weapons manufacturers' representatives would never- as part of their sales pitches to Argentine Commanders, bureaucrats & politicians- repeat any of what they had learned about military doctrine and tactics....

The Argentines formed a close military relationship with Russia in 2010.

As a means of selling their weapons systems to Argentina, Russia's arms manufacturers and military representatives can not reasonably be assumed to be advising Argentina's military, bureaucrats and politicians on what- from a military capability standpoint- would be required to achieve certain objectives vis a vis the Falklands...

"Argentina plans 50 percent boost in defense spending", 01_09-2010:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/09/01/Argentina-plans-50-percent-boost-in-defense-spending/UPI-22001283376479/

***** "Argentina Makes First Defense Buy From Russia", 21_04-2010:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4592392
http://geneva-globaldefence.blogspot.com/2010/09/russia-to-sell-mi-17-helicopters-to.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2010/Concealed-carriage-Club-K-changes-cruise-missile-rules.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68K04K20100921
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_in_300-million-dollar_missile_deal_with_Syria_report_999.html
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

03 February 2012

Roderick.

I stand by original statement.

You are unknowledgeable in radar matters.

Your references, which I wasted a few minutes on checking a few of; relate to american efforts and offer little relevance to the Type 45 and any other approach which doesn't include the AEGIS or Mk41 systems. I would normally counter such posts with the facts, however as in the past, you are too narrow minded to take this onboard. So I wont bother.

Your research shows a narrow (US) viewpoint to naval warfare which has a multitude of possibilities in the technology and tactics which will alter the outcome. Furthermore it is empty on actual facts relevant to the article of discussion in general.

Your replies just prove my point.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

03 February 2012

We, as the great unwashed, aren't privy to the full facts of Dauntless being deployed. The fact of the matter is that HRH Prince William is doing a tour over there,and the RN's most modern warship is too. Of course there will be an SSN lurking about somewhere, so top and bottom is covered. So's AsuW by Dauntless' aircraft. Should probably send a Type 42 or 23 as well. The Argies are going to claim that anything the UK does to protect the Falklands is antagonistic so why not go the whole hog and have an expeditionary deployment of four more Tiffies, another company of troops and a Herk J-series for transport and MPA? The Herk could bring in a couple of Warriors for patrol purposes too...
Andy Cole - Manchester

04 February 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096265/Nuclear-sub-Falklands-patrol--flames-fury-continue-Argentina.html

As suspected, with the 30th anniversary there would be a strong military presence down south. No word on RAF or BA deployments though...??

As has been reported previously, the Argentinean military capabilities are much eroded since '82. Even the deployment of one Hunter-Killer is a game changer. The T-boat is very adept at ASW, ASuW and land attack missions in war, while in peace acting as a deterrent for hostilities due to the before mentioned capabilities.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN