HMS Diamond foils F-15 'attack'

#1
Ministry of Defence said:
Type 45 destroyer HMS Diamond tested her mettle against two of the fastest jet fighters in the world when she played cat and mouse with US Air Force F-15 Strike Eagles.

More...
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
if they weren't shot down then it didn't happen - everyone knows that.

raf regt has the best current airframe kill record - stick them on the IOW ferry in the hormuz straights if you want to terrify the iranians.
 
#4
Oh a pretend attack!!!! Lets pretend we have a large capable army too.
 
#5
Big deal. Every time the Army goes on exercise, it defeats the 3rd Shock Army. Probably weekly across the UK/ Germany.
 
#6
"Diamond can track scores of contacts up to 250 miles (400km) away - which gives the ship's company under ten minutes to deal with an F-15 at top speed."

Technically I suppose a few seconds is under 10 minutes. What sort of cretin writes this garbage?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#7
"Diamond can track scores of contacts up to 250 miles (400km) away - which gives the ship's company under ten minutes to deal with an F-15 at top speed."

Technically I suppose a few seconds is under 10 minutes. What sort of cretin writes this garbage?

Well an object travelling at a speed of 3,000km/h would take 8 minutes to cover a distance of 400km, however if the aircraft was carrying Harpoon it would need to travel 120 km in order to release the weapon within range (280km) of the target, which would take over 2 minutes, the weapon would then need 19 minutes to reach the target, a total of 21 minutes.
 
M

Mr_Tigger

Guest
#8
"Diamond can track scores of contacts up to 250 miles (400km) away
Unless they are doing something dastardly like trying to evade detection by flying at low level. I wouldn't put it past Johnny Foreigner.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#9
Unless they are doing something dastardly like trying to evade detection by flying at low level. I would put it past Johnny Foreigner.

How about really low level, like a submarine!
 
#10
How about really low level, like a submarine!
Didn't the First Lord say some years ago that "The last thing a ship commander wants is to be engaged in both an AAW and ASW battle at the same time, so we're not going to fit both packages to any one ship"?

This way the ship's captain can effectively engage one or the other threat, and happily ignore the fact that he's about to get fcuked by the other...
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#11
Big ****ing deal.

We used to 'shoot down' F15s all the time and that was on a 30 year old ship.

While drunk I might add, we were very drunk.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
Unless they are doing something dastardly like trying to evade detection by flying at low level. I would put it past Johnny Foreigner.
Oh, they know that, but it costs them: flying low means you burn a *lot* more fuel, which means less time on target and/or less warload.

Back in 1982 the Argentines had an excellent idea of how far our ships could see, and flew accordingly - but it meant their Skyhawks and Daggers were at the raggedy edge of their endurance (which meant some sorties were aborted because they didn't have enough fuel to search for targets, when ships had moved from their reported positions) and were also limited to typically one or two bombs per aircraft, where Skyhawks flying a more fuel-efficient profile could have hauled three or six bombs apiece.

And heaven forbid that we should ever put a radar on something that flies, so we can fill in beyond the horizon and datalink that picture back to the ships. We could call it... Airborne Surveillance and Control, perhaps?
 
M

Mr_Tigger

Guest
#13
Yes indeed. If an enemy is clever enough to operate Fast Jets they are probably also clever enough to have an idea how far the T45 can see too. Airborne Surveillance and Control? You mean that thing that will be capability gapped shortly until 2022?
 
#14
Oh, they know that, but it costs them: flying low means you burn a *lot* more fuel, which means less time on target and/or less warload.

Back in 1982 the Argentines had an excellent idea of how far our ships could see, and flew accordingly - but it meant their Skyhawks and Daggers were at the raggedy edge of their endurance (which meant some sorties were aborted because they didn't have enough fuel to search for targets, when ships had moved from their reported positions) and were also limited to typically one or two bombs per aircraft, where Skyhawks flying a more fuel-efficient profile could have hauled three or six bombs apiece.

And heaven forbid that we should ever put a radar on something that flies, so we can fill in beyond the horizon and datalink that picture back to the ships. We could call it... Airborne Surveillance and Control, perhaps?
To be fair, the Argentines did have a couple if T42's of their own to hone the technique on.

I suspect the point Tigger is making is that a real world enemy with high end fast movers would be aggressively jamming you and throwing things like HARM at you to put you off your stride.

ETA: ASaC's par helicopter? Rather a sitting duck downrange for something carrying AIM-120's without fighter cover?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
I suspect the point Tigger is making is that a real world enemy with high end fast movers would be aggressively jamming you and throwing things like HARM at you to put you off your stride.

ETA: ASaC's par helicopter? Rather a sitting duck downrange for something carrying AIM-120's without fighter cover?
Easier said than done, is the cop-out answer: there aren't many enemies who even have effective standoff jammers and ARMs, and our beloved political lords and masters *promise* that the UK won't have to fight such capable opponents for years and years, if ever.

More seriously, if we're up against a real-world enemy with numerous high-end pointy-nose jets that have robust ECM, effective ARMs, lethal MRAAMs and - crucially - the trained crews and support to use them (Who even fits that bill? It's a big ask...) then we're either Best Supporting Actor to the US, or else we're assuming some serious warning time and preparation.

And part of the politicians saying "you won't have to do X" is that when they change their minds, several someones make the risks and dangers explicit so they can't subsequently claim "but nobody told us it was risky..."
 
#17
Easier said than done, is the cop-out answer: there aren't many enemies who even have effective standoff jammers and ARMs, and our beloved political lords and masters *promise* that the UK won't have to fight such capable opponents for years and years, if ever.

More seriously, if we're up against a real-world enemy with numerous high-end pointy-nose jets that have robust ECM, effective ARMs, lethal MRAAMs and - crucially - the trained crews and support to use them (Who even fits that bill? It's a big ask...) then we're either Best Supporting Actor to the US, or else we're assuming some serious warning time and preparation.
You didn't see that James Bond flick where HM's fleet was sailing en masse to the South China Sea in preparation for a declaration of war against the PRC?
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
You didn't see that James Bond flick where HM's fleet was sailing en masse to the South China Sea in preparation for a declaration of war against the PRC?
fortunately they managed to cgi the 'fleet' in. I think our current leadership believe what they see on the tv, anyway re the T45 the iranians have some very clever super low flying aircraft

pirhayati20120101141941217.jpg
 

DieHard

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
Easier said than done, is the cop-out answer: there aren't many enemies who even have effective standoff jammers and ARMs, and our beloved political lords and masters *promise* that the UK won't have to fight such capable opponents for years and years, if ever.

More seriously, if we're up against a real-world enemy with numerous high-end pointy-nose jets that have robust ECM, effective ARMs, lethal MRAAMs and - crucially - the trained crews and support to use them (Who even fits that bill? It's a big ask...) then we're either Best Supporting Actor to the US, or else we're assuming some serious warning time and preparation.
You didn't see that James Bond flick where HM's fleet was sailing en masse to the South China Sea in preparation for a declaration of war against the PRC?
You mean that was a film?
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
fortunately they managed to cgi the 'fleet' in. I think our current leadership believe what they see on the tv, anyway re the T45 the iranians have some very clever super low flying aircraft

View attachment 93199
And you don't have to be terrible sophisticated to lay mines.

Been a few mine strikes.

Mind you biggest hazard to Naval Shipping at present seems to be poor navigation, HMS Astute, USS Port Royal,
USS Hartford and dare we even mention the loss of iPods from HMS Cornwall to name but a few recent ones.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top