HMS Edinburgh passes her missile test

#1
Ministry of Defence said:
Type-42 destroyer HMS Edinburgh and her ship's company have proved she is ready to fight and take down fast-moving air targets, after successfully firing three Sea Darts.

More...
 
#2
Obsolete RN destroyer fires off 3 obsolete missiles.
 
#5
''We are not convinced by the MoD’s explanation that the reduction in the required number of Type 45s from twelve to eight and then eight to six was due to a better
understanding of the capabilities of the ship. Any one ship can only be in one place at a time. Whilst new technology may well have provided some better than expected
capabilities, the spiralling costs of the ship and the pressure on the equipment programme budget suggest that the reduction in numbers was in fact primarily
down to affordability
. The misleading explanations provided by the MoD in this case are another example of the unhelpful nature of MoD responses to our questions. We expect that our successor Committee will in the next Parliament continue to monitor the Type 45 programme until the associated air defence missile system is successfully delivered. (Paragraph 43)''

Defence Equipment 2010
 
#6
''1. Please provide an outline of the organisation and work programme for the implementation of the Gray report
recommendations and the preparation of the Strategy for Acquisition Reform which is due to be published in
the New Year.''

''MOD ANS
2.3 Specific examples of benefits arising from the programme approach include the rebalancing of
resources across the Maritime Platforms Programme by cancelling planned enhancements to the Type 42
Destroyer and reinvesting the freed-up resource in the Type 45 Destroyer.''
 
#8
Always with the negative vibes. Having splashed seven Argentine aircraft during CORPORATE and, uniquely, an Iraqi Silkworm anti-ship missile during GRANBY, Sea Dart still has an unparalleled record as a shipborne area air defence missile and has seen several upgrades throughout its life. Unlike the Type 45's much more capable Sea Viper, it also has an anti-surface mode. Let's not be quite so dismissive.
 
#9
Always with the negative vibes. Having splashed seven Argentine aircraft during CORPORATE and, uniquely, an Iraqi Silkworm anti-ship missile during GRANBY, Sea Dart still has an unparalleled record as a shipborne area air defence missile and has seen several upgrades throughout its life. Unlike the Type 45's much more capable Sea Viper, it also has an anti-surface mode. Let's not be quite so dismissive.
The point is I believe is that the missile's might still be fit for purpose, the ship type although older might still be fit for purpose... you can do very little with so few.

Like the report identifies, you can have the best kit in the world, but if its not there its not much use.
 
#10
Pause for thought... do you think the person who fired the missile was qualified to do his job? I bet he was!

''At the end of December 2009, only 63% of filled professional posts were occupied by a member of staff with
an appropriate qualification
. This has been increased from 50% when the posts were designated and DE&S
introduced its Upskilling programme. The DE&S graduate Trainee Accountant Development Scheme
(TADS) is a key intervention to achieve the target of having 90% of posts filled with appropriately qualified
and experienced staff by 2012–13. Currently 47 people are on the first stage of the scheme and 19 have
graduated. Results have been very successful, with five trainees gaining 10 Top 10 worldwide Chartered
Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) exam results.''
 
#11
The point is I believe is that the missile's might still be fit for purpose, the ship type although older might still be fit for purpose... you can do very little with so few.

Like the report identifies, you can have the best kit in the world, but if its not there its not much use.
No argument. My post wasn't made with you in mind.
 
#12
Always with the negative vibes. Having splashed seven Argentine aircraft during CORPORATE and, uniquely, an Iraqi Silkworm anti-ship missile during GRANBY, Sea Dart still has an unparalleled record as a shipborne area air defence missile and has seen several upgrades throughout its life. Unlike the Type 45's much more capable Sea Viper, it also has an anti-surface mode. Let's not be quite so dismissive.


At least 24 missiles fired for 7 kills and 1 own goal (a helicopter).


Aérospatiale Puma - May 9
A-4 Skyhawk - 25 May
A-4 Skyhawk - 25 May
A-4 Skyhawk - 30 May
A-4 Skyhawk - 30 May (Some reports state that at least one of these planes may have CFIT)
Learjet 35 - 6 June (2nd Learjet fired at but missed - considering non agile subsonic aircraft at 40k ft were the Sea Darts optimum target, not a good sign)
Canberra - June 30

So basically, it was able to to shoot down a handful of elderly subsonic bombers, some helicopters and a business jet, none of which were particularly agile or had any countermeasures; in return for 2 Type 42 Destroyers sunk and one Type 42 mission killed - hardly a stirring endorsement for an 'Air Defence Destroyer'.


And the Silkworm?

Being able to shoot down a huge, very subsonic and non sea skimming missile is hardly cutting edge stuff.

And Sea Dart still suffers from the same basic flaw that got HMS Coventry killed off Pebble Sound, it can't cycle and reload fast enough to deal with more than a few attackers. Against sea skimmers, supersonic jets or more than a pair of attackers, it would still be about as much use as tits on a bull.

The fact that both the Type 42 and Sea Dart are still in service 29 years after they were both found sorely wanting in combat says so much about the state of RN and MOD procurement.
 
#13
At least 24 missiles fired for 7 kills and 1 own goal (a helicopter).


Aérospatiale Puma - May 9
A-4 Skyhawk - 25 May
A-4 Skyhawk - 25 May
A-4 Skyhawk - 30 May
A-4 Skyhawk - 30 May (Some reports state that at least one of these planes may have CFIT)
Learjet 35 - 6 June (2nd Learjet fired at but missed - considering non agile subsonic aircraft at 40k ft were the Sea Darts optimum target, not a good sign)
Canberra - June 30

So basically, it was able to to shoot down a handful of elderly subsonic bombers, some helicopters and a business jet, none of which were particularly agile or had any countermeasures; in return for 2 Type 42 Destroyers sunk and one Type 42 mission killed - hardly a stirring endorsement for an 'Air Defence Destroyer'.


And the Silkworm?

Being able to shoot down a huge, very subsonic and non sea skimming missile is hardly cutting edge stuff.

And Sea Dart still suffers from the same basic flaw that got HMS Coventry killed off Pebble Sound, it can't cycle and reload fast enough to deal with more than a few attackers. Against sea skimmers, supersonic jets or more than a pair of attackers, it would still be about as much use as tits on a bull.

The fact that both the Type 42 and Sea Dart are still in service 29 years after they were both found sorely wanting in combat says so much about the state of RN and MOD procurement.
Actually it says a lot more about Government and the average taxpayers' willingness to ignore reality and let defence spending disappear down the toilet. Or is it actually about taking risk cos you ain't got any cash and you don't know what's coming?

These weapon systems like T45 are coming into service because they were judged as the requirement at the time. Looking into the future isn't easy and occasionally ends in tears. How many tears is determined by the softer factors such as training and leadership. In '82 we had both.
 
#15
When's the Edinburgh due for decommissioning? Can't be long now.
2013 or the next Government spending cuts, whichever comes first.
 
#16
At least 24 missiles fired for 7 kills and 1 own goal (a helicopter).

<snip>
Sea Dart can't be blamed for a blue on blue which the BoI described as "...an accident of war in which many factors played a part" but I'd be interested in seeing your glowing examples of shipborne SAMs with a better combat record.
 
#17
Still on the SAM topic but not shipborne i'm sure I saw a program the other week saying that in fact the Patriots record of 100% launch -kill ratio in the Gulf was in fact more likely 25%.

Bit concerned that theres a story in a ship testing its own missiles reeks of "thank feck for that, they actually launch "
 
#18
Sea Dart can't be blamed for a blue on blue which the BoI described as "...an accident of war in which many factors played a part" but I'd be interested to hear your glowing examples of shipborne SAMs with a better combat record.
The USN scored at least 5 kills of MIG fighters and a Styx SSM during the Vietnam war at ranges far in excess of that of Sea Dart without loss.
USS Long Beach: 2 x MIG 1968
USS Chicago: 1 x MIG -1972
USS Sterret: 1 x MIG, 1 X STYX ASM 1972 (Nearly 20 years before HMS Gloucester would shoot down 'her' Silkworm, aka STYX in 1991)
USS Biddle; 1 X MIG 1972


Your almost Pavlovian desire to see the best in all things RN is most heartening…

…it's also one of the main reasons the RN has found itself equipped with some of the most useless weapons systems, (many of them obsolete or approaching obsolescence before they have even entered service), since 1935.

I'm sure your predecessors were also nodding along furiously as the Navy Board announced what a technical triumph the Sea Slug was and how it was 'world class' and would give the Royal Navy an 'unmatched capability'.

Lets get real, the T42 was just the left overs from the stillborn and seriously flawed Type 82 DDG from the early 60's repackaged into a far too small hull that would be the achilles heel of the designs throughout their lives, rendering them almost impossible to update with modern weapons, unlike the comparable USN Spruance Class that were able to be retrofitted with far more effective weapons systems early in their lives.

The T42 was not a 'good' design in 1960's, it's a dinosaur now, nearly 50 years after the design was first touted.

We're FINALLY getting a competent air defence destroyer, in the form of the rather lightweight on the firepower front T45, some 20 years after the first USN Arleigh Burke DDG's entered service, some 30 years after the first of the USN's Ticonderoga Class CG's and 35 years after the USN Spruance Class DDG's, (all now gone), entered service.


Now, you may be excited as hell that an ancient and obsolete Destroyer managed to fire 3 even more ancient and obsolete missiles, but some of us ain't having spent the last 25 years watching the RN wibbling endlessly about what it wanted before finally ending up with something reasonable, (even if it wasn't what it really wanted) - and even then, it's a foreign missile we ended up using.
 
#19
Sea Dart can't be blamed for a blue on blue which the BoI described as "...an accident of war in which many factors played a part" but I'd be interested in seeing your glowing examples of shipborne SAMs with a better combat record.
The USN scored at least 5 kills of MIG fighters and a Styx SSM during the Vietnam war at ranges far in excess of that of Sea Dart without loss.
USS Long Beach: 2 x MIG 1968
USS Chicago: 1 x MIG -1972
USS Sterret: 1 x MIG, 1 X STYX ASM 1972 (Nearly 20 years before HMS Gloucester would shoot down 'her' Silkworm, aka STYX in 1991)
USS Biddle; 1 X MIG 1972

<snip>
You'll have to do better than that without providing credible sources. Several of these claims have long been disputed as little more than fairy tales, especially Chicago's claim of shooting down a MiG-17 at 48 miles and Sterret's RIM-2 Terriers taking out a Styx.

Supposedly, these kills were achieved variously by Talos, Terrier and Tartar missiles. So as to provide a fair comparison with Sea Dart's 8 kills out of 24 missiles launched:
a. How many US missiles of each type were officially fired in combat?
b. How many US missiles of each type officially hit their target?
c. How many US missiles of each type officially missed their target?
Incidentally, I have no wish to see the Type 42s and their Sea Darts in service for a minute longer than necessary. I just object to anyone whose inveterate knee jerk reaction to anything tinged dark blue is to disparage it whatever its merits.
 
#20
You'll have to do better than that without providing credible sources.
ANy US source I cite will be immediately classed as non credible in your unrelenting desire to believe that the RN is infallible and equipped with the finest weapons systems money can buy.

You'll have to do better than that without providing credible sources. Several of these claims have long been disputed as little more than fairy tales, especially Chicago[/
[/INDENT].


And how many aircraft have been shot down by the RN's contemporaneous 1960's fleet air defence missile, the utterly useless Sea Slug?
A missile so embarrassingly bad, no attempt was made to use them against aircraft during the Falklands we knew they had absolutely no chance of successfully engaging, let alone hitting an aircraft.


You've still conveniently ignored the rather awkward issue, that USN ships in the 60[s and 70's seemed to be well able to defend themselves and shoot down aircraft far faster, (and at far greater range including those operating over land and in clutter, something we couldn't do over West Falklands), than ancient Canberra's and A4's. And lets not even go down the route that the USN was able to target and destroy land based radars using its shipboard SAM's, a capability we might have found rather useful during the FI War instead of having to fly Vulcan bombers half way around the planet to do it. One presumes Their Lordships didn't consider that lesson from the Vietnam War as being one worth learning?


You'll have to do better than that without providing credible sources. Several of these claims have long been disputed as little more than fairy tales, especially Chicago[/
[/INDENT]Incidentally, I have no wish to see the Type 42s and their Sea Darts in service for a minute longer than necessary. I just object to anyone whose inveterate knee jerk reaction to anything tinged dark blue is to disparage it whatever its merits.



I had no desire to see the T42 in service any longer after 1982 as we should have accepted right there, the design was fatally compromised and un combat-worthy.

Basic failings?

1) An AAW Destroyer with a painfully slow rate of fire

2) Very vulnerable to damage with low stability margins

3) Said low stability margins stopped them being up armed with Sea Wolf, the preferred CIWS.

4) Said low stability margins required the main air search radar to be mounted ridiculously low limiting the ships radar horizon, rather a serious issue with an anti aircraft ship!

4) Very cramped.


The fact it took nearly 30 years after those lessons were painfully and forcibly rammed down Their Lordships throats in 1982 for a proper air defence Destroyer to be fielded is a truly shocking indictment of the attitude of the RN. A crash programme to design or buy OTS a proper and combat worthy DDG should have been the RN's tip priority post 1982.

You;re well known for your obsession that the Harrier is the answer to all the RN's needs, unfortunately so was the Admiralty obsessed with them to the detriment to the rest of the fleet that lacked any useful anti air capability.

Nothings been learned. The current obsession with carriers means the RN will now only be getting SIX rather than the TWELVE T45's it said it needed, (and even they will be of a limited capability), and the new Type 26 FFG will not have an area defence anti aircraft missile capability, just a very short range self defence one - a truly shocking omission in a ship that will often operate alone in hostile waters.

The rest of the world puts long range SAMS on their Frigates, so they can shoot down aircraft outside the range they can sink them but we don't. I suspect we don't have the right answer yet again.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top