Spanish Support to Russian Naval Assets

#41
They didn't have anything ORIGINALLY hence the empty space. It was ffbnw some towed thing but not hat we have now. I think port of the problem may have been resolving the data as the body twisted and turned in the water. btw some fancy cables were being tested in 1961.
Variable Depth Sonar. I think the transducer was towed, but it was not an array.

[QUOTE="Yokel, post: 8905324, member: 6671 ...- even the Sea Wolf system was a counter to submarine fired missiles the Soviets had.
I do wonder it would have coped against a sea skimmer given sea returns. The original concept was about ordinary jets and iron bombs.[/QUOTE]

Errr - @jrwlynch?

The radar (originally 910?) did have a very narrow beamwidth, and there was also an electro optical tracker.

Where did Russian ships get fuel from during the Cold War?
 
#42
ships mag.jpg

Your father has a ship's magazine...? Doesn't he fear a door knock from the authorities?
 
#43
Whilst we persisted in fitting (only) four x single Exocet containers, the "quadruple" launcher became available, with 4 x Exocet in each "container".
Not quite. Aside from the minor issue that the MM40 variant only became available in the 1980s (by which time we were already on the Harpoon page), the launcher of which you speak is a very different beast from that for the MM38 version and could not have been fitted where they were on the T22 B1&2.

When the MM38 was selected for the RN - in 1976 or thereabouts, it was pretty much the new kid on the block, brand-spankers and ally as hell. Which is why it went on the T21 and DLG.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
#44
Errr - @jrwlynch?

The radar (originally 910?) did have a very narrow beamwidth, and there was also an electro optical tracker.
Sea Wolf's original requirement was to counter aircraft and missiles, with the SS-N-7 Starbright (fired by the Charlie-class SSGNs) a particular worry - read Hacket''s "The Third World War" for a feel for how alarmed folk were by those. SS-N-7 wasn't a proper seaskimmer but it did fly fairly low, the big worry was the very short reaction time (which is why from the start, Sea Wolf had so much automation built in)

To deal with really low-flying seaskimmers like Exocet on the early Wolf ships, the TV tracker and manual operation gave some capability; then the TV was replaced by a thermal imager (giving night & worse-weather capability), before the more definitive Radar 911 came along with a high-frequency radar (lifted from Rapier) for low-level engagements.

The last iteration was Sea Wolf MLU, which went to three sensors (the two radars and a modern thermal camera) on the tracker, and used a decent stab at sensor fusion, rather than "Radar A up high, Radar B down low"; that arrived in 2008 or so but is now getting replaced ship-by-ship by Sea Ceptor.
 
#45
Disappointingly it appears they forgot about old wheezes like putting the wrong fuel in, putting laxatives in milk if people keep using it without asking, a banana up the exhaust pipe....

Royal Navy frigate HMS St Albans escorts Russian warship through English Channel

The Russian unit – accompanied by an auxiliary ship and tug – recently left the Mediterranean and was tracked by allied French naval warships through the Bay of Biscay.

1. Why could her auxiliary not refuel her?
2. Why does she need a tug with her?
3. Is there cause for a thread to note RN escorts of passing Russian warships and RAF interceptions of Bears et al?
 
Last edited:
#47
#48
#51
The original Leanders had a variable depth sonar - I suppose not totally unlike the dipping sonar fitted to a helicopter or the minehunting sonar carried by the Sandown class SRMH. Leander was on my my father's ships. He still has a ship's magazine somewhere.

Actual towed array sonar was not invented until the seventies. A number of Leanders were converted to the towed array role.
The type 12 Hull was an extremely efficient design. The RN and a number of other navies were well served by the Rothesay and Leander class designs.
 
#53
Close up imagery is available anytime we want in international waters from helicopters and MPA while the hull design is old so probably not much to be gained from a Buster Crabb type adventure.



Because a slow moving A-10 would last a long time against SA-N-6, SA-N-4, AK-130 and CIWS! ;)

Regards,
MM
Reminds me of chapter in Tom Clancy Hunt For Red October (and should have been featured in the Sean’s Connery / Adam Baldwin flick) where a flight of Warthogs were scrambled to fly low over the Kirov to put the frighteners on the Soviets hunting Ramius.

Cheers
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
#54
Reminds me of chapter in Tom Clancy Hunt For Red October (and should have been featured in the Sean’s Connery / Adam Baldwin flick) where a flight of Warthogs were scrambled to fly low over the Kirov to put the frighteners on the Soviets hunting Ramius.

Cheers
The problem being, that was buying into the overenthusiastic Military Reform Movement "don't worry about guided missiles, they're useless" - rather than the "flying in on the exact flight profile of the 'really easy target drone' we use to test that the SAMs aren't complete failures before we try them on anything difficult" which is what's in the book.

Using A-10s for maritime strike is like calling Snatch Land Rovers "infantry combat vehicles" - it's funny until the enemy stops laughing and starts shooting.
 
#55
Using A-10s for maritime strike is like calling Snatch Land Rovers "infantry combat vehicles" - it's funny until the enemy stops laughing and starts shooting.
Although Fairchild did attempt to prolong the production line by offering a maritime strike option on the dear old Warthog...

A-10 Exocet.jpg
 
#57
Reminds me of chapter in Tom Clancy Hunt For Red October (and should have been featured in the Sean’s Connery / Adam Baldwin flick) where a flight of Warthogs were scrambled to fly low over the Kirov to put the frighteners on the Soviets hunting Ramius.

Cheers
F15C
 
#59
Sea Wolf's original requirement was to counter aircraft and missiles, with the SS-N-7 Starbright (fired by the Charlie-class SSGNs) a particular worry - read Hacket''s "The Third World War" for a feel for how alarmed folk were by those. SS-N-7 wasn't a proper seaskimmer but it did fly fairly low, the big worry was the very short reaction time (which is why from the start, Sea Wolf had so much automation built in)

To deal with really low-flying seaskimmers like Exocet on the early Wolf ships, the TV tracker and manual operation gave some capability; then the TV was replaced by a thermal imager (giving night & worse-weather capability), before the more definitive Radar 911 came along with a high-frequency radar (lifted from Rapier) for low-level engagements.

The last iteration was Sea Wolf MLU, which went to three sensors (the two radars and a modern thermal camera) on the tracker, and used a decent stab at sensor fusion, rather than "Radar A up high, Radar B down low"; that arrived in 2008 or so but is now getting replaced ship-by-ship by Sea Ceptor.
Interesting to see Sea Wolf discussed, my father was a senior member of the design team. He told me a story about the sea trials, I seem to remember in Australia, where drones were being knocked out of the sky with unarmed warheads (so no proximity effect).
 

Top