Type 31 Frigate

Rab_C

War Hero
Hush now.

You might have to ask how the US ship that was meant to be providing cover (while Gloucester was resetting in the box and had her blind arc pointed at the shore) with the superior US sensor and weapon fit the RN were fools, dupes and dunces for not buying... only detected the Seersucker visually. When it exploded. After Gloucester had shot it.

After all, that ship had amazing US radars, and the far better Standard missile, and the invincible Alkahest of a 76mm OTO-Melara... so just why was it still looking around asking "What? Where? Is something happening?" while a Pompey gas queen was actually dealing with the threat?
Ah but as all Guzz natives know, it was in fact the silkworm that locked on to the sea dart and took it out.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm asking where the amazing off-the-shelf worked-first-time 5" gun you're saying the RN rejected was - apparently there wasn't one, and Their Lordships were fools for not buying something that didn't then exist.

During and just after WW2, a 3" rapid-firing gun looked like a really good option. The US tried and failed to get theirs to work, ours was somewhat better and lasted into the 1990s with the Canadians. Clear evidence of failure and the RN rejecting the 3" calibre, I'm sure you'll agree - though it didn't go on the postwar frigates because it wasn't ready, and the 4.5" Mk VI was there, working and effective.

Of course in the 1940 and 1950s, it should have bee obvious to everyone that they should just fire up the DeLorean and drive to 1963 to pick up the design documents for an Italian gun instead - but you had checked the dates, hadn't you?



Isn't it strange how US carriers really like having Type 45s escort them? To the point that the AEGIS ship gets detached to go and sit by ABOT/KAAOT leaving the T45 and the carrier by themselves?

It's almost as if the US know something you don't. Perhaps you should head over to Norfolk and let them know how wrong-headed they are?


If you don't know what you're talking about, you look as silly as a very silly thing when you start ranting.
My underline (I hope) has just reminded me of a protest sign I saw on the Internet that made me snigger.

"What do we want?"
"TIME TRAVEL!"
"When do we want it?"
"ITS IRRELEVANT!"
 
Which explains why all the RN puff about its wonderful ability to defend itself against swarm attacks with its new bespoke guns selected for their ability to defeats - swarm attacks.

B2 OPV in the PG/NAG - No need for new better gats to defend itself against the threat de jour, swarm attacks, but magically, in 2028 , its replacement needs the ability to defend itself against swarm attacks.

I'm glad the IRGC have taken that on board and will not spoil our party until ≥ 2028 and issue ROE's that RN OPV's are not to be unsportingly swarmed as per their SOP.
But T31 isnt replacing B2OPV? B2 OPV isnt currently heading to the Gulf. T31 is in no way measurable with B2OPV in its role or size.
 
And shot up the HVU that Jarrett was supposed to be defending with her life...
That makes the over the shoulder rear aspect Sea Dart shot sound almost professional.
 
RN is subject to two factors outside its control - politics and HM treasury.
Within those constraints, they will choose to the best advantage for the designated role. If a future Type X mounts a South Korean 91mm gun on a hull designed in Nigeria, depend on it that there are good reasons for it. The profit is in asking WHY they did it, not telling them what they SHOULD have done, especially if one isn't in the know. One gains knowledge , not disseminating a pov.
...I'll get off me high horse....
 
But T31 isnt replacing B2OPV? B2 OPV isnt currently heading to the Gulf. T31 is in no way measurable with B2OPV in its role or size.

Please contact the Admiral who has publicly stated that T31 will replace B2 OPV's 1 4 1
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Sea Dart x 2; didn't the CPO who spotted the inbound SIlkworm get some sort of commendation?
MD: No Doppler aft, I say again. Track 7767 splashed with birds.
CO By whose birds?
MD: Ours, sir!
 
After all, that ship had amazing US radars, and the far better Standard missile, and the invincible Alkahest of a 76mm OTO-Melara... so just why was it still looking around asking "What? Where? Is something happening?" while a Pompey floating gash barge and purveyor of rubber dog sh!t was actually dealing with the threat?
FOC
 
Please contact the Admiral who has publicly stated that T31 will replace B2 OPV's 1 4 1
Ok that's fair, where did he say this?

Then we should all be happy that we are getting a ship that is larger and more capable!

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 
Was that the one where the guy who pressed the button was convinced he had some sort of supernatural experience?
Can you blame him ? You'd think it was an out of date unreliable system with a dodgy radar and a Kellogg's CMS the way some carry on, and lo behold, did wot it sez on the tin. If you don't think that was divine intervention....
 
Hush now.

You might have to ask how the US ship that was meant to be providing cover (while Gloucester was resetting in the box and had her blind arc pointed at the shore) with the superior US sensor and weapon fit the RN were fools, dupes and dunces for not buying... only detected the Seersucker visually. When it exploded. After Gloucester had shot it.

After all, that ship had amazing US radars, and the far better Standard missile, and the invincible Alkahest of a 76mm OTO-Melara... so just why was it still looking around asking "What? Where? Is something happening?" while a Pompey gas queen was actually dealing with the threat?
Hmmmm……

Nothing to do with the Group doing an end around at the end of the gun run in the swept channel at the time the missile was detected and both escorts were pointed east?

You fail to mention lookouts of Missouri detected the target visually, correctly identified it as a missile, and guns and countermeasure were spun up

You also seem to have missed the little issue of the fact the missile was flying in a dedicated coalition air lane, not emitting, so not so fast with the six shooters Lone Ranger - check its not the friendlies you've been told to watch out for.

And the missile was traveling passive and non emitting at @ 1,000ft, (according to HMS London who didn't take a pop at it either), bothering no one, opening its range and bearing with regards Missouri as it headed off down the Gulf, so its Phalanx mounts duly ignored it, as did Gloucesters.

And of course, the 'last second snap shot' kill of the minding its own business Seersucker occurred when it was 6nm astern of Missouri and heading off downrange.

As regards the Jarrett and Missouri shooting?
That was the next day and it was Exeter in attendance

Of course, after the previous days shenanigans, Jarrett unsurprisingly had switched Phalanx to auto engage, and sure enough, miscall of a launch on shore, Missouri first volley of chaff blooms close to Jarrett barely 3nm miles away, and its Phalanx goes all Phalanx on its ass - sods law, it picked on the chaff cloud in direct line of bearing with Missouri. 2nd volley went off over Jarrett, goes all Phalanx on that clouds too so they switch the phalanx off.

Who'd of thunk it,
Day 1, passive target, flying high and opening its range and bearing, classified as no threat and not engaged by assorted weapons systems.
Day 2, chaff brassed up by a weapon in auto engage mode.
 
For all those who dont fancy Photex wall of text it can be summed thus

British Kit Shit

Royal Navy shot at easy pointless target everyone knew had already missed

USN Kit absolutely Fantastic - only engaged the friendly because of crap brits and their stupidity the day before the day before
 
Hmmmm……

Nothing to do with the Group doing an end around at the end of the gun run in the swept channel at the time the missile was detected and both escorts were pointed east?

You fail to mention lookouts of Missouri detected the target visually, correctly identified it as a missile, and guns and countermeasure were spun up

You also seem to have missed the little issue of the fact the missile was flying in a dedicated coalition air lane, not emitting, so not so fast with the six shooters Lone Ranger - check its not the friendlies you've been told to watch out for.

And the missile was traveling passive and non emitting at @ 1,000ft, (according to HMS London who didn't take a pop at it either), bothering no one, opening its range and bearing with regards Missouri as it headed off down the Gulf, so its Phalanx mounts duly ignored it, as did Gloucesters.

And of course, the 'last second snap shot' kill of the minding its own business Seersucker occurred when it was 6nm astern of Missouri and heading off downrange.

As regards the Jarrett and Missouri shooting?
That was the next day and it was Exeter in attendance

Of course, after the previous days shenanigans, Jarrett unsurprisingly had switched Phalanx to auto engage, and sure enough, miscall of a launch on shore, Missouri first volley of chaff blooms close to Jarrett barely 3nm miles away, and its Phalanx goes all Phalanx on its ass - sods law, it picked on the chaff cloud in direct line of bearing with Missouri. 2nd volley went off over Jarrett, goes all Phalanx on that clouds too so they switch the phalanx off.

Who'd of thunk it,
Day 1, passive target, flying high and opening its range and bearing, classified as no threat and not engaged by assorted weapons systems.
Day 2, chaff brassed up by a weapon in auto engage mode.
But, but the wrong ship engaged the missile and destroyed it!
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Hmmmm……

Nothing to do with the Group doing an end around at the end of the gun run in the swept channel at the time the missile was detected and both escorts were pointed east?
I did point out that detail. Jarrett was meant to be covering - she'd got "confused". Your lack of comprehension continues to impress - if you can't even read what's being written, no wonder your understanding is so flawed.

You fail to mention lookouts of Missouri detected the target visually, correctly identified it as a missile, and guns and countermeasure were spun up
Visual detection aboard Missouri when the missile was three miles out. Too late for countermeasures, though Phalanx might have had a chance if the missile had been in parameters.

Note no radar detection by any of the US ships with their super-duper betterest systems. (Jarrett later claimed that her radar had detected at about six miles, but it never formed a track or reported it on the CSH - it was only picked up in the after-action analysis)

You also seem to have missed the little issue of the fact the missile was flying in a dedicated coalition air lane, not emitting, so not so fast with the six shooters Lone Ranger - check its not the friendlies you've been told to watch out for.
And indeed Gloucester's air team had just come out of a huddle where a contact had come down that lane below 1,000', 450 knots, no IFF, no radar, didn't answer warnings... until locking a 909 on persuaded the USN A-6 that perhaps he should let the warship know who he was. There was a justified concern that most flying things were likely to be friendly and fratricide was a real concern.

But then a US author (Marvin Pokrant, "Desert Storm At Sea", 1999 Greenwood) points out that every time an unidentified contact closed the force, Gloucester had made a correct identification, and did so again in this case.

(The US ships solved the problem by not seeing it at all - you don't have to identify a target you never detected...)

And the missile was traveling passive and non emitting at @ 1,000ft, (according to HMS London who didn't take a pop at it either),
London never held it on radar - the reconstruction indicated it flew right down a 968 null, and 967M was whited out by EMI.

Note also that this was indeed Seersucker cruise height, and "lack of emitter" might mean a failed seeker head, or targeting error... or it might be a HY-2A with an infrared seeker.

You might also include the US volleying off soft-kill, both too late to be any use and in defiance of the pre-agreed force AAW policy, but that might be a little awkward. (Both Gloucester and London correctly held softkill)


It does seem that you've got only the most superficial, and sometimes incorrect, understanding of the incident - might I suggest you read some of the actual analysis? Look through the recordings? Perhaps speak to a couple of participants? It's theoretically possible you might learn something by doing so.

However, since you're thicker than a whale omelette, your determination that "detecting, correctly identifying, and successfully reacting to" a threat is grossly inferior to letting it get so close that a lookout only spots it fifteen seconds out will doubtless remain unchallenged.


Let me guess, next you're going to explain to us all how much better the USS Vincennes did than all those incompetent British ships on the Armilla Patrol?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top