Type 31 Frigate

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.



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)



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...)



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?
Laughs in Royal Navy to our Irish poster (@PhotEx ).
 

Mattb

LE
If Swarm attacks are such a clear and present danger, Where’s the UOR to rush out 40mm and 57mm guns across the Fleet?
Well the existing fleet has a pair of 30mm guns AND a 4.5" gun.
 

bob231

War Hero
TL;DR - dabbers are thick. Give them fisher-price control systems.
Same applies to Stokers!

MCAS - for when you went to feel smug about the phone you owned a decade ago.


ETA - thanks to most (esp OlaftheRed, A2Matelot, jrwlynch) for a very informative and thoroughly enjoyable thread and for setting me straight on my own fantasy fleet moment. VMT.
 
Last edited:
France wants 10 new ships somewhere between OPVs and frigates, with the important condition that they must have a towed-array sonar to take part in support to the SSBNs:

 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
So basically “the requirements are appropriate because they are the requirements”?
And the requirements are that some corrupt limpcuck gets a highly paid job with the company whose products the requirements were written to meet.

Hence you can't have the same requirements twice, as that job is already filled.
 

bob231

War Hero
Because it's built to a civilian spec and is correspondingly much cheaper?

I'd love to go to sea in an Iver Huitfeldt. I'd hate to go to war in one.
 
Because it's built to a civilian spec and is correspondingly much cheaper?

I'd love to go to sea in an Iver Huitfeldt. I'd hate to go to war in one.

Hellmans make a very nice mayonnaise, they also make Marks & Sparks own brand.
Its the same stuff, but you pay more for the M&S label.
Same with Huitfelds and T-31 - same thing, but the original is just as good and cheaper as you aren't paying the upmarket brand markup.
 
Hellmans make a very nice mayonnaise, they also make Marks & Sparks own brand.
Its the same stuff, but you pay more for the M&S label.
Same with Huitfelds and T-31 - same thing, but the original is just as good and cheaper as you aren't paying the upmarket brand markup.
Nope.
 
Because it's built to a civilian spec and is correspondingly much cheaper?

I'd love to go to sea in an Iver Huitfeldt. I'd hate to go to war in one.
Lloyds Register has a longstanding classification which details the standards to which commercial shipping should be built. More recently, they developed a Naval classification, which reflects the standards required for warships, and borrows heavily from DefStans (which is where the old NESs now reside). A ship built to LR Naval spec is pretty much the equivalent of the same ship built to DefStans.
 
Lloyds Register has a longstanding classification which details the standards to which commercial shipping should be built. More recently, they developed a Naval classification, which reflects the standards required for warships, and borrows heavily from DefStans (which is where the old NESs now reside). A ship built to LR Naval spec is pretty much the equivalent of the same ship built to DefStans.
Do the Danes, build their own ships (Iver Huitfeldt class included), to "our" Lloyds Register Naval spec (DefStans), as we build/sell the Type 31 . . . -or- . . . are the original Danish ships less expensive, because they are built more along "commercial" standrds?
 
Do the Danes, build their own ships (Iver Huitfeldt class included), to "our" Lloyds Register Naval spec (DefStans), as we build/sell the Type 31 . . . -or- . . . are the original Danish ships less expensive, because they are built more along "commercial" standrds?
They are less expensive because people compare apple and orange prices then declare its a banana
 
Do the Danes, build their own ships (Iver Huitfeldt class included), to "our" Lloyds Register Naval spec (DefStans), as we build/sell the Type 31 . . . -or- . . . are the original Danish ships less expensive, because they are built more along "commercial" standrds?
The main reason that that Iver Huitfeldts have a reputation for being so cheap is a combination of two factors. The first is Danish accounting practices. The price you see in the press is for the hull and engines. The builder was contracted for just a basic ship. Fitting out as a warship is on top of that and the contracts for those were let to other companies. The role of coordinating the various companies involved was taken on by the Danish ministry of defence using their own staff, not to another company such as BAE or equivalent. According to Canadian accounting studies, fitting out a ship with "combat systems" accounts for roughly half the cost of the complete ship. I've never seen any figures released for the full cost of the ships for Denmark.

The other thing that saved money in the case of the Iver Huitfeldts was that the hull was built as modules in low wage Baltic State shipyards and the final assembly done in a Danish yard. You lose that cost saving of course if you build the whole thing in your own yards. Also, the Danish yard went bankrupt after that contract, so I don't know how much of the low price may have been due to them under-estimating the actual cost to begin with.
 

bob231

War Hero
Do the Danes, build their own ships (Iver Huitfeldt class included), to "our" Lloyds Register Naval spec (DefStans), as we build/sell the Type 31 . . . -or- . . . are the original Danish ships less expensive, because they are built more along "commercial" standrds?
My statement may be incorrect: I am basing it on what I saw of the interior spaces during an extensive tour. Whether they were built to military standards for shock loading, strength, watertight subdivision I genuinely don't know.

However, I'd not like to deal with any major internal incident on one.
 
My statement may be incorrect: I am basing it on what I saw of the interior spaces during an extensive tour. Whether they were built to military standards for shock loading, strength, watertight subdivision I genuinely don't know.

However, I'd not like to deal with any major internal incident on one.
From what you say, it seems likely that if you (as someone who's familiar with Naval ships) are questioning that based on what you've actually seen, then it's likely that it's not to the same standards.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top