View Full Version : Thai navy joins pirate patrol
Thailands sends two ships to the Gulf of Aden to combat pirates:
http://media.smh.com.au/national/selections/thai-navy-joins-pirate-patrol-1919968.html?from=newsbox
BTW,have Australia presence there :hmmm:
BTW,have Australia presence there :hmmm:
Not to my knowledge.
matter of time!
Oh we've been there done that but AFAIK no current deployments, also no Aussie shipping has been targeted so far so there's been less impetus for us to send ships over.
but it is well Traffic part of the West Coast, you never know if the pirates are moving
The West Coast is patrolled, mostly looking for asylum seekers though.
The West Coast is patrolled, mostly looking for asylum seekers though. :hmmm:
BTW,have Australia presence there :hmmm:
Yes. For a while now.
I was wrong then. Having a look HMAS Melbourne is over there now.
http://www.navy.gov.au/Melbourne%E2%80%99s_Major_Milestone
Jimbuna
09-11-10, 07:48 AM
I was wrong then. Having a look HMAS Melbourne is over there now.
http://www.navy.gov.au/Melbourne%E2%80%99s_Major_Milestone
I knew it wouldn't be a Collins class :DL
we'd be lucky to get enough crew to get one to patrol Sydney Harbour.:damn:
TLAM Strike
09-11-10, 10:52 AM
Wonder if one of the ships they are sending is that Carrier of theirs?
Although the ship in the video was a Cannon class DE... yea a D fraking E...
The other was a Naresuan class Frigate I think...
we'd be lucky to get enough crew to get one to patrol Sydney Harbour.:damn: Tell them someone dropped a beer down there...
She looking very nice :up:
http://imgur.com/yIxDS.jpg
Commanding Officer Commander Michael John Harris
Pennant FFG 05
Class Adelaide Class
Based Sydney
Launched 5 May 1989
Commissioned 15 February 1992
Displacement 4200 tonnes4,200,000 kg
4.2e+9 g
9,259,412.4 lb
148,150,640.4 oz
Length 138.1 metres13,810 cm
0.138 km
0.0858 mi
453.084 ft
5,437.008 in
Beam 14.3 metres1,430 cm
0.0143 km
0.00889 mi
46.916 ft
562.992 in
Armament
* 76mm Rapid Fire Gun
* Harpoon Anti-ship Missiles
* SM2 Surface-to-Air Missiles
* Evolved Sea Sparrow Surface-to-Air Missiles
* Mk 41 Vertical Launch System
* Mk 13 Missile Launcher
* Phalanx Close-in Weapons System
* Nulka, Pirate, Seagnat and Lescut decoy systems
* 2 Mk 32 triple torpedo tubes
* Mk 46 torpedoes
Aircraft
* Up to two Seahawk helicopters
Main Machinery
* Two General Electric LM2500 gas turbines driving a single controllable pitch propeller
Speed 30 knots15.433 m/s
55.56 km/h
0.0154 km/s
3,038.059 ft/min
50.634 ft/s
Company 221
Jimbuna
09-11-10, 03:31 PM
we'd be lucky to get enough crew to get one to patrol Sydney Harbour.:damn:
I was thinking something along those lines :DL
Jimbuna
09-11-10, 03:33 PM
She looking very nice :up:
Very similar to the American OHP class.
Very similar to the American OHP class.
http://imgur.com/9jzNZ.jpg
That's because that's what she is. An O.H. Perry class FFG modified in a recent refit with new combat and navigation systems. Getting on a bit now but we tend to get fairly long service out of our ships. Can't afford to build new ones that often.
Same as the US OHPs except ours now have VLS for ESSM and also fire SM2s out of the Mk 13.
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_FFG_HMAS_Sydney_Modified_lg.jpg
I guess Thailand Thaied the knot with the other pirate hunters?:rotfl2:
TLAM Strike
09-12-10, 09:56 AM
Same as the US OHPs except ours now have VLS for ESSM and also fire SM2s out of the Mk 13.
Looks you folks added a FLIR above the bridge too.
Are they the long hull or short hull? Long hull has two hanger doors and carries the Seahawk, short has one and carries the Seasprite.
I guess Thailand Thaied the knot with the other pirate hunters?:rotfl2:
And to think they got together after just one night in Bangkok...
:O:
Looks you folks added a FLIR above the bridge too.
Are they the long hull or short hull? Long hull has two hanger doors and carries the Seahawk, short has one and carries the Seasprite.
And to think they got together after just one night in Bangkok...
:O:
Long hull two hangers to accommodate the Seahawk. (Note pic below is a sister ship of the Melbourne, the Canberra).
http://www.hmascanberra.com.au/assets/images/canberra/hmas_canberra_rear.jpg
Unfunnily we bought Sea Sprites for our Anzac Frigates, but not one of them made it inot operation despite millions of our peso's wasted.:damn:
CaptainMattJ.
09-12-10, 09:08 PM
Long hull two hangers to accommodate the Seahawk. (Note pic below is a sister ship of the Melbourne, the Canberra).
http://www.hmascanberra.com.au/assets/images/canberra/hmas_canberra_rear.jpg
Unfunnily we bought Sea Sprites for our Anzac Frigates, but not one of them made it inot operation despite millions of our peso's wasted.:damn:
man frigates are tiny. WWII is 1000 times more interesting then modern warfare. all it is now is input coordinates and press a button and you have a lot of dead people.hows that interesting?
TLAM Strike
09-12-10, 09:44 PM
man frigates are tiny. Actually the FFG-7 is 4,100 tons. Roughly twice the displacement as a WWII era Fletcher class destroyer...
WWII is 1000 times more interesting then modern warfare. all it is now is input coordinates and press a button and you have a lot of dead people.hows that interesting? Interesting part is finding those coordinates without giving yours to the other guy.
http://imgur.com/3Co6a.jpg
Length: 208m
Displacement: 14,000 tonnes
Crew: 125-150
Speed: 30 knots
Hull: Steel
Cost: $2.8bn (£1.5bn)
Replaces: Arleigh Burke destroyers
CaptainMattJ.
09-12-10, 10:20 PM
Actually the FFG-7 is 4,100 tons. Roughly twice the displacement as a WWII era Fletcher class destroyer...
Interesting part is finding those coordinates without giving yours to the other guy.
so? tonnage doesnt designate length. Its a Fat stubby ship then.
http://imgur.com/gjVgh.jpg
http://imgur.com/Fk6MO.png
TLAM Strike
09-12-10, 10:57 PM
http://imgur.com/3Co6a.jpg
Length: 208m
Displacement: 14,000 tonnes
Crew: 125-150
Speed: 30 knots
Hull: Steel
Cost: $2.8bn (£1.5bn)
Replaces: Arleigh Burke destroyers
Naw its not going to Replace the Burke just complement it. The Zumwalt class lacks the extensive radar systems of the DDG-51s or Ticos. (well it is extensive... extensively incompatible with current SAMs.)
The Ticos and Burke Flt IIs will be the AAW and TBM defense platforms while the DDX will be the shore bombardment asset (perhaps with those long range Rail Guns eventually but until then 60 mile range 6 in guns and Tomahawks).
Assuming it doesn't get the axe, the costs are expected to top 4 billion USD...
so? tonnage doesnt designate length. Its a Fat stubby ship then.Quite a bit longer too...
FFG-7: 453 feet
Fletcher: 376.5 feet
Naw its not going to Replace the Burke just complement it. The Zumwalt class lacks the extensive radar systems of the DDG-51s or Ticos. (well it is extensive... extensively incompatible with current SAMs.)
The Ticos and Burke Flt IIs will be the AAW and TBM defense platforms while the DDX will be the shore bombardment asset (perhaps with those long range Rail Guns eventually but until then 60 mile range 6 in guns and Tomahawks).
Assuming it doesn't get the axe, the costs are expected to top 4 billion USD...
Quite a bit longer too...
FFG-7: 453 feet
Fletcher: 376.5 feet but they let's not time, it becomes apparent that this compromises
man frigates are tiny. WWII is 1000 times more interesting then modern warfare. all it is now is input coordinates and press a button and you have a lot of dead people.hows that interesting?
Umm, I assure you it is A LOT more complicatied than that.
CaptainMattJ.
09-13-10, 06:09 PM
Umm, I assure you it is A LOT more complicatied than that.
of course. And? still isnt interesting to have guided Nukes and a sub having more firepower then all bombs dropped in WWII. seriously isnt very fun having missle wars with people 500 miles away as opposed to up close and personal outdated FPS good ol fashion Cannon battle.
TLAM Strike
09-13-10, 06:28 PM
Up close on personal battles will be even more common today. With the proliferation of armed small craft used by groups like the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy and Somali Pirates engagements with 70 mile range Harpoons will be less common and engagements with 10 mile range cannons (or 1 mile range machine guns) far more common.
of course. And? still isnt interesting to have guided Nukes and a sub having more firepower then all bombs dropped in WWII. seriously isnt very fun having missle wars with people 500 miles away as opposed to up close and personal outdated FPS good ol fashion Cannon battle.
Well it isn't supposed to be 'fun'.
And as TLAM Strike says, battling an assymetric attack by pirates or extremists or Iranian boghammers would be a very 'whites of the eyeballs' experience. I promise you when you are facing those kinds of threats all the modern firepower in the world wont eliminate your fear.
Just as Javelin missiles havnt stopped soldiers having to do nasty up close work, Harpoon missiles havnt seen the end of naval gunnery (of all calibres). I'd argue that the 5 inch mount is still the primary weapon of western escorts, except perhaps the 12.7mm.
Jimbuna
09-14-10, 05:42 AM
Yes, I should imagine the CIWS (Phalanx etc) will be pretty much well utilised in any future potential engagements.
TLAM Strike
09-14-10, 08:43 AM
Yes, I should imagine the CIWS (Phalanx etc) will be pretty much well utilised in any future potential engagements.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1903/05018918.th.jpg (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/05018918.jpg/)
The newest Burkes coming off the line don't carry them anymore. Its going to be replaced by the RAM at some point, and the newer model 5in guns are just as effective with longer range.
The navy is really putting the old M2 to work again, the Burkes have five or six .50 cal gun positions currently.
Jimbuna
09-14-10, 11:03 AM
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1903/05018918.th.jpg (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/05018918.jpg/)
The newest Burkes coming off the line don't carry them anymore. Its going to be replaced by the RAM at some point, and the newer model 5in guns are just as effective with longer range.
The navy is really putting the old M2 to work again, the Burkes have five or six .50 cal gun positions currently.
Might be cheaper to adapt and put a squadron of AC-130 Spectres aboard a carrier :DL
TLAM Strike
09-14-10, 06:40 PM
Might be cheaper to adapt and put a squadron of AC-130 Spectres aboard a carrier :DL
The new Seahawks can carry Hellfires and Miniguns in addition to the sub hunting stuff. :03:
But what do you mean "adapt"? A C-130 can take off and land on a carrier... (http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp)
CaptainMattJ.
09-14-10, 09:10 PM
Well it isn't supposed to be 'fun'.
And as TLAM Strike says, battling an assymetric attack by pirates or extremists or Iranian boghammers would be a very 'whites of the eyeballs' experience. I promise you when you are facing those kinds of threats all the modern firepower in the world wont eliminate your fear.
Just as Javelin missiles havnt stopped soldiers having to do nasty up close work, Harpoon missiles havnt seen the end of naval gunnery (of all calibres). I'd argue that the 5 inch mount is still the primary weapon of western escorts, except perhaps the 12.7mm.
never meant fun in real life. Modern naval warfare is pretty dull, but if you put a mixed WWII fleet vs another mixed WWII fleet, it would be VERY interesting. If a massive fleet battled one another today, itd be over in minutes. if they didnt sic nukes on one another, theyd just unleash a cascade of ASMs on each other.
TLAM Strike
09-14-10, 10:04 PM
never meant fun in real life. Modern naval warfare is pretty dull, but if you put a mixed WWII fleet vs another mixed WWII fleet, it would be VERY interesting. If a massive fleet battled one another today, itd be over in minutes. if they didnt sic nukes on one another, theyd just unleash a cascade of ASMs on each other. Well maybe not minutes. Aircraft still are not that fast when cruising over long distances, once one side has located the other the battle would last about an hour or so- battle including the time it takes to get to the target- otherwise both a WWII and Modern Day sea battle would last minutes.
Midway was over in the space of hours:
06:00 Spruance orders the attack
07:00 1st aircraft are launched
09:20 1st USN air attack on Japanese CTF
10:00 2nd USN air attack destroys majority of Japanese Carriers
Lets compare that to a hypothetical modern day engagement
06:00 AWACS detects RED carrier group at approx 1000 nm from carrier. (it could be a long longer but 1000 nm was about the max range of a WWII naval bomber)
(lets assume it takes roughly the same time to, fuel, load and ready the planes. Its really doesn't normally, but that is another topic...)
07:00 8 F/A-18 Hornets are launched with Harpoon ASMs and 8 F/A-18E Super Hornets are launched with AAW loadouts- both Hornet groups have drop tanks, 4 S-3B Vikings are launched for refueling. Speed about 600 knots (Avg cruise speed of F/A-18).
07:45 Strike package refuels approx 500 nm from carrier
08:30 Strike Package launches 16 AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, strike package refuels and returns to carrier around 10:00
Not much of a difference, about two hours at around the same distance. In other words the combat time is cut in about half.
CaptainMattJ.
09-14-10, 11:08 PM
Well maybe not minutes. Aircraft still are not that fast when cruising over long distances, once one side has located the other the battle would last about an hour or so- battle including the time it takes to get to the target- otherwise both a WWII and Modern Day sea battle would last minutes.
Midway was over in the space of hours:
06:00 Spruance orders the attack
07:00 1st aircraft are launched
09:20 1st USN air attack on Japanese CTF
10:00 2nd USN air attack destroys majority of Japanese Carriers
Lets compare that to a hypothetical modern day engagement
06:00 AWACS detects RED carrier group at approx 1000 nm from carrier. (it could be a long longer but 1000 nm was about the max range of a WWII naval bomber)
(lets assume it takes roughly the same time to, fuel, load and ready the planes. Its really doesn't normally, but that is another topic...)
07:00 8 F/A-18 Hornets are launched with Harpoon ASMs and 8 F/A-18E Super Hornets are launched with AAW loadouts- both Hornet groups have drop tanks, 4 S-3B Vikings are launched for refueling. Speed about 600 knots (Avg cruise speed of F/A-18).
07:45 Strike package refuels approx 500 nm from carrier
08:30 Strike Package launches 16 AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, strike package refuels and returns to carrier around 10:00
Not much of a difference, about two hours at around the same distance. In other words the combat time is cut in about half.
i said MIXED fleet. mixed WWII fleets as in DD,CL,CA,BB and even SS. didnt mean including carriers in what i said. besides they wouldnt have to send fighters. just ship launched cruise missles. as opposed to WWII, where you cant detect fleets until theyre in your face practically, and having shells fly. there wouldve also been torpedoes flying.
Raptor1
09-15-10, 06:31 AM
i said MIXED fleet. mixed WWII fleets as in DD,CL,CA,BB and even SS. didnt mean including carriers in what i said. besides they wouldnt have to send fighters. just ship launched cruise missles. as opposed to WWII, where you cant detect fleets until theyre in your face practically, and having shells fly. there wouldve also been torpedoes flying.
No carriers? That's discounting one of the most important and decisive naval weapon in World War II; who has ever voluntarily sailed into combat without them?
In World War II fleets wouldn't be detected when they're 'in your face', there were amazing inventions such as recon aircraft (Even on cruisers and battleships) and shipborne radar that fixed this problem, much as they do nowadays.
And torpedoes can't technically fly without a rocket...
Jimbuna
09-15-10, 11:00 AM
The new Seahawks can carry Hellfires and Miniguns in addition to the sub hunting stuff. :03:
But what do you mean "adapt"? A C-130 can take off and land on a carrier... (http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp)
I wasn't sure it was possible with a fully laden gunship carrying the ammo for the 20, 40 and 1o5mm weapons :hmmm:
TLAM Strike
09-15-10, 03:16 PM
i said MIXED fleet. mixed WWII fleets as in DD,CL,CA,BB and even SS. didnt mean including carriers in what i said. besides they wouldnt have to send fighters. just ship launched cruise missles. as opposed to WWII, where you cant detect fleets until theyre in your face practically, and having shells fly. there wouldve also been torpedoes flying. Fighters and bombers have greater range than cruise missiles. The only large ASM in the USN is the Harpoon with a range of only 70 nm. A F/A-18 Hornet has a combat radius of 400 nm, with refueling it could be extended to around 3100 nm using carrier based tanker aircraft only (S-3 Vikings).
No carriers? That's discounting one of the most important and decisive naval weapon in World War II; who has ever voluntarily sailed into combat without them? ... off the top of my head I would have to say the HMS Hood, Prince of Wales, Repulse... :hmmm:
In World War II fleets wouldn't be detected when they're 'in your face', there were amazing inventions such as recon aircraft (Even on cruisers and battleships) and shipborne radar that fixed this problem, much as they do nowadays.
And torpedoes can't technically fly without a rocket...Exactly as I recall after the Bismark sank the Hood she was tracked by shore based recon aircraft in addition to the RN Cruisers that trailed her.
Raptor1
09-15-10, 03:19 PM
... off the top of my head I would have to say the HMS Hood, Prince of Wales, Repulse... :hmmm:
HMS Victorious was present and launched an attack on the Bismarck the very same day.
Prince of Wales and Repulse were supposed to have a carrier, HMS Indomitable, but she broke down along the way.
TLAM Strike
09-15-10, 03:46 PM
HMS Victorious was present and launched an attack on the Bismarck the very same day... But she was not part of the Hood/PofW SAG, she was assigned to the KGV/Repulse SAG about 300 nm to the south of Hood and thus not range to help much (Range of Fairey Swordfish only 475 nm).
Prince of Wales and Repulse were supposed to have a carrier, HMS Indomitable, but she broke down along the way. Don't forget HMS Hermes a Light Carrier. She was considered too slow to operated with the two battleships but she was fully operational and in the area.
CaptainMattJ.
09-15-10, 05:45 PM
No carriers? That's discounting one of the most important and decisive naval weapon in World War II; who has ever voluntarily sailed into combat without them?
In World War II fleets wouldn't be detected when they're 'in your face', there were amazing inventions such as recon aircraft (Even on cruisers and battleships) and shipborne radar that fixed this problem, much as they do nowadays.
And torpedoes can't technically fly without a rocket...
i know carriers were the turning point of naval warfare, ut im talking about good old fashion gunships. basically not counting ANY aircraft including recon, then yea youd detect fleets pretty dam close.
And respectfully, what are you smoking? we have intercontinental ballistic missles. we have missles that can travel anywhere in thw world. such as NUKES. You must be forgetting that subs have ICMB nukes. one missle = one dead fleet. plus, you can detect a fleet ANYWHERE in the world now thanks to satelites. WWII fleets had NOOOONE of that. hell, they still used celestial navigation. a battleship can throw a shell a HELL of a lot farther then it can pick up ships back then. So, assuming there isnt any recon of any sort, and lets just say its a little rough conditions, then Youll be in each others face before you get ahold of each other. there wasnt any kind of missles on those ships. Except for dumb rockets. those they did have. that meant that they had to rely on guns and torpedoes. i would pay whatever it took if i could see a giant WWII fleet battle. ones with all aspects. attacks by guns, torpedoes, and planes too. except THIs time the gunships will actually be in the fight as opposed to the normal Long range plane vs plane vs ship battles. that would be marvelous. very entertaining.
Itd be exciting to see the battle. and i have this wierd thrill about seing ships sink. i think watching the titanic when i was like 4 helped develop that. Its interesting to me to see giant behemoths like the Titanic and Yamato go under. i dont know why. and i also like to envision myself inside the actual ship when its sinking. Wierd thrill, i guess.
TLAM Strike
09-15-10, 06:09 PM
i know carriers were the turning point of naval warfare, ut im talking about good old fashion gunships. basically not counting ANY aircraft including recon, then yea youd detect fleets pretty dam close. Well then you should focus on WWI, or that German fight they named that Battleship after. Because if you disregard Aircraft when discussing WWII you might as well discount Submarines or Radar as well.
And respectfully, what are you smoking? we have intercontinental ballistic missles. we have missles that can travel anywhere in thw world. such as NUKES. You must be forgetting that subs have ICMB nukes. one missle = one dead fleet. plus, you can detect a fleet ANYWHERE in the world now thanks to satelites. Assuming the Recon Sats have not been taking out by ASAT birds or Hunter Killer Sats or blinded by ground based lasers. The US, and the USSR spent a lot of time and money on finding ways to do it, the threat go so real that they had to make a treaty to outlaw such weapons less one side use them and then launch a nuclear attack while the other side was blinded. (BTW the 1st successful satellite intercept was way back in the early '70s, by an manned armed spacecraft no less).
ICBMs can be taken out too. The SM-3 has proven that capability.
WWII fleets had NOOOONE of that. hell, they still used celestial navigation. Incorrect while Celestial Navigation was important (its still used, read above to guess why) they did have radio navigation like the British GEE system..
a battleship can throw a shell a HELL of a lot farther then it can pick up ships back then. So, assuming there isnt any recon of any sort, and lets just say its a little rough conditions, then Youll be in each others face before you get ahold of each other. there wasnt any kind of missles on those ships. Except for dumb rockets. those they did have. that meant that they had to rely on guns and torpedoes. i would pay whatever it took if i could see a giant WWII fleet battle. ones with all aspects. attacks by guns, torpedoes, and planes too. except THIs time the gunships will actually be in the fight as opposed to the normal Long range plane vs plane vs ship battles. that would be marvelous. very entertaining.
Itd be exciting to see the battle. and i have this wierd thrill about seing ships sink. i think watching the titanic when i was like 4 helped develop that. Its interesting to me to see giant behemoths like the Titanic and Yamato go under. i dont know why. and i also like to envision myself inside the actual ship when its sinking. Wierd thrill, i guess.Look up The Battle of Surigao Strait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#The_Battle_of_Surigao_Strait_ .2825_October.29) Just about the only time such a thing happened in WWII. However the US Battleships utilized Radar for detection and fire control, the Japanese did not- take a wild guess how it turned out...
CaptainMattJ.
09-16-10, 05:46 PM
Well then you should focus on WWI, or that German fight they named that Battleship after. Because if you disregard Aircraft when discussing WWII you might as well discount Submarines or Radar as well.
Assuming the Recon Sats have not been taking out by ASAT birds or Hunter Killer Sats or blinded by ground based lasers. The US, and the USSR spent a lot of time and money on finding ways to do it, the threat go so real that they had to make a treaty to outlaw such weapons less one side use them and then launch a nuclear attack while the other side was blinded. (BTW the 1st successful satellite intercept was way back in the early '70s, by an manned armed spacecraft no less).
ICBMs can be taken out too. The SM-3 has proven that capability.
Incorrect while Celestial Navigation was important (its still used, read above to guess why) they did have radio navigation like the British GEE system..
Look up The Battle of Surigao Strait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#The_Battle_of_Surigao_Strait_ .2825_October.29) Just about the only time such a thing happened in WWII. However the US Battleships utilized Radar for detection and fire control, the Japanese did not- take a wild guess how it turned out...
well, i love the Air aspect of WWII, but it was the last major war where major head-to-head gun battles.
TLAM Strike
09-16-10, 06:31 PM
well, i love the Air aspect of WWII, but it was the last major war where major head-to-head gun battles.
A head to head gun battle was one of the things the British feared most during the Falklands war. The ARA General Belgrano (Fmr. USS Phoenix CL 46) was feared that if it got within gun range of the British task force her longer range guns would devastate them, her armor was believed to be able to be able to protect her from all but a determined attack using modern weapons. Torpedoes or an airstrike would have been the TF's only reliable method of sinking her as their naval guns lack the range to engage and their Exocets like most ASMs lacked armor piercing warheads.
I think that last Gun vs. Gun battle involving regular naval forces was in the 1990s between North and South Korea. In Vietnam there were a few gun vs gun battles between ships I think (mostly armed junks and sampans against US patrol boats.)
CaptainMattJ.
09-16-10, 08:10 PM
A head to head gun battle was one of the things the British feared most during the Falklands war. The ARA General Belgrano (Fmr. USS Phoenix CL 46) was feared that if it got within gun range of the British task force her longer range guns would devastate them, her armor was believed to be able to be able to protect her from all but a determined attack using modern weapons. Torpedoes or an airstrike would have been the TF's only reliable method of sinking her as their naval guns lack the range to engage and their Exocets like most ASMs lacked armor piercing warheads.
I think that last Gun vs. Gun battle involving regular naval forces was in the 1990s between North and South Korea. In Vietnam there were a few gun vs gun battles between ships I think (mostly armed junks and sampans against US patrol boats.)
nothing on a scale comparable with WWII though.
TLAM Strike
09-16-10, 09:40 PM
nothing on a scale comparable with WWII though.
Well the Falklands was the last time two evenly matched naval and air forces met in battle. And the forces on both sides were quite large.
UK:
2 x CVs
1 x ACV (Atlantic Conveyor)
6 x DDGs
17 x FFs
5 x SSNs
1 x SSK
8 x Anphibs
5 x Minesweepers
3 x Armed Auxiliaries
+/-54 x Auxiliaries
28 x Sea Harriers
32 x Sea Kings
~80 x Helicopters
~15 x Maritime Patrol
4 x Heavy Bombers
~20 x Tankers
~6 x assorted aircraft
1 x Marine Brigade
1 x Inf Brigade
Arg:
1 x CV
1 x CL
2 x DDG
5 x DDs
3 x FFs
4 x PCs
2 x SS
1 x Anphib
26 x Auxiliaries
92 x Fighters and light attack jets
12 x Carrier Attack Jets
24+ x Lighter bombers
8 x Medium Bombers
~60 x Support Aircraft
8 x ASW Aircraft (6 Carrier Based)
~25 x Helicopters
2 x Mech Inf Brigades
2 x Arty Brigades
1 x Marine Battalion
1 x Marine Arty Battalion
CaptainMattJ.
09-16-10, 09:47 PM
Well the Falklands was the last time two evenly matched naval and air forces met in battle. And the forces on both sides were quite large.
UK:
2 x CVs
1 x ACV (Atlantic Conveyor)
6 x DDGs
17 x FFs
5 x SSNs
1 x SSK
8 x Anphibs
5 x Minesweepers
3 x Armed Auxiliaries
+/-54 x Auxiliaries
28 x Sea Harriers
32 x Sea Kings
~80 x Helicopters
~15 x Maritime Patrol
4 x Heavy Bombers
~20 x Tankers
~6 x assorted aircraft
1 x Marine Brigade
1 x Inf Brigade
Arg:
1 x CV
1 x CL
2 x DDG
5 x DDs
3 x FFs
4 x PCs
2 x SS
1 x Anphib
26 x Auxiliaries
92 x Fighters and light attack jets
12 x Carrier Attack Jets
24+ x Lighter bombers
8 x Medium Bombers
~60 x Support Aircraft
8 x ASW Aircraft (6 Carrier Based)
~25 x Helicopters
2 x Mech Inf Brigades
2 x Arty Brigades
1 x Marine Battalion
1 x Marine Arty Battalion
still, considering all gun vs gun battles in WWII it still isnt on a scale with WWII
TLAM Strike
09-16-10, 09:54 PM
still, considering all gun vs gun battles in WWII it still isnt on a scale with WWII
I would say forces involved are about equal to those involved in some of the naval battles in the Solomons and Guadalcanal campaigns or the Java sea battles. :hmmm:
CaptainMattJ.
09-16-10, 10:10 PM
I would say forces involved are about equal to those involved in some of the naval battles in the Solomons and Guadalcanal campaigns or the Java sea battles. :hmmm:
i meant total
TLAM Strike
09-16-10, 11:15 PM
i meant total
Short of a war between China and Russia/India or the entire mid east attacking Israel and the US that not going to happen in the current political climate.
CaptainMattJ.
09-16-10, 11:49 PM
Short of a war between China and Russia/India or the entire mid east attacking Israel and the US that not going to happen in the current political climate.
exactly. WWII is Insanely interesting to me. Its every aspect of all eras of naval combat rolled into one. not to mention the tech on land and all the oeprations and attacks. fascinating to me.
Raptor1
09-17-10, 04:13 AM
still, considering all gun vs gun battles in WWII it still isnt on a scale with WWII
Yet WWII doesn't even come close to WWI when it comes to the scale of gun battles.
CaptainMattJ.
09-17-10, 05:40 PM
Yet WWII doesn't even come close to WWI when it comes to the scale of gun battles.
Thats obviously because they didnt HAVE anything but guns. at least, nothing as POWERFUL as the guns back then.
TLAM Strike
09-17-10, 07:47 PM
Thats obviously because they didnt HAVE anything but guns. at least, nothing as POWERFUL as the guns back then.
Submarine attacks (both gun and torpedo), air attacks and mines accounted for more ships sunk than gunfire by surface ships in WWI. :03:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.