rmgill Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) How do you define "cruiser"? Why do you think T45s are "less durable"? Size. I AM an Americn. Modern warship type classifications have strayed a long way from their original meanings. Yes, you note I was leaning towards something more Long Beach sized. Edited February 1, 2012 by rmgill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The RN has long classed ship according to how they are used, rather than their size. I even recall seeing a mid 60s issue of janes with Belfast classed as a 'Heavy' cruiser. The RN has long been consistent with this things, Anti-aircraft ships are destroyers, anti-submarine ships are frigates, same with the naming convention, much to their credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 ...some South American countries seem to be enjoying an economic revival. If it can happen in Brazil, perhaps sooner or later Argentina will follow suit, ... Not if the Argentinian politicos do what the do best, screw the country up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Files Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 All thats true except its entirely unclear how many TLAM we have bought to replace those expended in Libya. If we have sufficient stocks, Ive no worries. The problem in my mind is the MOD complacency in buying adequate stocks. If we only had 6 days ammunition to fight WW3, whats it going to be like now with being as cash strapped as they were in the 1970s? There is also sea viper. I recall that stocks of Sea Dart for Type 42 were rather low over the past decade. What are the stocks for the Type45 going to be like? If you don't know, neither does Buenos Aires. Bluff v. calculated risk, ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If you don't know, neither does Buenos Aires. Bluff v. calculated risk, ya know? Doesn't matter, number of useable Sea Vipers is 48. From auld news: March 13, 2009 — HMS Daring – feted as the most advanced warship in the world – will sail without her main Sea Viper missiles in operation. The anti-aircraft missiles will not be up and running for another two years – in 2011, when her sister ship HMS Dauntless goes into service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 In 1982 we had had escorts genuininely in reserve, maintained and preserved with reactivation in mind. Three Tribals were recommissioned to cover for other ships sent south. The other three were cannibalised to keep them in service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Files Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Doesn't matter, number of useable Sea Vipers is 48. From auld news: March 13, 2009 — HMS Daring – feted as the most advanced warship in the world – will sail without her main Sea Viper missiles in operation. The anti-aircraft missiles will not be up and running for another two years – in 2011, when her sister ship HMS Dauntless goes into service. Maybe I'm missing something, but it's now 2012. The Sea Viper passed it's tests, impresses folks and seems to be ready to nail shit out of the sky. From 2010http://www.defencetalk.com/royal-navy-confirms-sea-viper-missile-firing-29203/ From 2011http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-and-military-aircraft/articles/sea-viper-air-defence-where-is-the-venom-in-the-ro/ From 2012http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Weapons-System/Sea-Viper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heirophant Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Ive no worries at the moment because the Argentinians as you rightly point out have no interest in war. We do still have a significant advantage. They want to squeeze the balls of the UK Government for pure domestic benefit. Unfortunately there seems to be some evidence that some South American countries seem to be enjoying an economic revival. If it can happen in Brazil, perhaps sooner or later Argentina will follow suit, at which point it is going to be very much easier for them to invest in equipment to take the place than it is for us to maintain it. Particularly if they are serious about an economic blockade of the Islands. There isnt a lot else but fish and tourism that keeps the place going. Its not now thats the problem, its whats things are going to be like the next quarter century from now. Unless we come to some accomodation with Argentina, I dont think it likely we are going to hold onto it in the longer term. Not a very pleasant prospect I grant you. Now is the time for the UK to exercise diplomacy. As you point out, some sort of mutually livable solution is necessary in the longer term, with somebody, even if not Argentina. There is talk of not permitting commercial flights from the Falklands over Argentina, which would make supporting the FI that bit more costly. But if Britain can get some other Mercosur nations to break ranks with Argentina, then the flights could go to Uruguay or Brazil instead. What you don't want happening is for all the South American nations to be hostile to the UK. If they support the commercial blockade, supporting the Falklands becomes even more expensive. Argentina is playing a long game, stepping up the pressure on the Falklands with measures short of war. Unless they fire the first shot, there's little that can be done with military means. As to South America experiencing economic dynamism, that's good for them and the UK can take advantage of that. After all, Britain's culture is immeasurably more different from that of East Asia than it will ever be from South America's, yet the UK profits handsomely from business there, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Maybe I'm missing something, but it's now 2012. The Sea Viper passed it's tests, impresses folks and seems to be ready to nail shit out of the sky. From 2010http://www.defenceta...e-firing-29203/ From 2011http://www.defenceiq...enom-in-the-ro/ From 2012http://www.royalnavy...ystem/Sea-Viper It has indeed, but speaking about the Brits, you must always ask, has it been fitted or fitted for not with? Dauntless is the first ship with the full operational system and a trained crew. Daring is in the Gulf, and Diamond will be ready in the summer of 2012, the other are building or undergoing trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 ....you must always ask, has it been fitted or fitted for not with? YES! My constant nagging about this has finally paid off! Now Stuart, Chris, BillB and Swerve can hate me even more! Dauntless is the first ship with the full operational system and a trained crew. Daring is in the Gulf, and Diamond will be ready in the summer of 2012, the other are building or undergoing trials. But is it know if the missiles are actually fitted( ) onboard any of them or are they glorified 4.5 inch gunboats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 And they're going to do what? Threaten the Argentine Airforce if they fly nearby? It's a Destroyer. It's not a battleship. They don't even have land attack weapons fitted. THIS is a message. <snip battleship image> Unfortunately, that particular message translates as "we're dumb". No doubt the Type 45s are a nice class of ship, but they're a far sight less durable than older classes of cruiser and they're still a destroyer. When Brits retook Falklands in 1982 they had no cruisers either. Besides, it's folly to get attached to obsolete WW2 era terminology. All RN surface combatants are 'cruisers' by traditional classification. 19th century cruisers were usually frigates. In fact, much of the actual sabre-rattling and flag-showing was done by nothing sexier than a gunboat. BillB is right there, all Brits have to do is to say that "Y'know, we have submarines there too" and Argentines will go to invade someplace else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 When Brits retook Falklands in 1982 they had no cruisers either. While it is quite correct that RN had no cruisers at the Falklands (one might consider HMS Bristol very close to a cruiser though), they still had the laid up HMS Tiger and Blake. While they were not in commission, it was seriously considered doing so but it was decided that they would not be available in time. So...they were fitted for....but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Unfortunately, that particular message translates as "we're dumb". Not if it's updated to something more of a modern standard or designed around a modern standard. Again, as I said, something like the Long Beaches was hardly "dumb" in effect or function at the time. Sometimes Size DOES matter Yama. Carriers can do that too. This is South America we're talking about here. When Brits retook Falklands in 1982 they had no cruisers either. There were two carriers. The problem with submarined is that one doesn't usually sail them past someone's coast to get their attention. They hide. Can one remind foreign politicians that military action with one's nation is ill advised by with that? Loud and Brash sometimes has a function. Mebee, buzzing the Argie embassy in London with the Tornados would be a useful thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 While it is quite correct that RN had no cruisers at the Falklands (one might consider HMS Bristol very close to a cruiser though), they still had the laid up HMS Tiger and Blake. While they were not in commission, it was seriously considered doing so but it was decided that they would not be available in time. I know that, but those ships were poor value for money even when they were active... Not if it's updated to something more of a modern standard or designed around a modern standard. Again, as I said, something like the Long Beaches was hardly "dumb" in effect or function at the time. Sometimes Size DOES matter Yama. Carriers can do that too. This is South America we're talking about here. Long Beach was meant to carry strategic nuclear missiles, that's why she was so big. Certainly when in active service, she was not a 'capital ship' as it has been ever understood. I am not sure there is some kind of tonnage or length limit after which the ship becomes so much more intimidating that the size is useful design criteria beyond other considerations. Sure, in 1982 RN had one carrier more than Argentina. As it is, that numerical advantage remains...RN might not be what it was back then, but neither are the Argies. Back then, Argentines could and did fly strike packages as big as CURRENT Argentine Air Force is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Long Beach was meant to carry strategic nuclear missiles, that's why she was so big. Certainly when in active service, she was not a 'capital ship' as it has been ever understood. But she was a cruiser. She looked like a cruiser and when she was tied up for port visits you KNEW she was a cruiser and not a destroyer. Everyone has DDs. Few countries at that point had cruisers. In the days of Battle Ships if you were a country with influence you had not just ONE battle ship but a line of them. Yes its bravado. But then so is sending your military assets down to sail around a particularly isolated part of your territories to show the flag, not just to your folks but to the folks eyeing the land that your folks are inhabiting. This fitted for but not WITH crap on the part of defense planners should stop. It's whistling past the graveyard in the worst way. Oh, that's the problem. 6% eh? Lovely. I am not sure there is some kind of tonnage or length limit after which the ship becomes so much more intimidating that the size is useful design criteria beyond other considerations. Some of it comes down to what you're carrying and how much of it plus what systems you have. I'm curious, if one has no capital ships in a navy and nothing larger than a destroyer what is the idea of the navy in question? What made a Cruiser more showy than a Destroyer in the older days of gun boat diplomacy? And if a larger hull isn't useful then why does the US have the Ticonderogas AND the Burkes? I am of course struck by the arm chair what if, in the case of the Long Beach and a Aegis battle system and VLS cells vs the Sure, in 1982 RN had one carrier more than Argentina. As it is, that numerical advantage remains...RN might not be what it was back then, but neither are the Argies. Back then, Argentines could and did fly strike packages as big as CURRENT Argentine Air Force is. You realize that this sort of thing is NOT about the war you fought but the wars you MAY yet fight? There's a reason for a military and defense infrastructure. At a certain point though I guess you might as well be the Dutch complaining about their neutrality to Germany. Edited February 2, 2012 by rmgill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 We had a through deck cruiser. Not fitted for, or with, guns above 20mm. She had 30mms, they just flew off and came back. (usually). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 But she was a cruiser. She looked like a cruiser and when she was tied up for port visits you KNEW she was a cruiser and not a destroyer. Everyone has DDs. Few countries at that point had cruisers. In the days of Battle Ships if you were a country with influence you had not just ONE battle ship but a line of them. Yes, that's why battleships were capital ships, and cruisers never were. Not even now, when they are few. Todays capital ships are SSBN's and aircraft carriers. Some of it comes down to what you're carrying and how much of it plus what systems you have. I'm curious, if one has no capital ships in a navy and nothing larger than a destroyer what is the idea of the navy in question? Sometimes, size has allowed better weapon systems and other technical advantages which has made larger ships more efficient. That's why Trafalgar was fought between few dozens ships of the lines, and not hundreds of sloops & brigs. Same applied to battleships. With the weapon systems in use today, advantage of size is less obvious. Small and large surface combatants carry similar weapons, only difference is in quantity. It often doesn't make sense to concentrate them all to one very expensive basket. What made a Cruiser more showy than a Destroyer in the older days of gun boat diplomacy? Endurance & seaworthiness, mostly. Today's destroyers and frigates largely have those qualities, and in effect they perform same roles as cruisers of yore. Why they aren't called cruisers is mostly political - "cruiser" implies a large and hence, expensive ship, more difficult to sell to politicians. Very much same is indeed already happening with "destroyer", increasingly there are very large and capable warships called "frigates" so they don't sound so expensive and aggressive. "Destroyers" might become a relic designation eventually, just like "cruiser" today. I assume that it flows down and 30 years from now we have 9000 ton "corvettes". And if a larger hull isn't useful then why does the US have the Ticonderogas AND the Burkes? They are largely for the same roles, with relatively little difference in size or capability. Ticos were classed as cruisers for prestige reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJE Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 But she was a cruiser. She looked like a cruiser and when she was tied up for port visits you KNEW she was a cruiser and not a destroyer. Everyone has DDs. Few countries at that point had cruisers.The only way you would know that Long Beach was a cruiser and not a destroyer was if someone stuck a sign on her that said "Cruiser". The difference in size between todays destroyers and yesterdays cruisers is insignificant. Tell me again, what is the difference between the Spruance destroyer and the Ticonderoga cruiser, sizewise? Do the Daring destroyer have more in common with the Ticonderoga than the Spruance, functionality- wise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P Allen Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Cruisers are/were built to much higher standards of survivability, at least in the USN. Size was at least in part a by-product thereof. Long Beach was certainly much larger than destroyers that were her contemporaries and a great deal more able to take punishment. Wile some of her cruiser nature was hidden under the skin--number and types of bulkheads, bottoms, side plating, armor, power and fire-fighting distribution--she was obviously a cruiser cntrasted with, say, a Forest Sherman. Cruisers were Show-the-Flag ships and, at least prior to (and, to a lesser extent post) WWII more likely to face combat all alone rather than as part of a major TG/TF. During and after WWII (and the virtual disappearance of BBs), they also became Carry-the-Flag ships, flagships of significant commands. The need to fit flag quarters and paraphenalia also reuired size. The Ticonderogas acquired the cruiser designation by way of the DLs of the '50s and '60s which were redesginated CGs or DDGs in 1975 based largely on endurance figures. With the failure of the CGSN program, the Navy was unwilling to be left cruiser-less as those earlier ships left the fleet with the advent of the only Agis platform the Navy could afford. Prestige was certainly a factor. Relatively high capability was another. In any case, the terms evolved in eras of differing missions and were defined rather artificially by a number of treaties whose provisions simply don't apply today. The USN really hasn't had classic cruisers since WWI, and the term destroyer shifted in meaning about the same time. Frigate has wandered around all over the chart (the Humphreys 55-gun ships, the WWII PFs, and the FFGs have so little in common as to be from different planets). And any attempt at rationalization of the classifications will be immediately (if not sooner) overtaken by events and/or changes in technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Steele Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 You Brits are in trouble now... Sean Penn accuses Britain of 'colonialism' over Falklands Sean Penn has accused Britain of colonialism and urged the government to open negotiations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. 9:43PM GMT 13 Feb 2012 At a meeting with Argentine president Cristina Kirchner, the Left-wing Hollywood actor referred to the islands "the Malvinas Islands of Argentina" and said Britain should entered into a UN-sponsored dialogue over their sovereignty. "The world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology," he said during the meeting in Buenos Aires. "I know I came in a very sensitive moment in terms of diplomacy between Argentina and the UK over the Malvinas islands. "And I hope that diplomats can establish true dialogue in order to solve the conflict as the world today cannot tolerate ridiculous demonstrations of colonialism. "The way of dialogue is the only way to achieve a better solution for both nations," he said, according to the Buenos Aires Herald. The Oscar-nominated Penn has long been a friend of South American nationalism, visiting both Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Cuba's The government has consistently refused to take part in any negotiations over the status of the islands, saying that they will remain a British territory as long a majority of the 3,000 islanders wish them to. Last week, Argentina submitted a formal complaint to the UN, accusing Britain of "militarising" the South Atlantic by sending HMS Dauntless, the Royal Navy's most advanced ship, to the region. Tensions between the two nations are running high as the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War approaches. http://www.telegraph...-Falklands.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BansheeOne Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I'm sure he'd get a rave reception if he was to visit there and tell Falklanders they should shake off the yoke of colonialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Depends what the Dauntless is fitted for, but not with, at the moment. Penn in a rowboat might actually be a threat...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Depends what the Dauntless is fitted for, but not with, at the moment. Penn in a rowboat might actually be a threat...... Don't let him help you launch the thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Files Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 A few weeks ago, the Argentine government, led by president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, declassified a report written in December, 1982 by a specially commissioned military committee headed by lieutenant general Benjamín Rattenbach, who lends his name to the document. The paper, which has been kept as a secret for 30 years (despite some leaking in the press), is now available online in the presidency’s official website and puts the blame on the military forces that ruled the country back in 1982, when war was declared. http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/04/13/declassified-argentine-document-on-falklands-displays-a-tough-exercise-of-self-criticism/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Sen Penn can re-enact sinking of Belgrano, he has training from New Orleans after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now