2020, UK battle fleet Vs 1 US carrier fleet.

No question, an American carrier battle group would win that one (not that it would ever happen).
It's the little things, like the Americans being the only Navy capable of night air operations and the ability to resupply while underway, etc.

Of course, this is assuming that it's a heads-up battle without the support of land-based assets.

 

Actually, nothing that I ever talk about is classified. I am very careful in that I go to independent 3rd party sources on the Internet for everything I talk about in here. I do not simply pull information out of my head when it comes to missiles or missile debates because of the very worry of accidentially saying something that might be classified, but is not in the public domain.

No, it is actually not theoretical.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmjZBaQLsCw"]CRAM (Mini-gun) in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qf4HwPKnqk"]C-RAM in Iraq - Michael Yon Online Magazine - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAK22XkEa-o"]c-ram firing at incoming mortars in iraq - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s78mTEeYzv4"]C-RAM Firing in Camp Basrah, Iraq 2010 - YouTube[/ame]

Welcome to the world of C-RAM (Counter Rocket Artillery and Mortar), or as it is also known, LPWS (Landbased Phalanx Weapons System). This has been in operation for years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And it uses the exact same Phalanx CIWS system used on our ships.

And they have intercepted thousands of incomming targets, which are incomming at far greater speeds then cruise missiles do. And these are all far smaller targets then incomming cruise missiles, with a fraction of the warning that they would have with incomming missiles.

To give an idea how small these targets are, your average mortar round is the size of a football or soccer ball. Compare that to the size of a missile, which is normally the size of a telephone pole up to the size of a small passenger car.

If this hits footballs fired from a few miles away, do you think it will have a problem hitting a car fired from 100 km away?

And for multiple targets, each Arleigh Burke class destroyer has 2 of these, as do the Ticongderoga class Cruisers. The USS Carl Vinson through John C. Stennis all have 3 of these. Plus both Sea Sparrow and Rolling Airframe Missiles for close in defense.

 

In 2020 the UK will have Galileo.

 

it's never been tested vs russian, chinese or Indian supersonic cruise missiles...theoretical...

nice avoidance on the other cruise missile stats

 

.......and in the not to distant future the new UK anti-ship missile 'PERSEUS'

This is some missile, looks like a shark and travels at a remarkable speed.

here's a clip of the presentation:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ9YKsNfkQ8"]MBDA CVS401 Perseus Missile Concept - YouTube[/ame]

 

.........oh yeah and soon to be on the Type 26 Frigates the new 'CAMM' AA missile to replace 'SEAWOLF'.

The unique thing about this missile is that it is cold launched. ie rocket motor doesnt fire from launch, but instead is sent out of the silo by high powered air piston, then the rocket motor cuts in.
The advantage of this, is that there doesnt have to be extra space in the VLS for the exhaust flames to be extracted, plus no heat shielding is needed, and obviously the missile silos take up less space, because of this!

Plus the missile is a fire and forget, therefore no tracking radar mast is needed on top of the ship superstructure.

 

Gift!!!!!!!

 

Here is one of the actual news reports from last summer of the new missile 'Perseus'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-three-times-as-fast-as-current-weapons.html

 

Thanks, these missiles show that western Europe can match any other country for military technology. But why will not be seen in action until 2030?
This is always the problem Europe has all the technology and military know how, but not the money.

 

Future Chinese carriers?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmTyngJN9dM&feature=related"]China Future Aircraft Carrier Concepts - YouTube[/ame]

 

The reason why the vs game is kinda useless is because even if there numbers were better, we could still win like how the US defeated a 1 million man army in desert storm when we were outnumbered 3 to 1. We matched their tanks 1000 to 1000 but overall they had a much larger military. Only 1 tank was destroyed maybe one helicopter and not much else. Piece of cake.

Moral of the story is you have to know how to use your equipment in battle as well as afford proper training and nobody beats the US as far as that.

 

There were other nations in desert storm. And I am sure Israel beats the US in terms of training, hahaha.

 

The Gulf / Iraq war was unusual in that the battle was fought on a wide expanse of open terrain (ie desert). Obviously the US did very well because there equipment was of a higher standard than the Iraqi's had.
Basically it was a turkey shoot for the US /allies.

Misguidedly some people here have based this war as a blueprint for how well the US would do against other nations, but this is a very false perception, due to the geographics of other nations and thier technological level of military equipment.

 

That is hardly unique. That is the way sub launched missiles have been launched since 1960.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uljVI4m5e3c"]US Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.asri.org.au/system/files/private/1960 - 0435.PDF

 

Not really. That is probably one reason why we train so many of their forces. Yet I never really hear of US soldiers going to Israel to attend their schools.

The Average Israeli only serves their mandatory 3 year conscription, then moves to the reserves. In fact, normally the Active Duty unit is formed mostly with people doing their conscription. Then when that group finishes their time it is rotated to a reserve unit. Most Israeli soldiers will spend their entire career, active and reserve, with the same unit.

And in Reserve, they only serve 3 weeks a year for summer training. And most of the training is rather rudimentary. The unit is supposed to give them most of their training. And from what I have seen and heard, their Active Duty soldiers are probably among the finest in the world. Of that there is little doubt.

But most of their army are reservists, with training no better then that of the US, who are serving their mandatory service until they are 42.

 

Actually, in the 20th century that has been the norm for fighting battles. Look at everything from most of WWII in Europe, Africa, and the wars since then from the multiple wars Israel had, the Forgotten War, most of the African Colonial Wars, the Warsaw Pact invasions, and everything else from the Falklands and Iran-Iraq wars to the Lebanese conflicts.

And it is much more then the equipment. Iraq had a large, but porrly trained military. Made up mostly of conscripts, most units had no more training then how to shoot their rifles. And most did not even want to be there, as seen by the large number that surrendered the first days of the conflict.

Because Iraq may have had inferior equipment then the US, but a decade before they had superior equipment and manpower then Iran. Yet they still got bogged down in a decade long war. Because even though it looks like they had the advantage, they had poorer quality troops, training and doctrine.

More then anything else, a huge number of military experts see the 2 Gulf Wars (and the Iran-Iraq War) as the proof of the total failure of Warsaw Pact Doctrine.

No, I do not do that at all. And if the scenario was put in a different way, I could very easily see the US loosing an engagement. It all depends on the original scenario.

However, as this one is given (equal size fleets, meeting at sea), I find it hard to imagine the US loosing. They have all of the strong advantages from the very beginning, including almost a century of doctrine, and equipment that is so good that most other nations of the world buy them, even their 30 year old retired versions.

Now, if the scenario was for the US to conduct an amphibious assault after a fleet engagement with equal numbers, then I would start to see the favor slide from the US to the UK. If the US has to take equal fleets and after a battle attack a fixed land position, then I would probably give the win to the UK.

With me it is not "fanboyism", it is simply looking at what is at hand, and what is available, and how it is used. If I was a fanboy, I would immediately jump on the Zumwalts. After all, they are stealthy, they are sexy, they are the newest "gee wiz" ships.

But they are not appropriate for the use they would be used for, so I leave them all behind and take the 20 year old Arleigh Burke destroyers instead. They are not as cool, they are not "stealth", but they are better for the mission at hand.

As far as the Type 45 Destroyers, if I was configuring the UK fleet I would have mixed feelings on taking them. I would take them, but only because the only other destroyer is an outdated piece of crap (Type 42, almost 40 years old, 2 of them lost in combat, 3 still active in the RN, 1 of 2 still active in the Argentine Navy). If tonnage was not an issue, I would leave all the Type 42 Destroyers in port, and instead take all the Type 23 Frigates.

 

I couldn't agree more about the batch 1 and 2 of the type 42 destroyer, total waste of money, effort and put our sailor's at risk. The 3rd batch however was much better and had many changes to make them safer.

Why wouldn't you take the type 45's? It's what they are made for air defence of a carrier. Or would you not take them because they would just get sunk?

 

Yes, the Type 42 is long in the tooth now, and it is somewhat surprising that these ageing destroyers have been kept on, while better equipped, newer Frigates have been decommissioned.
I think the only reason Type 42 was kept on, was because of the 'SeaDart' missile system, yes its old but with proven combat ability, but probably because it was the only long range air defence missile system in the RN armoury.
The RN frigates use 'SeaWolf', which while more modern, is only a short range AA missile.

Personally i thought it was a shame that the Type 22 Frigates were scrapped last year as they were very powerful frigates, armed with better electronics than the Type 42's, and had a strong armanent of 2X6 Seawolf launchers, 8 X Harpoons, 1 x 4.5" main gun, Goalkeeper CIWS, torpedoes and Helicopter etc.

The Harpoons from the Type 22's should be placed on the first 4 of the Type 45's.......already this year Phalanx has been added to 'Daring'.

Regarding the US 'Zumwalts', yes they are going to be a unique ship class, but until the first 3 are built and proven, the US has been more than happy to continue building the Arleigh Burke destroyers which keep getting bigger and better as time goes on. The USN knows when it has a good class of ship, and is prepared to build more of this class, rather than start building a new class of ship in large numbers, ala Zumwalt from the outset.

 

Do you think really needs the type 26 frigate?

 

Out of all the ships to take out on a mission....to protect the fleet, the Type 45 is a must, its the only class which has long range AA missiles (SEAVIPER) to counter an enemy aerial attack long before it gets anywhere near the fleet, and is also capable of taking on many targets at the same time.
It has been said that if we had had only one of these destroyers during the Falklands conflict on picket duty, then the Argentinian airforce would never of got near the fleet to of inflicted damage (assuming the missile system didnt break down, as they sometimes do!).
The frigates can only take out planes out to a distance of only a few miles, by then the attacking aircraft would of launched their own missiles.

 

might as well taken on a zulu army with spears, the Iraqi military were unmotivated, poorly trained with 2nd rate equipment....boasting about the mismatch would be the equivalent of Mike Tyson laying a beating on a 10yr old and the strutting around boasting that he's a bad ass, ya he was a piece of cake...the last time the US took on a highly motivated trained under equipped opponent it cost nearly 60K american lives, and it lost the war...

 

Yes the type 45 is the best air defence ship ever made, it can track and hit 5 time as many targets as the type 42, and is very good value for money, if you look at how much other navies ships cost. But I doubt one could have taken out the whole Argentine airforce. I think the type 26 is just being built for export to places like Turkey.

 

Actually the Type 42 was not a bad destroyer, for the era it was designed for. Back then, anti-ship missiles were very crude items, and not very effective.

However, they were more like the destroyers of WWII then today. The air defense in them was pretty pathetic, and they had pretty much no offensive capability (other then those built for Argentina).

20mm cannon, 4.5" gun, and a handfull of Sea Dart missiles. That is pretty much it. A good ship for patrolling near hostile waters and things like piracy patrols, but not much more then that.

I would leave them behind and take the Type 23 Frigates because these are much more capable air defense ships then the type 45 Destroyer.

The Type 23 carries a much more impressive array of air defense missiles. The Sea Wolf, mach 3 and with a range of 10 km for close in work. Plus Seagnat decoys for protecting the capitol ship. And they can take a lot more damage then the Type 45.

The Type 45 carries the Aster 15 and 30 missiles. These are all fairly new, and I admit am not as familiar with them as I am with other systems.

Personally, I always found the Royal Navy obsession with single missile solutions to be rather puzzling. The Type 42 carried only one type of air defense missile, the comparable Arleigh Burke carried 3 different missiles, so they could be used differently for different threats.

And the same with the Type 23 Frigate, only 1 class of air defense missile. The comparable Ticonderoga class Cruiser carries 5 different missiles.

And I think that in the event of a conflict, the differences would be very telling.

 

I think the Type 26 is badly needed. And I find it ironic that the UK seems to have learned little from it's little conflict in the Falklands.

The biggest damage by far was from Aircraft. Both conventional bomb attacks and aircraft launched missiles took a heavy toll on the UK. Yet even 30 years later, none of their ships have really been configured as a strong air defense platform. It is like they are still trying to build ships to fight against the German Wolfpack of WWII.

And even the Type 26 ships they are planning on buying now are all ASW configurations. The original 3 proposed configurations only included the C1 (ASW), C2 General Purpose (guns and short range missiles) and the C3 Corvette (mine sweeping and patrol ships).

Not a single one dedicated to what is really needed, a strong air defense (aircraft and missile) configuration. And although they have proposed building Air Defense models for export, the Royal Navy appears to have no interest in such a vessel (even though one of the proposed export models would have the RIM-66 missile, with a range of 170 km).

And this is why I feel that in the long run, the Royal Navy will be peeled apart in an engagement. They simply lack so many things when compared to the US Navy (long range surveilence, strong air defense systems, long distance interdiction of aircraft) that the outcome would be rather predictable.

It would probably start with the US doing what it often does best, sit back and wait for the other side to make the first move. Then once the first wave of UK aircraft started to close in, they would be met with long range missiles of the US fleet.

I would not expect many (if any) aircraft would be hit. But they would go into immediate evasive manouvers, burning off fuel, lowering their number of chaff and flares, and either dumping their ordinance prematurely, or simply turning back.

At that point, the US would repeat what they did at Midway. Follow in with their own aircraft, and launch a huge salvo of anti-ship missiles. With the shorter range of UK air defense missiles, they would get to within striking distance without much effort, since the UK aircraft will all be going to resupply from their own carriers.

Then rinse and repeat several times. The stand-off distances between the two fleets is huge. The US ships have missiles that reach farther then the range of the UK anti-ship missiles. But the UK does not possess any missiles that would keep the US from getting with easy distance of their own anti-ship missiles.

The US admiral would simply react to the UK attacks, then respond with strong counter-punches. And their superor AWACS capability will allow them to know what the UK is doing from over the horizon. But the limited UK AWACS would leave them only attempting to do fleet defense coverage only.

And if the UK refuses to attack first, just have 1 Strike Wing attack with anti-ship missiles, with another wing along for support. Once you get within range of the missiles (125km), launch them all then engage the fighters. Because you are still safely out of the range of any support from the fleet.

The UK can't respond in kind, because US ship borne missiles still have a greater range then the UK anti-ship missiles. And no pilots are going to press in an attack with AA missiles comming right at them.

 

But it only carries 48 missiles. That is half the number of missiles on the Arleigh Burke class. A single wave of Super Hornets could attack with 72 Harpoon missiles, leaving the Type 45 with empty bunkers after destroying only a handfull of targets.

And a single Toconderoga class cruiser carries 122 air defense missiles.