Dauntless to the Falklands

The British government is sending a strong message to Argentina…they are sending the HMS Dauntless to the Falklands.

Dauntless will set sail for the Falkland Islands in the coming weeks armed with a battery of missiles that could “take out all of South America’s fighter aircraft let alone Argentina’s,” according to one Navy source.

The Type 45 destroyer is the most advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic ship in the world equipped with 48 Sea Viper missiles and the Sampson radar, which is more advanced than Heathrow air traffic control

The ship is in a league of its own in air defence able to track dozens of multiple targets

“It can shoot down Argentine fighters as soon as they take off from they bases,” said another Navy source. “This will give Buenos Aires serious pause for thought.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Anonymous

    They sound like great ships, the Type 45s. Nice photo too.
    No clutter on that ship. All business.

    • whalewatcher

      And it is doing full-throttle Battleship Chicanes…

  • Gazzaw

    The ageing Argentinian Skyhawks & Mirages will be about as much use as the ‘General Belgrano’.

    • Anonymous

      by the looks of it theyre still using the turbo-prop Pucara’s too, may as well use topdressing planes, one was dropped during the Falklands war using small arms fire.

      Maximum speed 500kph, hardly an airspace dominator……

  • Michael Duke

    They are OK now that the missiles are deployed.  From their launch in 2006 until the middle of 2011 the only weapons they carried was a single 4.5″ gun and a pair of 30mm cannon.

    That was great value for GBP1.1bn each :o

  • Anonymous

    Nice looking ship. Hope it doesnt burn like the HMS Sheffield.

    • Thorn

      The RN learned hard lessons about short-comings in naval architecture, weapon systems and tactics in that conflict. The Argies would be silly to seek a rematch, particularly at this time when the UK is getting heated  about sovereignty issues.

      • ConwayCaptain

        Issuing people with man nade fibre uniforms whcih burnt in the fire, aluminium top structures which burnt etc.

        The class is designed to protect the QE Class carriers but there is now doubt as to when the Joint Strike Fighter will come into service, if at all.  The costs are escalating like mad.

        The French Charles de Gaulle has a habit of breaking down.  On one voyage one of the props fell off!!!!

  • ConwayCaptain

    Article in The Guardian where they are saying that a lot of young people in argentina are not interested in the Falklands becoming Argentinian and that if the people want to stay part of Britain that is OK.

    All Kirchener is doing is diverting interest away from problems at home just as Galtieri did.

    These ships cost 1 bn stg for the reason that Labour orederd 12 and then cust the order to 6 so all the R&D had to be borne by 6 not 12 ships/.

    The Brits are developing the Type 26 to be the new frigate class and they are wanting Aus/NZ to come abpoard to spread the cost. 

  • Dr Wang

    This definitely does look the business – any argy-bargy will be sorted before it even gets started!

  • TCrwdb

    UK answer to the Aegis class, not sure why they went off and developed their own version of it, better and cheaper to stick with proven off-the-shelf than bespoke development.  Australia are getting 3 x Aegis class ships which can cleanse the skies of anything in a 240km radius to a ceiling of 33,000 meters

    • EX Navy Greg

      After the debacle of the Collins class submarines all Aussie procurement will be “off the shelf” products. On paper the type 45 “daring class” should have better anti aircraft capability than the very good Aegis boats.

      • ConwayCaptain

        The Ockers are now considering whether the next lot of subs are “off the shelf” or we build them.

        Article in the SMH and the difference in price could be 18billion A$.

        Brits built the Upholder Class of conventiona;l subs and sold them off to the Canadians and they are a heap of shit.

        The RCN bought them so the USN could practice against conventional subs.

  • Anonymous

    As far as Western navies go, what puzzles me is two things –
    a) Why Western navies don’t have humungously-fast anti-ship missiles like those that the Russians have got. And –
    b) The not-very-convincing (to me) defenses of Western naval ships against those missiles. 
    When there are a number of missiles coming at you at Mach 2 or 3+, then CIWS (like Phalanx) would seem to struggle.
    I should mention that these comments are more about Western navies in general, rather than the Type 45 (which I think *could* probably handle such missiles). 

    • EX Navy Greg

      My thoughts:
      a: running cost is horrendous and more speed equals less range

      b: CIWS is usually used in conjunction with a missile system and is the last line of defence. RNZN block 1 ciws has a 100% kill rate from 8 nautical mile range.

      A comparison, ANZAC frigate under diesel propulsion, 18 knots, 8000nm range while under gas turbine propulsion, 29 knots, 600nm range for the same cost.

      The Poms have built the best warships and Officers for the last 200+ years.HMS Dauntless will punch, bore and countersink their arseholes before handing it to them in a sling  :)  Go the pussers!

      • ConwayCaptain

        Greg

        There is a graph for fuel consumption and basically you design the ship for say 15 kts and youb get a certain fuel consumption.  As soon as you go above thisbthebconsumption goes up exponentionally.  All to do with the “Admiralty Co-efficient” which the engineer lecturer taught us a Conway.

        The fuel reqd to get you to optimum speed goes up exponentionally the drops considerably as you reach that speed and a bit beyond then if you want to go faster then “up she goes’..

        TH buklbous bow only works at a spoeed abd a draftrange that you want it to.  Once above of below that range it actually impedes your speed.  So in a POax vessel with a relatively constant speed and draft it is ok.  However for ships like tankers and bulkers which spend half their life in ballast what do you want better speed and fuel consumtion at lt draft or at loaded.

        In warships ypou are aty an almpost constanmt draft with v little variable where do you want the fuel efficiency, full ahead anmd damn the torpedoes of at tottling along speed.

      • EX Navy Greg

        Agreed Captain, the Anzacs have no bulb at all, and new bulkers seem to have a straight edge bulb, click on photo, this was launched a few weeks ago, draft line on the bow reads to 20m to give you an idea of size

  • rubba duckie

    never forget al-Nashiri and the USS Cole……

    • Thorn

      Just another low-tech threat to be mitigated – big deal.

      • popeye

        big deal?
        try telling that to the families of the 17 dead sailors

      • Thorn

        Popeye, the threat described is low-tech. The consequence of dead and injured sailors was tragic, and avoidable. New SOPs have been implemented to mitigate this risk. That is what the bereaved families would want to hear. 

      • Hakimofphut

        This was long after a low tech threat ( a truck) levelled the US Marine barracks in Beirut with  250+ deaths.  I wonder what SOPs  the Cole didnt have ?
        Probationary Temporary Acting Sub Lieutenant Phut

      • Thorn

        Phut, concentric security with a free-fire perimeter aka deadlines.

        Not the type of threat Dauntless is likely to face in the South Atlantic.

  • Chris13

    Nice ship the Daring, saw a couple in Portsmouth harbour, pretty big up close. Good as the Sea Viper is though – there are only 48 missiles, and the Argies still have 97 jet combat aircraft capable of getting to the Falkands… so with a reload 6000 miles away… you would think it could be swamped in a suicide attack and go the same way as Sheffield, Coventry, Antelope and Ardent??

    • Anonymous

      If that were looking a likely scenarino I’m sure they’d send more than the 1 ship chris. Just a flexing of the muscles.

      • Chris13

        There are only 3 in service… and with the current state of the RN, Daring and Diamond are probably tied up alongside, or in refit/work up… So not that many muscles to flex in the current RN!

        All the Carriers are now gone, and that’s the big problem – it was only because of Hermes and Invincible that they managed to liberate the “Malvinas” last time. One type 45 and 4 Eurofighters won’t see off a serious invasion – even with the much depleted current Argentine armed forces…

        Oh – and going on past history, circa 1982, even if it looks a likely scenario – the current UK Government will be no more likely to act in time than Maggie and Nott were…

    • Anonymous

       I agree – 48 missiles seems to be a pretty low number for a ship like this. A ship that’s presumably tasked with the air defense of a fleet.
       If it had (say) 200 Sea Vipers, that would *truly* be a kick-butt air-defense asset.

    • Anonymous

      certainly not the British Navy of old. One would hope theres a sub or 2 hanging around, a definite shot in the foot not having replaced the Ark Royal, I was stunned when I first learnt that was the one and only.

      They’d be on their own too, the current US government doesn’t want a bar of it.

      • EX Navy Greg

        There is.

      • Chris13

        Do you mean Ark Royal III (1978), or Ark Royal IV, which has just been retired??

        Certainly if they had kept Ark Royal III in service there would have been no Falklands war – flying 2 squadrons of Phantoms and Buccaneers at the Argentinian’s WOULD have taken out their entire air force.

        Wonder what the cost of recapturing the Falklands, replacing the lost ships, building and maintaining Mt Pleasance, and garisoning the islands was, relative to the cost of keeping the Ark in service then replacing her with a proper carrier (as the new Queen Elizebeth class will be) – bet it would have saved them a lot of money…

        But then the UK has always been short sighted in respect to the RN – too much political lobying by the Army and the RAF…

        They should have kept both Ark Royal and Eagle (a better ship than Ark) right through the 80’s then replaced them, they would have easily been able to do this for a fraction of the alternative expenditure. But instead they bought 400 Tornado’s for the RAF… 

    • Gazzaw

      I don’t think that the argies are into suicide missions.

    • Anonymous

      yes the recently decommissioned carrier. Were you implying the RN is planning to build a new carrier class soon?

      • Chris13

        They’re underway – Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales – 60,000 tons, first one enters service in 2016. They would originally have hosted the V/STOL F35B, but the Cameron Government changed it to the US Navy spec F35C in last years SDR (much more capable) that they should have specified in the first place…. In the meantime the SDR also paid off Ark Royal and Illustrious, Invincible has already been chopped up in Turkey. Only flat deck in the RN currently is Ocean, which is a Helicopter assault ship.

        Of course SDR also killed off the Joint Force Harrier so the RAF could save some less useful and more expensive Tornado’s… so there were now no planes capable of flying from the carriers – or the new QE when she enters service, as the F35 is facing huge cost increases and cost over runs… What a cock up…. :(

        Nek Minute – the US Marines have snapped up all 72 barely used Harrier GR9’s for a bargain US$180M to prop up their own air arm until they get the delayed and expensive F35B (that’s about the cost of ONE of the new F35B’s – so bargain of the century)!!

        And meanwhile, in their infinite wisdom… the MOD isn’t fitting catapults and traps to Queen Elizabeth, and she will have no aircraft to fly off her till about 2020… so its a 60,000 ton multi billion pound helicopter carrier….

        If there was any sense in the world they would be ditching F35C and buying F18E/F’s off the shelf, or the proposed sea version of the Saab Grippen, or the Rafael – which is already going to sea on the French Charles DeGaul and was flying operations over Libya. (I won’t suggest navalised Typhoon… its too expensive, and converting it would just result in another HUGE cost blow out…

        In a sensible world, the UK would swap a third Queen Elizabeth class CVF to the French (reducing the cost of the other two by amortizing the costs over 3 hulls) as they desperatly need a second CVF as DeGaul is so unreliable – in return for an air wing of Rafael fighters – as the French also desperatly need to sell some of those, as its currently made NO export sales at all…

        Of course that’s all far too logical – and the RAF won’t want a bar of a French jet that competes with their Typhoons either… Oh yeah – as there is no Fleet Air Arm anymore, so the RAF get to control planes they don’t want, to fly off carriers that they don’t like, as they do a better job than their expensive land based assets…. again, what a cock up… something similar almost lost them WW2….

      • EX Navy Greg

        Very good post Chris.

  • EX Navy Greg

    Remember that a warship is a weapons system, more than one weapon is trained on a target.
    To see a 2 metre wingspan drone on a 2km tow wire getting taken out by three weapons at once, 8 miles away is most impressive. The CIWS alone has 3 radars, two track the target, one tracks the outgoing 20mm rounds and the computer “walks them together ”
    The Celcius tech weapons control radars on the anzacs can tie in ALL electronic weapons together, and this is 15 year old technology.

  • Tom

    And a casual submarine lurking who knows where? That’s the ace in the hand…

    • Chris13

      Which is why the Argies have a (very hopefull!!) project in place to build their own SSN!

      I read once there are only 4 navies in the world (US, UK, Russia, France) that will put to sea when there is suspected to be an SSN in the area… and that’s because they are the only navies with effective SSN’s of their own to act as hunter killers.

      The entire Argentine navy headed for port after Conqueror went “Gotcha” on the Belgrano and left their air force to it after that.

  • JA

    Oh dear Whale – great photo but I did not think you would get taken in by the UK MOD’s PR BS. Truth is that this this is yet another sad British defense blunder – more details here: 
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/20/daring_armed/

  • EX Navy Greg

    The register is the pom equivalent of the standard. Do you really think any navy will divulge every weapon system onboard a new class of ship.?
    Delays to the project were caused 100% by political interference and “cost cutting” which always adds to the final bill.

    This link on the register shows clearly what bullshit they talk.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/06/hms_victory_maintenance_contract/

39%