Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Daring Iran

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
imperialman

imperialman

Major
3 Badges
Feb 11, 2011
693
0
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • 500k Club
Royal Navy sends its mightiest ship to take on the Iranian show of force in the Gulf

The Royal Navy's most formidable warship is being sent to the Gulf for its first mission as tensions rise in the strategically vital region, it can be disclosed.

daring_2101945b.jpg



Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, which served as the conduit for 17 millions barrels of oil every day last year.

Naval commanders believe the deployment of HMS Daring, a Type 45 destroyer, will send a significant message to the Iranians because of the firepower and world-beating technology carried by the warship.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, has publicly warned Iran that any blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would be "illegal and unsuccessful".

The Daily Telegraph understands that HMS Daring has been fitted with new technology that will give it the ability to shoot down any missile in Iran's armoury. The £1 billion destroyer, which will leave Portsmouth next Wednesday, also carries the world's most sophisticated naval radar, capable of tracking multiple incoming threats from missiles to fighter jets.

Daring, with its crew of 190, will transit through the Suez Canal and enter the Gulf later this month to replace the Type 23 frigate currently on station.

Iran completed a 10-day naval exercise in the sensitive waters near the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, staging manouevres which included firing three anti-ship missiles understood to be the Chinese-made C-802.

Yesterday, Tehran said that another exercise would be held in the same area next month. Admiral Ali Fadavi, commander of the naval branch of the Revolutionary Guard, warned that this would be "different" from the most recent one.

Speaking earlier, Mr Hammond said that "our joint naval presence in the Arabian Gulf" was "key to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open for international trade".
A Navy source has indicated that more British ships could be sent to the Gulf if required. The second Type 45, HMS Dauntless, will also be available to sail at short notice.
Daring's special software upgrades will significantly increase the ability of its Sampson radar and Sea Viper missiles to destroy incoming missiles.
During an intensive "swarm attack", the vessel could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five of it predecessor Type 42 destoyers.

The Sea Viper is also one of the world's most agile missiles equipped with its own radar that can allow it to hit a target a hundred miles away.
Lord West, the former First Sea Lord, described Daring as a "world beater", adding: "This warship has an unbelievably capable ability to track targets, spot the most dangerous and identify them for its missiles to take out. It's highly, highly capable. I would like to see the Type 45s show their potential in the region."
The 8,000 ton destroyer will carry 48 Sea Vipers that can also be used to shoot down fighters as well as sea skimming missiles. It will also carry a Lynx helicopter capable of carrying Sea Skua anti-ship missiles and is capable of embarking 60 special forces troops.

An MoD spokesman said: "While the newly operational Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring is more capable than earlier ships, her deployment East of Suez has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces a frigate on station."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...on-the-Iranian-show-of-force-in-the-Gulf.html








 
Last edited:
Bla bla routine deployment sexed up for the media. Bla bla the ship is liek awesome, k? If Iran isn't scared by America's carrier strike group cruising around the area, what chance has little old HMS Daring got? :p
 
slornie said:
Bla bla routine deployment sexed up for the media. Bla bla the ship is liek awesome, k? If Iran isn't scared by America's carrier strike group cruising around the area, what chance has little old HMS Daring got? :p
Click to expand...

This.

The Iranians are very concerned, they have absolutely no way of closing the straights or protecting themselves from a blockade of regional and international navies. Furthermore if the straights were closed there will be some sort of power battle internally that would be risky for all Iranian factions involved.

The last line of the article made me laugh because it ran contrary to the rest of the article
 
Last edited:
Mowers said:
The last line of the article made me laugh because it ran contrary to the rest of the article
Click to expand...
Same! Also, I am aware that Daring was long planned to visit the region but I posted this in the spirit of NWAC! :pWhat do people think of the utility of a Type 45 in a shooting war with Irans 1960s time warp naval forces?
 
imperialman said:
Same! Also, I am aware that Daring was long planned to visit the region but I posted this in the spirit of NWAC! :pWhat do people think of the utility of a Type 45 in a shooting war with Irans 1960s time warp naval forces?
Click to expand...
Well, as long as the Harpoons or Tomahawks are not yet fitted, only area denial really. No hostile aircraft better come within a radius of 120 kms from the Type 45, or they are dead.
 
astute97 said:
A Kilo should give the americans a pain in the ass! American anti-submarine warfare against diesel-electric subs is apparently begining to lag.
Click to expand...

Well, it's been five years or so since the Gotland lease, I think that the USN should have adressed some of their problems with conventional subs since then. Speaking as a paltry civilian of course.
 
JanH said:
Well, as long as the Harpoons or Tomahawks are not yet fitted, only area denial really. No hostile aircraft better come within a radius of 120 kms from the Type 45, or they are dead.
Click to expand...

If the Iranians tried to close the straight, area denial would probably be the most important asset a task force could have. A T45 really does provide a capability the Americans don't have in terms of area denial to aircraft and anti-missile defence, and don't forget it has its Lynx to provide enough anti-shipping firepower to take down anything the Iranians have. A T45s defence combined with the US 5th Fleets offensive capability, the Iranians wouldn't stand a chance in a shooting war.
 
Even though using technology based on 70s missiles, wouldnt the Iranians be able to just overwhelm a lone Type 45 pretty easily imperialman?
48 missiles can only do that much damage im afraid. When she gets her offensive weapons tough she will be a really deadly ship. BUt against Iran i think she is overkill technically.
 
Tomahawks were developed in 70-ies. B-52s were developed in 50ies and Nimitz class carriers were developed in late 60-ies. A lot of western "modern" weapons are just upgraded version based on a 50 year old technology.
 
Xmasbeer said:
Tomahawks were developed in 70-ies. B-52s were developed in 50ies and Nimitz class carriers were developed in late 60-ies. A lot of western "modern" weapons are just upgraded version based on a 50 year old technology.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but only the name remains (and, in the case of ships, most of the hulls). Practically all electronics, armament, sensors have been updated. I don't think Iran's capabilities have been enhanced to anything close to that level.
 
nielsenkc said:
anyone else woundering how subs the uk and us have near iran?? i mean surface ships are nice to have to show force but the fact subs are the best anti surface asset out there you got to wounder.
Click to expand...
The US definitely have subs there, including in the strait itself. I doubt Iran has anything that can detect modern subs at depth. Except, unlike in NWAC, the subs have to come to PD to receive orders and relay their findings :)
 
CarlosM said:
Even though using technology based on 70s missiles, wouldnt the Iranians be able to just overwhelm a lone Type 45 pretty easily imperialman?
48 missiles can only do that much damage im afraid. When she gets her offensive weapons tough she will be a really deadly ship. BUt against Iran i think she is overkill technically.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about a lone T45 against the whole Iranian military, then yes of course she'd be overwhelmed. However a T45 would never be put in that situation, it will always work as part of a taskgroup if going into combat, be that with Royal Navy or US Navy vessels.

Oh and JanH, when HMS Daring went to exercise with the US Navy lasy year, she was asked to limit her radars because she was providing so much information about the air picture she made it too easy and the US ships weren't getting any benefit from the exercise! That's how much better the radar on a T45 is compared to anything else right now, including the Arleigh Burkes.
 
Boohugh said:
If you are talking about a lone T45 against the whole Iranian military, then yes of course she'd be overwhelmed. However a T45 would never be put in that situation, it will always work as part of a taskgroup if going into combat, be that with Royal Navy or US Navy vessels.


Oh and JanH, when HMS Daring went to exercise with the US Navy lasy year, she was asked to limit her radars because she was providing so much information about the air picture she made it too easy and the US ships weren't getting any benefit from the exercise! That's how much better the radar on a T45 is compared to anything else right now, including the Arleigh Burkes.
Click to expand...


Agreed, I think the SPY-1D has a range of around 200km where as the SAMPSON has a range of around 400km? Also, aren't they both S band? IIRC the SPY-1D scans on a rotating basis, so it's certainly not all four faces providing data. SAMPSON transmits simultaneously on both faces of it's array so at anyone time it's scanning 240 degrees of sky.


Power output though is suspect to compare in my opinion without detailed data. The relevant thing to know is the intensity of energy that can be transmitted towards a single target at a useful frequency in a single illumination, which may not correspond in any obvious way to the figure given (for instance, it will be tempting for a manufacturer to quote the power of the radio waves at a point before transmission from the face if this is higher). Also, the peak power might only be achievable in tiny bursts. Rotating radars have one obvious advantage over fixed ones, there will be at least one point in the rotation where the array is pointing directly towards the target, which will allow a more intense illumination that a "scanned off" beam can achieve.


Against supersonic skimming and jinking missiles, for example, range of detection and response is a vital determinant of success. This is combined with the very agile Aster missiles, which thanks to their terminal phase lateral thrusters have an extraordinarily high probability of kill. SAMPSON plus Aster delivers a performance a generation ahead of the AN/SPY-1D in my opinion and I'll explain why further.


I believe it should be noted that SAMPSON and the AN/SPY-1D are different types of RADAR, AESA and PESA respectively (I have no doubt readers here know this but just so the other readers can keep up). AESA's are significantly less power hungry as each of the T/R modules transmits a low power EM pulse, the beams being formed by the intersections of the pulses (this contrasts to the very powerful EM pulse being transmitted by PESA systems such as the AN/SPY-1D. AESAs like SAMPSON are easier to maintain, require lower voltage, track a large number of targets but PESAs like the SPY-1D track more than enough vs available missiles, in short the SPY-1D isn't better in terms of performance (range, number of targets engaged in any given time etc) only number of missiles it can call on in total, so I don't believe that the power output of the SPY-1D really makes it superior.


As for coverage, the AN/SPY-1D has two magnetron's (IIRC) i.e. has two arrays active at any one time, cycling through all four. It beats a single faced rotator hands down, but you'll get an equal amount of time on target from a double faced rotator like SAMPSON and makes the fact the arrays physically cover a 360 arc around the ship meaningless if only two arrays are processed at any one time.


With regards to the ESSM vs Aster situation, I believe Aster is the best missile for evolving missile threats.


-Aster has an active RADAR and thus can cope with missiles without needing an illuminator where as the ESSM has inertial Command and a terminal sdemi-active RADAR.


-Aster is able to maneuver to 60g and can intercept by direct hit to kill (thanks to lateral trusters), supersonic missiles maneuvering at 15g. I don't think the ESSM has similar kinematic performance but I can't claim to know too much about the ESSMs. The only good point of the ESSM compared to the Aster family is price in my opinion.


I get the feeling the difference between PESA and AESA is so small that missiles (with active seekers) make much more of a difference. I'd argue that the Daring fit out is superior when compared to AB's.
 
Can't help but thinking the UK really needs to bolster its Navy ahead of most other parts of the Armed Forces. Why we keep cutting them when they'll be the predominant front line deterrent in any region always escapes me.

We have not got, nor will ever have, enough T45's. A sad state of affairs :(
 
Boohugh said:
If you are talking about a lone T45 against the whole Iranian military, then yes of course she'd be overwhelmed. However a T45 would never be put in that situation, it will always work as part of a taskgroup if going into combat, be that with Royal Navy or US Navy vessels.

Oh and JanH, when HMS Daring went to exercise with the US Navy lasy year, she was asked to limit her radars because she was providing so much information about the air picture she made it too easy and the US ships weren't getting any benefit from the exercise! That's how much better the radar on a T45 is compared to anything else right now, including the Arleigh Burkes.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course not, but it kind of was the situation he asked about.
 
=Mike= said:
Can't help but thinking the UK really needs to bolster its Navy ahead of most other parts of the Armed Forces. Why we keep cutting them when they'll be the predominant front line deterrent in any region always escapes me.
Click to expand...

There was never really the cash to pay for the wars that Britain committed its self to and thus long term funding was redirected into UORs for the wars. However, the CVF program with 2 units could not be cut easily, as one unit is not strategically or economically viable. Thus the navy was given a choice of abandoning the carriers or facing cuts elsewhere as all services have had to do. The Conspiracy of Optimism has reigned as a policy for at least 7 years, with the British public, Abbeywood and whitehall all being equally culpable. It's only now that this is coming to light in main stream society.

But the reality is that Defense is not a priority with the British tax payer and the British economy has been gradually run down over many years whilst borrowing money for things like health and social security which have provided little return on investment. The British are largely unaware of the relative state of their armed forces actual capability or yet ready to face uncomfortable truths about the relative wealth of the country so there will be no change for the foreseeable future.

I'd prepare yourself for much worse to be honest, I've been a defence contractor for nearly 2 decades and I've never seen so many people preparing to exit the industry.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back