Greatest ship since HMS Hood.

Befor WW2 the Royal navy went around the world showing off HMS Hood as the most powerful battle ship ever made, yet it was sunk by the Bismarck. Today the Type 45 or Daring class destroyer is on a tour and is being proclaimed as the most advanced air defence ship in the world. It isn't equiped with anti ship missiles, only has 48 cells for anti air missiles and can launch Tomahawk missiles. So is this talk about the Type 45 just Royal navy snobbery or is it really as good as the Royal navy say it is?

 

Hood was sunk by a fluke shot.

 

Hood was not a battleship. HMS Hood was a battle cruiser. Like all battle cruisers, Hood sacrificed armor protection for armament (eight 15" guns) and speed (an astounding for its time 31 knots). Any battle cruiser has the same trade-off. Hood had only three inches of deck armor. Plans were made to up-armor the deck, but when WW1 ended, they were dropped.

By 1941, Hood was 25 years old and badly outdated, especially in regards to protection...which was demonstrated spectacularly. She was in dire need of a complete overhaul, but there simply weren't enough available ships to take Hood out of the fleet. She got a partial refit from January to March of 1941, but even afterwards, she was really not ready for action.

She was sent after Bismarck mostly because of her high speed...only Hood, battle cruisers Repulse and Renown, and new fast battleships King George V and Prince of Wales could even come close to Bismarck's speed. The older battleships that were the mainstay of the Home Fleet could not top 24 knots, and many couldn't even manage that. (The Revenge-class often did well to manage 20.)

 

If Hood had the major overhaul that was needed in the mid 30's would she have sunk by a fluke shot? The same goes for the Type 45, if one is sunk say by Iran because they lack the number of missiles needed.

 

The Daring class isn't nearly as good as the Arleigh Burke class.

 

Agreed, but the Type 45 was never ment to be as good as the Arleigh Burkes class, it was ment to defend carriers as the best air defence destroyer in the world. But it is only about half as powerful at air defence as the Arleigh Burkes and their Japanese variants, South Korea, China, all have more powerful air defence ships.

 

She still would not have had anywhere near enough deck armor to stop a 15" AP round...so, yes.

 

Who knows? The shot that took out the Hood penetrated the magazine. That's why only 3 crewmen survived.

 

Yes I know, I have watched sink the Bismarck. My dad has also built models of both the Bismarck and the Hood, just by looking at them I can tell Bismarck was a much more modern ship.

 

The greatest threat a smaller warship like this destroyer would likely face today would be a suicide boat attack while inside an Islamic harbor. The USS Cole under the inept command of Bill Clinton, was only armed with a few guys and their 9mm pistols---like the Libyan Ambassador as he hid inside his "safehouse."

The fools in the White House and the Pentagon that came up with these idiotic rules of engagement are every bit as ignorant and unfit for leadership as the desingers of this British destroyer. Unless this destoyer has the firepower of at the very least a .30 cal machine gun that can quickly cover all approaches, it cannot protect itself and its crew from a typical terrorist attack.

 

The Cole was under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold.

U.S.S. Cole- among other armament:
1 × Mark 45 5/54 in (127/54 mm)
2 × 25 mm chain gun
4 × .50 caliber (12.7 mm) guns
2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS

Was Clinton ultimately responsible? Sure. The rules of engagement were to blame, and ultimately the President is always responsible. But it was poor planning on the Navy's part- and not a lack of armament on the Cole. There were guards manning an M-60 on deck who didn't fire.

 

Please explain.

How cold Iran sink a type 45?

 

Please explain.

How cold Iran sink a type 45?

 

The only info I've seen was about the guys on deck with their sidearms. It has been quoted that AFTER THE ATTACK an enlisted seaman, with blood splatter on him, manning an M-60 was told not to engage and to point away his weapon from another oncomming ship by an officer. Were the M-60's and other machine guns manned at the time just before the attack? I bet not.

 

Iran would use missile boats fire off missiles and sink the Type 45, maybe not in the first attack, but by the second or third the Type 45 would be out of missiles.

Type 45 48 missile cells, Arleigh Burke 96.

 

Perhaps the Cole's defenses were not manned, and I think we can both agree that the rules of engagement were to blame- but this was a far cry from claiming that the Cole "was only armed with a few guys and their 9mm pistols---"- the Cole had the close in weapons to defend itself- but wasn't ready or prepared to use them.

 

IDK.

The Ticondaroga can do much much more, including shooting down balistic missles.

 

Yeah the Ticonderoga's are awesome.

 

All US ships now have a modification to the Phalanx that allows it to engage small surface craft. Navy ships in foreign ports now put out a floating boom to demark a zone of death. Run over the boom and the Phalanx is "weapons-free."

An Arleigh Burke (or Ticonderoga - both use the Aegis radar controlled Standard AAW missile) could single handedly defeat the all the air forces in the Middle east (including Israel's) simultaneously. A Daring cannot.

 

I very much doubt 1 Ticonderoga and 1 Arleigh Burke could defeat every air force in the middle east at the same time.

 

Mine, torpedo, air attack, SS-N-22 SunBurn anti ship missiles... too many ways to name....

oh, and tyco's and burkes suffer from the same vulnerabilities...

 

"I very much doubt 1 Ticonderoga and 1 Arleigh Burke could defeat every air force in the middle east at the same time."

Taxcutter says:
The Navy gamed this out. And it is not "1 Arleigh Burke AND 1 Ticonderoga" it's "1 Arleigh Burke OR 1 Ticonderoga." The only way the Middle Eastern air forces survive is to simply stay away from the US ships.

Torpedoes can sink any ship, but that presupposes the submarine can get close enough to launch a torpedo. The Arleigh Burke has its own formidable ASW capability (that's the main difference from the Ticonderoga - the tyco sacrifices some ASW for great AAW and ASuW capability) and since both classes normally operate with carrier battle groups they benefit from the carrier's ASW capability and the fast attack subs that go with CBGs. The Daring has no such capabilities. Therefore (unless it is part of a task force that includes such redoubtable assets) it is is sub-bait.

 

Sorry you said nothing about their being a carrier group, you said those show alown, no carrier and no submarine. If one US carrier group came up against ever airforce in the middle east, It would lose. Turkey, Egypt and Isreal could defeat 1 US carrier group.

 

The carrier group covers the submarine threat - source of torpedoes.

The Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga defeats all the AIR FORCES of the Middle East single handed.

Can the Daring class do this?

No. The USN ships are still shooting down planes and missiles long after the Daring is burning stem to stern.

 

US war games are usually rigged so the US wins. The US doesn't like to lose.

A war games in the Middle East just before the invasion of Iraq had a Marine general using speed boats and things like Cessnas wipe out the US fleet. The Pentagon ordered the ships "refloated" gave the Marine General a script to follow and declared the US the winner.