+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Arleigh Burke class destroyer Vs Daring class Destroyer.

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxcutter View Post
    A Landing Ship Helicopter has an impressive helicopter hangar, but is just a target for a modern submarine.

    The Daring is nothing but a smaller,faster LHS with a lot of anti-aircraft capability.

    The Daring is a throwback to the old soviet single purpose 'cans.
    Or it's a stealth destroyer, who knows.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antileftwinger View Post
    Or it's a stealth destroyer, who knows.
    I dont think the 'Darings' were solely designed for AAW, its just that cost cutting has so far prevented the ships from being kitted out with anti-ship and land attack missiles (how many times do i have to keep pointing this out?).

    Anyway, if you were in an aircraft you wouldn't want to be anywhere near these ships in a combat environment!

    btw: HMS Dauntless the second in class ship has been deployed to the Falklands now, and that has really wound up the Argies.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mepal1 View Post
    I dont think the 'Darings' were solely designed for AAW, its just that cost cutting has so far prevented the ships from being kitted out with anti-ship and land attack missiles (how many times do i have to keep pointing this out?).

    Anyway, if you were in an aircraft you wouldn't want to be anywhere near these ships in a combat environment!

    btw: HMS Dauntless the second in class ship has been deployed to the Falklands now, and that has really wound up the Argies.
    Be fair now, the Type 45's have gone way over budget, and if they were fitted with all they should be fitted with they would cost 1.2 billion, no navy not even the US can afford that. The main reason for the cost is the ships started out as being built by the UK, France and Italy, which pushed costs up because like with Eurofighter the UK and France wanted different things. Most people would agree that the UK has better destroyers and jets than France. It just goes back to what we both say the government should spend more on defence and mainly the navy.

    Mainly if you were an aircraft from Argentina. Do you know if the Mount Pleasant air base has any missile defence systems?

    I think HMS Daring with all weapons systems and fully stocked with missiles and a trained crew is the best destroyer ever, but we don't have that yet.

    I will also say there isn't a better ship to defence the Falklands from air craft, which is in my view why the RN wanted it, just for another war with Argentina. People may say the RN learned nothing from the 2nd Argentine attempt to take the Falklands but it has, it's just taken along time to make new weapons, because of lack of investment and fighting pointless American wars under Labour, which have cost the UK over 100 billion, and over 600 people killed. This is why we need a Conservative government.

    We are also now sending a nuclear submarine, I not sure which class, and have plans in place for a rapid reaction force to an Argentine attack. But I am not sure how anything can be rapid unless it's based at or on Ascension, I would like us to move more jets, para's and ships their.
    Last edited by antileftwinger; Feb 04 2012 at 03:44 AM.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antileftwinger View Post
    Which is the best destroyer in the world.

    Daring class having the best radar and tracking systems, but the Arleigh Burke class has more missiles for more and different targets.

    This isn't about ship on ship, but which would be better for a navy to have.
    No question, the Arleigh Burke class. Hands down. Had this discussion before.

    Quote Originally Posted by antileftwinger View Post
    Or it's a stealth destroyer, who knows.
    Who cares? Stealth only protects from radar, not eyes on or satellite detection.

    And this would have no defense against modern munitions, which are camera sighted and guided. We can aim missiles and bombs into a specific window of a building. And fire them from greater distances then the Burke can return fire.

    I can see a group of F/A-18 Super Hornets flying in slow circles, taking group shots against one of these. Fire a salvo of missiles, then take off before the Type 45 has a hope of trying to engage them in return.

    Quote Originally Posted by mepal1 View Post
    I dont think the 'Darings' were solely designed for AAW, its just that cost cutting has so far prevented the ships from being kitted out with anti-ship and land attack missiles (how many times do i have to keep pointing this out?).

    Anyway, if you were in an aircraft you wouldn't want to be anywhere near these ships in a combat environment!
    From all I have seen, the Type 45 is really an attempt at an air defense ship, mostly concentrating on an anti-missile role. But they have rather small ammunition bunkers (48 missiles as opposed to the Burke's 96+ missiles). Plus it has nothing to compare with the new RIM-174 with it's 240 km range.

    The best chance I see would be to have aircraft make attack runs at extreme range, then when the ship fires at them immediately turn tail and run. Rinse and repeat until all the long range missiles are gone. Then you can much more safely approach to beyond the 30 km range of the Aster 15 and let go with impunity.

    And in a situation like San Carlos, this would be a sitting duck. You see, the Argentines did not play fair there. They came in over a hill where the radar had no coverage. And since the missiles on the Type 45 need at least 2 km to arm themselves, this platform would be almost worthless.

  5. Default

    On this forum, it will be the American one.

    End thread.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unclebob View Post
    On this forum, it will be the American one.

    End thread.
    Not true. I look at many things when giving my opinion of what is a better piece of military hardware.

    When comparing these two ships, it mostly comes down to the much larger magazine of the Arleigh Burke, along with the greater missile range. Combined this is an advantage much greater then that of the Type 45.

    And the OP did specifically state it was not to be a comparison in a surface naval battle.

    Quote Originally Posted by antileftwinger View Post
    This isn't about ship on ship, but which would be better for a navy to have.
    So by comparing the capabilities within the parameters given, the Burke class is of a much greater asset. After all, these ships are designed for one purpose and one purpose only: To protect other surface ships.

    The ability to fire longer range missiles, as well as having more of them makes the Burke a better ship to have.

    Now if the mission was to sneak up as close to shore as possible and secretly drop off a covert operations team, my parameters would have been different, and I would have given the advantage to the Type 45.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mushroom View Post
    Not true. I look at many things when giving my opinion of what is a better piece of military hardware.

    When comparing these two ships, it mostly comes down to the much larger magazine of the Arleigh Burke, along with the greater missile range. Combined this is an advantage much greater then that of the Type 45.

    And the OP did specifically state it was not to be a comparison in a surface naval battle.



    So by comparing the capabilities within the parameters given, the Burke class is of a much greater asset. After all, these ships are designed for one purpose and one purpose only: To protect other surface ships.

    The ability to fire longer range missiles, as well as having more of them makes the Burke a better ship to have.

    Now if the mission was to sneak up as close to shore as possible and secretly drop off a covert operations team, my parameters would have been different, and I would have given the advantage to the Type 45.
    Which ship would you say is more cost effective? Daring needs less sailor's and has cheaper missiles, but Arleigh Burke is cheap.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antileftwinger View Post
    Which ship would you say is more cost effective? Daring needs less sailor's and has cheaper missiles, but Arleigh Burke is cheap.
    To me, cost does not matter a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed bit. The idea is to save the lives of the sailors and to protect the fleet.

    However, for the mission involved and the cost involved, once again no question the Arleigh Burke.

    A "Stealth Destroyer" is of absolutely no use at all when you are guarding a gigantic "stealthy as a mountain" aircraft carrier.

  9. #19
    usa us massachusetts
    Location: Darn Yankee
    Posts: 10,030

    Default

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LSzgN2Z-0s"]Daring Class vs. Arleigh Burke class - YouTube[/ame]

  10. #20

    Default

    In the end, one must look at the role of the said destroyer. All ships made today are role players, neither of these destroyers are made to patrol alone in a wartime situation. The Daring class will have more stealth and speed, integrated into the British fleet it will be supplemented by their own subs and tactical anti-sub naval aircraft. The American navy is much more defined by integrated system of command and control and all it's ships are capable of multitasking. In the end though, it will be the ordinance and range that will decide capability, given the roles I think the comparison is a wash.
    "Againsed stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain." F. von Schilling

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks