Are ships as vulnerable to missiles today as they were during the Falklands war?
>>29798248
Depends
>>29798248
>Are modern military ships as vulnerable to missiles as ships from the 1970s?
What do you think?
>>29798248
Depends on the nation. Quite a few nations what should know better *cough* Australia, have skimped out of proper long and short ranged air defence.
>>29798278
The issue is currently be rectified with the AWD and new frigates however.
Your question can be interpreted two ways OP, essentially a modern ship is not as vulnerable to the same threats faced in the falklands war as the ships of the day were, however those threats are now obsolete and new threats exist.
I don't know any legitimate figures, but it would generally take a minimum of 8 subsonic anti ship missiles to have any reasonable chance of sinking a single (properly equipped, ie Burke, Type 45 ) surface warship. This number goes up as more ships are included in the defending fleet.
Modern missiles have increased their threat capabilities mostly through datalink capabilities, allowing on the fly waypoint updates and coordination for simultaneous time on top attacks.
If a missile does hit you can expect similar damage as what was received in the falklands war however, ship materials and armour have not changed significantly in that time.
The changes to ship defences all come from destroying inbound missiles (hard kill) and seduction (soft kill) these both already existed in primitive forms in the falklands such as chaff and single launcher anti air missiles, and have been upgraded to include countermeasures such as nulka and hard kill upgrades like VLS and highly capable combat systems such as AEGIS.
>>29798338
They identified the problem in 2000 with the then Defence White paper. It's 2016 and they still haven't got any AW Destroyers in the water.
>>29798349
building the new destroyers takes time but they plan to build 3 new destroyers for air defence
>>29798372
It shouldn't take 16 years.
>>29798374
Sorry, 16 years to modify another destroyer for the role.
>>29798374
Take a look at pretty much every military acquisition for the past 30 or 40 years.
>>29798380
Military acquisition systems have always been like that: slow and costly.
>>29798349
Ultimately there is certainly something very wrong with australias defence procurement. Take a look at the greek version of the Meko 200 frigate (the ANZAC class). Almost identical to the anzac, however it has twice the VLS capacity and two CIWS. Greece is not particularly well known for their military procurement prowess, but Australia is certainly worse.
It will be interesting to see how the shortfin barracuda turns out.
>>29798265
>missiles stopped evolving 50 years ago
What kind of losses would it have taken for Britain to concede defeat in the Falklands?
Assume we're giving Argentina unfair advantages here. The primary issue I can see for a de-facto Argentine victory is difficulty in sinking British submarines. (Two of the unfair advantages I envision is moving more fighters to Stanley and a better supply of Exocets.)
Was the effectiveness of the Exocet overstated, or if Argentina had a reasonable number of them relative to her size would Britain's surface forces have been doomed?
>>29798724
The carriers, I recall from what the commander of the task force said. Without them they would have been fucked deeply.
Exocet was extremely effective at what it did.
However, the Falklands War for the British was one of the greatest asspulls in military history.
>>29798252
This is always an acceptable answer in military circles.
>>29799379
Shame people don't understand this more often.
>>29798724
>>29798857
A couple more of the escorts would have worked too. Once they couldn't be reasonably sure of having enough ships to intercept/eat incoming missiles to protect the carriers retreat would also be the only option.
The submarines don't really do much to affect the outcome without the rest of the landing force there, their role was only to counter the Argentine navy. Much as some people might like to fap over the idea I really doubt they would have maintained a complete blockade on the islands to try and starve the Argies off, sinking "Unarmed innocent civilian shipping" as it would have been painted would not have looked good for the RN.
>>29798265
I think over the past 50 years, defenses to AShMs have improved faster than AShM capability.
The best interceptors today are vastly more capable than the "old" SM-2's. SM-6 can be shot over the horizon, look for targets without launch guidance, and datalink with other SM-6 to distribute targets and prevent overkill. RIM-116 is a lot more capable than Phalanx, etc.
The difference between say, Bhramos and Granit aren't as pronounced.
>>29798248
Imagine a missile trying to get through this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWZXvOdCEZ8
Or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sp0tEE8OPY
Pretty much impossible.
>>29799941
what if there were more than 1 missile?
The USN relies on spotting a missile via AWACS or other airborne radars.
The brits in the falklands didn't even have working radars on their ships, wouldn't see incoming missiles/aircraft, and their missiles didn't work either.
>>29800178
>The brits in the falklands didn't even have working radars on their ships
Do you mean the single incident that HMS Sheffield had its radar blocked by satellite transmission?
And the fact that Sea Dart didn't like low flying objects?
