Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew Deacon

Has anyone used a sinkex to test the true effectiveness of defensive weapons ? I imagine a barge with type 41/slyver even sea ceptor mushrooms remotely controlled from an air defence destroyer.


No. Because no-one is going to put that on a target to be sunk. Mushrooms don’t usually provide defence in any case, just a tasty adjunct to your meal.

Our cousins do have something though…..

DVIDS – Video – NSWC Port Hueneme Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS) – Virtual Tour (

Andrew Deacon

It doesn’t need to be on the target just a nearby barge remotely controlled from a destroyer?


They use ‘simulated missile attack’ by a fast jet at low level against a working frigate and destroyer.
The RN used to use the Hawk trainer but it was privatised ? and a small business jet does the work now
The RN website still shows the Hawk in RN colours, not sure if this is still the case

Andrew Deacon

I guess my reasoning is simulated air defence isn’t the same as actually proving u can shoot down a real missile, we saw back in the Falklands that all sorts of issues can arise which stop the defensive missiles locking on or firing etc , better to iron out these issues in a real live test. Back in 82 there were several occasions when RN controllers told sea harriers to back off such was the as it proved over confidence in their air defence systems.


That’s a very different thing. That’s procedural and more to do with deconflicting defensive systems than over-confidence.


The USN uses BQM-177A target drones and the UK via QinetiQ supplies ‘Banshee jet-80’ high speed target drone which can sometimes be shot down in exercises.
The Army used it since the 80s for shoulder launched missile targets
It was supposed to be tested from PoW on its US deployment this year – which isnt happening now.


You mean PLA Navy barge like below? Fitted with more than 30 masks topped with radar reflectors of various shapes and sizes, mesh screen, radar domes and type 30 barrels defensive launchers.

comment image?auto=webp&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1440

comment image?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1440


OHPs are such interesting ships.

comment image


They’ve always struck me as odd ducks. A single arm launcher for the main defensive and offensive weapons, the main amidships with limited firing arcs, but still quite large for the era. History has certainly proven they can take a hit though


They have some area anti-air capacity. That Mk13 can be used for SM1 and Harpoon. Mostly for pooping off at Soviet MPA to keep them back.

The gun is well positioned. Fantastic arcs for anti-air whether the aircraft is attacking from the beam or from above. And good for surface work too which for most of the time in peace will be willy waving as non-warships.

Last edited 1 year ago by X

Soviet MPA ? I think the Soviet Navy used Bears and Tu-22M Backfire bombers with heavy missiles in that time to allow their patrols reach far out into North Atlantic ( and North Pacific). I suppose they could be described as MPA

The single arm launcher with two concentric rings of missiles below was a very neat design. The launcher arm and cover rotating to be above the selected missile in the magazine. The Harpoon capability was very useful and with only a single fire control channel meant only 1 could be fired at a time anyway ( except Harpoon)


Yes Soviet MPA. F’all use against a regiment of bombers. MPA flying in ones…….

comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by X

Shoot down the missile !


Again all you are seeing is equipment not the tactics and strategies.


Of course. Clearly a whole regiment of Tu-22M in a saturation raid scenario was the worst case which I seem to remember was the impetuous behind the AEGIS cruiser ( and later AB DDG variant) and carrier air defence
One little FFG may have been part of the AAW screen and may have had its missile fire control linked in to be controlled by the AEGIS cruiser ( I dont know the detail) but if not it certainly could possibly be in a position to catch any missiles which got through.
The equipment usually has a back story on the tactics and strategy to be used
The Soviets too would likely only use a full regiment (2 squadrons of 8 ?) against a carrier strike group


SM-1 was carried to be poop off at MPA.


Was upgradeable to SM-2 ( blk III-A) missile as the RAN did . Who later replaced that with a vertical launch module for Sea Sparrow- but kept the Mk13 launcher for Harpoon
So could possibly take on a Backfire or two around then

Rose Compass

Single shaft too, so as to make use of the same machinery as the Spruance class.


Yes. They were much derided at introduction ( single shaft, single launcher, ‘little 75mm) – much like the claims about Type 31 now
But quantity has its own advantages


Unlike the T31 though they were an actual improvement on the ships that they replaced


Quantity has a quality all its own.
They proved themselves in USN service, as well as the Spanish Armada and the RAN. And their derivatives (F100/F110/Hobart AWD) have taken the basic design to another level.


The OHP class was originally designed as guided missile escort rather than for wide area air defense. Many in services with non-US navies were however updated with additional AA missiles.
They were very useful ships and maxed out during their life time in service with USN, relieving other ships for more high risk duties.
I would rather have a few OHP ships during the Falklands war than those under armed and under protected Type-21 ships.
The follow on Constellation class is even more capable ships.

comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by Boris

Yes. T21 was never intended to be an ocean going escort but a patrol frigate. OHP would have been better-er. 🙂


Time period of first design build OHP is 10 years before the T21. ( evolution in that era was a lot quicker than now)

T22 even, was 5 years ahead of the OHP

The Knox class is more of the same time period as T21
this is USS Robert E Peary

Last edited 1 year ago by Duker

OHP is equivalent for T42/T22, not T21.

Will you prefer OHP than T42/T22? is the question to answer…

# I that case, it depends…


OHP can survive better than T42 even after 2 Exocet missile hits. And it has CIWS long before any T22. No wonder that OHP has been chosen by 10 navies with 71 ships

So USN frigate is equivalent to RN destroyer? That said a lot.

T21 are just much less capable ships, developing cracks, nearly useless Seacat missiles. However they distinguished themselves during the Falklands war, a saving grace.
Is not to blame the T21 ships but just a failure to arm RN ships better, in general.

Last edited 1 year ago by Boris

1 data point is not enough to make judgment considering damage.
Neither we have price/cost to say what is worthwhile.


Yes. Plus the T21 were designed-built a decade before the OHP FFG.
No one would compare a 50s frigate with a 60s one , so why compare a 70s FFG with a 60s FF


So what ships should be compared with the T21 class? The Krivak class? Such beautiful ships.

comment image


What is the point of having cheap under-armed, under-protected ships that are incapable of surviving in battles?
Fault economy and Paper Tiger.


I like them. Built for purpose, completely served for the mission.

SM-1 SAM to counter USSR long-range large and fast anti-ship missiles and a 20 mm CIWS to counter Exocet/Harpoon like sea-skimmer.

A TACTASS sonar with (up to) Two SH-60B helos for good level of ASW (as of 1980s-1990s). They even have a Prairie-Masker system for noise reduction, which is still used on modern US DDGs.

3inch gun for “misc-tasks” and 2ndary AAW.

Relatively long hull with good sheer and bulwark.

Beautiful she is.

Last edited 1 year ago by donald_of_tokyo

Exactly Donald.

It is a shame that their appears to be no decent book on the class.


The earlier Brooke class, FFG-1 to -5 set the scene , derived from the Garcia class (shown below) and introduced the FFG type , although called DEG when launched
. 1 shaft ( but steam), 1 launcher , 1 ASROC launcher and with an older 5in mount


Yes! 🙂


They were derided for the boxy aluminum superstructure, the single arm-launcher and the single shaft, but they were spacious, had tremendous hangars and large helo decks, and both hull-mounted and towed-array sonars plus ASROC and 2 triple torpedo launchers. Really well-rounded ASW escort ships with a good long-range air-search radar (SPS-49) and limited area air defense.

And they were simultaneously built in multiple yards.

Last edited 1 year ago by DaSaint
Commonwealth Loyalist

Great article as always. As usual, raises questions about RN stike capability which maintains its long term trend toward zero while that of potential adversaries keeps expanding.

Mark Wallace

Yes it would be good for the MOD to place their order for JSM/NSM soon as the list of customers keeps growing.


I’ve seen a few SINKEX but I can’t recall one where they had actual systems still working, or at least appearing to work, until now. This FFG seems to have had an operable navigation radar, that was working when it was hit. You can first see it at 0:43 through 0:46 of the video.

I also don’t believe that the RAN hasn’t upgraded their Harpoons, nor do I believe they don’t have a stash either in the UK or from the USN if needed. I don’t care what they say publicly. Call it OPSEC.


The ships in a sinkex are dead ships. There is no electrical power, nothing. Most of the systems have been storob-ed for usable equipment.

The lads who went round ex-Brave with a video camera after the first set of weapon strikes were all using torches.


Will HMS Westminster receive the PGMU mod during this post-LIFEX refit period at the FSC? Decent, reliable propulsion capability always seemed to be a core mission prerequisite, from this outsider’s perspective.


I have had another quick look for a book on OHP. All I can find was this public domain ebook.


Royal Navy sinks U.S. Navy frigate in the North Atlantic, in 2022?
Is the tyrant King George III back in power?!!!

Sorry, everyone, but I had to say it:)
By the way, from a Yank on the other side of the pond, I really enjoy reading this website.
Keep up the good work:)


well said todd.


Todd – Can you recommend any equivalent US sites?


Try ‘The War Zone’, not as navy focused, more a bit of everything.

Bobs Baradur

There is a blog Navy Matters (
no pics, but lots of interesting commentary.
The USN is apparently run by MBA interns or some such.


Without the French help , especially their navy and supplies likely the 13 colonies would have remained that

The sea Battle of the Chesapeake in 1781, where the French fleet led by Comte de Grasse defeated the outnumbered British fleet, which departed leaving Cornwallis to surrender


THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Just like to prod our american friends, to correct some of their misunderstandings about how the revolutionary war was ‘won’ by a sea battle fought by the Kingdom of France


Keep it up.


That is why Americans remain largely predisposed to support the French, regardless of perceived level of collective boorish behavior on their part at any given time.