> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> No. What I am saying is that their counter is cheaper. Our counter
It may be cheaper, but I question whether doctrine would be the real
determining factor. In the Day of Aegis on DD's I wonder whether the Human
Wave tactic applied to Air Combat would work.
> Part of the F-22 original R&D specs called for flights and squadrons
Assuming they are able to build an inferometric network that would actually
work. The kind of data network you speak of is very vulnerable to EW. If they
are using lower technology to do what the USAF is having a little trouble
with, I'd seriously doubt it'd be secure. The EW guys would have a field day
guiding Mig 21's to shoot down other mig 21s.
> Actually with the new 4th generation or advanced 3rd generations IR
Leading Edge skin heating is always an issue. Given that the F-117 isn't
that fast and it operates down in the clutter, it has a better chance of
not being seen than an F-16 does. The added attention to the ir aspects
of the aircraft are a great help.
> Hey I got a great idea. You take one Valley Forge CVA with 6 squadron
Issues of the Chinese being able to operate 160 aircraft from an airfield
in range of our cruisemissles/nukeboats aside, are you going to be
covering your entire area of operations? In reality all 6,000 of those really
nice Mig 21's with really short legs are going to be spread all over china. A
fraction of that are going to have a hard time operating from the land bases
even when they are dispersed (if china is able to disperse them before a TLAM
finds it.
China doesn't have carriers. And I'll bet that the longer legged better
trained and better equipped force will win.
> way, at least 6,000 of the MIG 21's were being re-furbished into more
Do they have Air to Air refueling? What are their Combat loads? Or are
they really short legged Interceptors like the Mig-21 Bis? Looking at a
few sites they have an operational range of 650 nm carrying two AAM.s Not an
impressive Warload.
> They did counter the carrier battle groups. The offensive arm of that
After Linebacker there was nothing they could do to stop our aircraft.
The B-52's were flying with impunity after they shot off their warload.
> etc. They couldn't do a #$%# thing about the 16" guns. Anything
This was in the Day before ASM missiles.
> was too many eggs in one very fragile basket. The time of the
There
> is no reason why a 16" gun couldn't fire 300 nm's.
Bing bing bing. You won't see a 16". You will see a 155mm howitzher doing
this. It won't be a 40,000 ton ship. It will be a 10,000 ton or less DD or CG.
With more hulls, I can have more fire missions available all over
the world for every MEU the Jarheads want to float.
> Some how a 5" gun just doesn't compare to a 16" gun. Could it be the
But the 155 has quite a bit more range.
> (actually, I'm being very generous here and assuming that ultra range
If its a bunnker that is hardend, the Flying Jar heads in harriers will
ace those. Or a flight of F-117s or F/A-18s or JSFs.
> With modern satellite guided projectiles your going to have a ship
True, thats assuming you have someone to spot your splashes at 300 nm's.
You gonna introduce a Marine manned FO team minisub?
"DD in the open, Traveling SW at 20 knots. Request Delayed HE"
> And far more overall. Let's see... We could cut the JSF, or maybe
The problem isn't the systems. Its the president we have in office that
is spending training/purchase money on operations. I don't see the guy
as one to really support the military.
> No. Not considering the opposition the equipment they have gone up
Well, some rather nice equipment with poor doctrine. I don't expect to see a
great amount of doctrine from the Chinese either.
> Wrong. Iowa's have a crew compliment of about 2,270 for 9 x 16" guns.
And no spare parts for the HP Steam Plant. The Crew costs were a fortune
for the amount of work it could do. We were better off putting the money
in the Arliegh Burkes. Take a look at dejanews and look for posts on BBs
in the sci.military.naval newsgroup. They discuss the usefulness of BB's
in modern times.
> will be defensive, escorts, etc. Flight time for the fighters will
But the fighters can loiter. And delever more HE per strike than a BB can.
Most of that mass in a 16" shell was
> time for a 16" shell is in seconds. Now which can service a target
There is far more to it than you attribute it to. I'd rather see a fleet
of Arleigh Burkes and LPA's with CVBGs backing them up than fewer of all
and 2 BB's. In a perfect world with lots of money for the military, I'd do a
specialized Naval Gunfire Support Monitor with a VLS Cell and Harpoons on a
lengthened Tico Hull.
Just to chime in on a few notes here:
The trend with most Air Forces recently is to NOT put much faith or ability in
a fighter radar than you absolutly have to. If a fighter lights up in
combat he's a target. So doctrine and practice is to light up ONLY to allow
lock on and launch. The prefered method is to use someone else's radar beam to
ride on. One reason you have a good amount of escorts between your
E-3's
and the bad guys:o) The lean today is towards putting your targeting and
guidence radars on another platform.
As for the Flanker radars, they are bigger and more powerful so they can burn
through any EW in the way, and since the EW escorts are not really anywhere
NEAR the stealths, you also get to waste time burning through multiple
envelopes of EW, trying to decide if you want to fire on the flock of birds
that MIGHT be a B2, or shut off your radar before the F-15's, F-18's,
and
F-16's buzzing around decide to punch an AMRAAM (or even an AIM9 ) up
you wazoo.
I might note that China has a few of the "copy" E-3's. (Forgot what they
are called:o) EW's is being used for the most part to counter the larger
ground and air radars. Stealth is being used to allow folks to get away from
having to carry bigger and bigger EW counter measures in the fighters
themselves
The F-22 HAS data-link and the operational use was to be one fighter
uses it's radar for the entire squadron. The AF didn't need an extended range
AMRAAM due to the tactic being the FIREING aircraft were forward of the radar
aircraft. Due to the lowered RCS, and by reducing speed to lower the leading
edge IR sig, the fireing F-22's would be able to slip in closer. Once
the radar went on, the enemy would usually increase speed towards the radar
source to take it out. This is also a reason both the B2 and F117 fly slow in
combat zones.
As mentioned the problem with a large array on seperate aircraft is the
increase in both electronic emmisions and communications between aircraft. The
idea of one fighter using it's radar to guide missiles and the airborne
inferometer is way different. The F-22 does not need to communicate
constantly with it's squadron mates during missile fireing, just a burst send
to set the guidence frequencies that the missiles will follow. Once the
missiles are set they launch and look for "thier" radar returns and home in
on them. The fireing F-22's then continue to close to short range
missile range while the bad guys are scrambling to dodge the long range
attack. The inferometer requires large amounts of data in constant contact.
Plus you've got to have the computing ability to actually interpret and colate
the data. It would be more likely that several dozen aircraft would feed data
to an AWACS type aircraft. A waste of the Flankers.
> Hey I got a great idea. You take one Valley Forge CVA with 6
The problem with this idea is that it ignores all the nice escorts in the
Carrier Battle Group. (Which would also be in a Battleship Battle Group
:o)
NOw run the scenrio with the CVA and 6 land base's. Note that the CVA can move
around and the land base's can't. (It should also be noted though that the CVA
will NOT be operating on it's
own. YOu should also include about 4-5 squadrons of "off-board"
aircraft, but then you'd have to increase the number of land base's and
squadron's that you have and it soon gets to be no fun to play anyway and you
end up like the folks at Eglin who do nothing but play wargames all day and
HATE em:o)
> China doesn't have carriers. And I'll bet that the longer legged better
> trained and better equipped force will win.
True to a point. However, China proved to us in the past that "human wave"
attacks by less well equiped and trained forces CAN win. They just couldn't
win the war that way. In an air war it might, (might) bag them a carrier and
it's battle group, but it will lose them the war in the long run as it is much
more expensive and harder to replace the aircraft and men that such
tactics would cost them.
> way, at least 6,000 of the MIG 21's were being re-furbished into
Do they have Air to Air refueling? What are their Combat loads? Or are
they really short legged Interceptors like the Mig-21 Bis? Looking at a
few sites they have an operational range of 650 nm carrying two AAM.s Not an
impressive Warload.
> was too many eggs in one very fragile basket. The time of the
There
> is no reason why a 16" gun couldn't fire 300 nm's.
The Navy rejected the idea once already. The "Sea Control class refitted
Iowa" which was supposed to retain the two forward turrets and mount a "Kirov"
type deck off the back. It was the less capable than a Carrier. You don't need
300nm 16" guns when you can do the same job with either a cruise missile or
guided air dropped weapons. The Navy has been experimenting with multiple
types of long range and extended range shell's also. The problem with the BB's
is they, (and the modern CVA's too for that matter) are getting too big and to
expensive. Smaller ships with more capable weapons allowing more area to be
covered and more operations to be done is what alot
of Navy folks are looking at and pushing for. Given the Navy/Marine
requirment for the JSF that it be S/VTOL capable, you can see the trend.
Smaller carriers which combine the atributes of a Cruiser and a Carrier are
what they want.
Sattilite guided shells are good, you could even "spot" using Sat's but I
would count more on RPV's for both guidance and spotting. But don't count on
any 16" guns again. Given smaller more manuverable platforms,
smaller-longer
range, more accurate gun's are available, cheaper and easier to use and
maintain.
> And far more overall. Let's see... We could cut the JSF, or maybe
I'm figuring we'll see the JSF before we see the F-22 in service. But
the
capabilities that the F-22 has the Air Force needs. Both the F-15 and
-16 air
frames are overage already, and even with constant upgrades we'd be hard
pressed to upgrade them enough in the next 5-10 years to keep up with
what's coming out for the advesaries. Expensive yes, but also more capable. as
for:
> The problem isn't the systems. Its the president we have in office that
> is spending training/purchase money on operations. I don't see the guy
Let's not forget that Congress is the one's who've been nixing the last few
years budget for the military causing us to make choices between spending the
money we do get on keeping up the equipment or training and quality of life
stuff. I (and alot of other military folks) got chills when Newt and gang
FIRST started on the "Peace dividend" speel. We knew what was coming. It's not
just the Pres.
Randy
To clarify what the US is having problems with the F-22 in regards to a
radar inferometer. It is the radar that is the problem. It is making
an extended range AMRAAM that will fit into the F-22's internal weapons
bays. SU-27's don't have internal weapons bays so they aren't going to
have that problem...
IR technology is out of the infant stage and is evolving exponentially. Each
new generation IR seaker is much better then the previous. This means that it
is becoming much more difficult to supress enough of the IR sensor so that the
rest can be lost out in ground clutter.
Your first problem is that the USN can't afford 15,000 TLAM's to go after all
of those MIG's. Your second problem is that China is a continental power. They
can easily grab island next to mainland including Tiawan. They don't need
carriers for power projection.
Battleships don't have much to fear from ASM's. They were design to survive
and still be operational after direct hits from heavy and supper heavy guns.
The destructive forces of these guns is far more then modern crusise missiles.
A modern battleship would shrug off harpoons. Unless your using ballistic
missiles or nukes, there not much you can do from the shore to a battleship...
A 6" gun (155 mm) does not have more range then a 16" gun. If you take the
extened range guided projectile technology and develop a 16" shell for it, you
will have a much longer range weapon.
Typical response time far CAS when they are on station is in minutes. Gun fire
support is in seconds. Doesn't seem like much of a difference until it is your
rearend hangout... By the way, the typical combat load flown by U.S. Marine
Harriers in Serbia was 2000 kg of ordance.
MIG-21's typically carry 2,500 kg of ordance. The enhanced versions
will carry more.
Satalites and RPV's work great for FO's.
The problem is more then just the President. The purpose of the military is to
defend the US. It is not for buying the neatest toys, and having the largest
branch of the armed forces. That is something that very easily forgotten in
peacetime by the generals and admirals...
Actually, it is just this simple. We miss spent a lot of money so we don't
have a balanced and flexible force structure.
> Battleships don't have much to fear from ASM's. They were design to
What if the ASM is a SunBurn?
A full debate with advocates of both sides in the BB argument has been done on
s.m.n. IMHO the BB came out badly. See it on Dejanews.
> Battleships don't have much to fear from ASM's. They were design to
Sunburns....coool missiles.:)
An off-topic game, I played in a PBeM Harpoon game years ago. I was one
of the Soviet commanders, and was assigned to a Sovremmenny. It as a convoy
raid against an American supply train going to relieve the siege placed on
Europe by the Soviets, et al, during WWIII. Our job was to intercept them. We
were given some nice assets: a Kirov, Slava, Udaloys, Sovs, along with a bunch
of older ships (Kara, Kresta, Krivaks, etc). We opted to split into two
groups: a decoy group (led by the Sovs, and comprised of the older ships) and
the main attack group (led by the Kirov) took everything else. As we detected
the American convoy, the decoy group (led by yours truly:) went west to come
in from the north; the attack group headed south to allow the convoy to run
into them the hard way (most of the players really didn't know all the
capabilities of their ships, nor those of their opponents; this was a great
'learning scenario'). Anyway, the decoy group's Sov's kept a radar on to keep
tabs on the FO helos and any inbounds. The Kirov group kept silent. That is,
until they
picked up some V-high altitude v-small inbounds - a swarm of VW-sized
laser-guided projectiles launched from an American battleship to their
southeast!. The Kirov group flushed their missiles, but were decimated by the
repeated pounding from the battleship (only a Krivak I escaped).
The American battleship group, protected by a poorly-commanded Tico,
died (one Spruance DD escaped).
Needless to say, we didn't have the firepower to take on the convoy -
though we only learned that when the battleship IN THE CONVOY lit up it's
radar! In addition to that they had another Tico and an Arleigh Burke as
escorts. I realized we weren't going to be able to do anything to them (3 Sovs
plus some buckets?), but I did notice the Tico had split from the convoy in
order to pick up one of the southeast battlegroup helos which was running low
on fuel, and wouldn't make it back to the convoy. Me, in my infinite wisdom
(okay, I just wanted to do battle with something:) split my Sov from the decoy
group and moved to intercept the Tico. We were well outside the range of the
battleship shells, and as well as the Arleigh Burke umbrella of protection.
The Tico was alone, as was I (the rest of the decoy fleet had turned for
home). The Tico tried to take me out as I closed with its load of missiles,
but I easily batted them from the sky. Then just before the helo was going to
land, I launched all my Sunburns at the Tico. We were at exceedingly close
range (the Tico commander had enough time to see the 'burns coming, then they
hit!). The first part of the salvo was knocked down, but I rolled him back
quickly and...well, scratch one Tico.:)
I love Sunburns.:)
(sorry for the reminesce)
Mk
> of missiles, but I easily batted them from the sky. Then just before
btw, not to leave you in suspense: the helo survived. The Arleigh Burke came
running out and managed to get *just* within range of the last drops of fuel
before the helo thumped on deck.
Mk
> On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Craig Summers wrote:
Or one of those really nice heavyweight toprs the british still have around.
The General Belgrano was fairly heavily armed. She (or do the argies use he
like the germans?) went down quite fast when a few of those slammed into her
side.
The New Aussie/Kiwi under the keel detonating torps are also quite
nasty.
> Craig Summers wrote:
> >
SunBurns will do damage but they will do far less damage to a BB then a super
heavy gun. Why? Doesn't have the explosive payload or the ultra tough armor
piercing airframe... Probably equivalent to heavy guns.
For those who don't know general gun classifications:
Light 5" and less Medium 6" to 10" Heavy 10" to 14" Super Heavy 15" to 18"
Note that 10" guns are sometime classified as medium guns, sometimes as heavy
guns.
IAS
> A full debate with advocates of both sides in the BB argument has been
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Craig Summers wrote:
Torpedeos have always been out there. Iowa's were designed to resist torpedoe
damage. While the torpedeo may get lucky (aka Bismark) that is no gareentee. I
would hate to think what one of those torps would do to thin skinned fire
support ship you suggest and the USN is considering...
> On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Torpedeos have always been out there. Iowa's were designed to resist
There would be more than 2 of these thin skinned fire supprot ships. There
would most likely be 2 per MEU or something similar.
BB's resist torpedos to a degree. Also you state taht the BB would resist the
ASMs. It would be mostly proof against such threats in the areas of the
armoured bastion of the ship (engeneering spaces, CinC, the Turrets Bridge)
but all the sensors and such would be quite vulnerable.
In a perfect world, I'd love for the navy to be able to keep all 4 of the
Iowas on line, staffed and fitted. Unfortunately that wont be happening.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> The New Aussie/Kiwi under the keel detonating torps are also quite
Under-the-keel is now the standard, rather than the exception. It would
have been as early as 1940, but no-one got the technology right. Pretty
much everyone knows about the sad story of the US torpedos. But less well
known is that German torpedos in 1940 had an equally poor
performance - 0 detonations using the magnetic pistol. The UK air attack
on Bismark was preceeded by a Blue-on-Blue vs HMS Sheffield, where the
magnetic pistols didn't fire (and so were replaced by contacts).
The Mk 8*** used on Belgrano had both Magnetic and contact options. The
commander chose Contact due to it's 99%+ reliability. The Mk 8
originally saw service in the 40s too. The Mk *** indicates 3 major mods since
then.
Also, to give credit where it's due, the RAN uses the US Mk 48 in various mods
(usually Mod 4). But that's about all I can say without having to look up
what's been declassified recently. The Kiwis don't
have any heavyweight anti-ship torpedos.
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> SunBurns will do damage but they will do far less damage to a BB then
A bit about comparing 16" shells and Missiles.
A 16" shell weighs on the order of 1 1/2 tonnes. Depending on whether
it's High-Capacity, Armour Piercing or Semi-Armour piercing, this can
vary a bit, but not much.
In cross-section, the normal 16" SAP (Semi-Armour Piercing) shell has
about 50% of the volume occupied by explosives. In terms of weight,
that's maybe 100 kg. For a High-Capaicity shell, it's 200 kg, as the
metal weighs at least 10x more than the explosive, by volume.
The damage that AP and to a lesser extent SAP shells do is from the fact
that they propel 3-4 large chunks of ironmongery around at hypersonic
speeds when they go off, plus thousands of small splinters. More and Bigger
chunks for AP, more splinters and fewer chunks for SAP.
It's for this reason that many small ships have easily survived hits by large
calibre guns. In many cases there was no fuse initiation, and the shell just
made 2 16" diameter holes. In other cases, the 100kg of
explosives did a bit of damage, none of the 3-4 bowling-ball sized
chunks hit anything vital, and the splinters just made the immediate area
(above the waterline) into a collander. The actual explosion is remarkably
small.
With a missile like a Sunburn, or the dreaded AS-6 Kingfish, it's a
different matter. There's far less metal, but a whole heap more explosive.
We're talking at least 100 kg for the small missiles, and 1000 kg for the big
ones. Plus the unburnt propellant, which in the case of solid fuel weapons is
as dangerous as the warhead itself. Not merely
that, but as the explosive doesn't have to take a multi-hundred G shock
at the time of firing, a more sensitive and powerful explosive (at least twice
the power for an equivalent amount) can be used.
This will not do more than dish in a big slab of armour: but less than 30% of
a Battleship is armoured this way, only the vitals, waterline etc. So a big
explosion that hits from above can cause all sorts of electrical, hydraulic,
fuel feed etc problems, plus fire, as well as removing large chunks of
superstructure, warping decks, etc. Two such
hits in close proximity would not penetrate the armour - but could
easily cause large (10s of square meter) areas to detach from the rest of the
ship's structure, causing massive leaks.
So although an Exocet sea-skimmer hitting an Iowa (ie a small warhead
with large incendiary effects hitting 40cm of armour near the waterline)
would just require a quick re-spray, an Otomat or other small
terminal-diver coming in could cause serious (non-fatal) grief. And 20
of them would almost certainly result in the ship's destruction.
One AS-6 (MUCH bigger missile) would be unlikely to penetrate even the
deck armour, apart from the first one or possibly two decks. But it might blow
a turret straight off its mountings, and would certainly
Just a few points:
> To clarify what the US is having problems with the F-22 in regards to a
I'm not sure but was this supposed to be "the radar is "not" the problem"?
Other wise this doesn't make a lot of sense. Since the radar sets would be
used for receive only, other than the F-22's radar is electrically
steered so it's a bit more difficult for it to pick up ambient EM signal's,
the problem with any use as an inferometer set up would be in data transfer
and computing power of the fighter. The Flanker's radome was originally
designed to hold a mechanically moved radar dish, so this was one reason it
has the larger radome. We use satellite up links and digital encoding to allow
faster data transfers. But the AWACS is still the "brains" for most fighters.
Of course this sheds a new light on the Chinese push for space
capability:o)
Collating the data and interpreting it is going to be the sticky point in any
such system. A fighter body just wont' have the room for the processors and
power required.
> It is making an extended range AMRAAM that will fit into the F-22's
1. The range on the AMRAAM is perfect for it's job. You don't need an extended
range version. It's capable of taking out an aircraft prior to it getting into
IR range. 2. It was decided that longer range missiles were of little use. The
Phoenix is a great missile. But in order for it to have all the abilities that
it has it grew so huge it required a pretty much purpose built carrier craft
(the
F-14) to use it. Longer ranges mean longer flight times and more time to
avoid or spoof the missile.
3. The REASON that the F-22 has an internal weapons bay is so the it has
a lower RCS, while the Flanker is going to stick out like a sore thumb DUE to
the external ordinance. 4. Stealth characteristics don't make a plane
invisible. Like camo it makes a plane harder to spot, and more importantly
harder to lock onto with a targeting radar. Even given a detection system
using background EM such as discussed you still have to be able to paint it
with enough radar power (active radar power not passive) to guide a missile.
> IR technology is out of the infant stage and is evolving exponentially.
IR sensors are good for what they do, but they are strictly short range
detection equipment. Given a slow flying black on black target that you are
still pretty much trying to acquire visually it is still a tough job. This is
the reason most IR missiles are short range only. Actual detection and lock
on ranges are on the order of 9-12 miles in the best conditions. There
is a major difference between IR visual detection and the IR seeker technology
used in missile guidance. As for picking up and IR signature from the
"background" clutter, it's not as easy as it sounds. If the target is flying
high it's easier because the background is cooler air, but if it's below you
or in the dirt you have to deal with a hotter
background. Much more difficult given IR suppressing Turbo-Fans and
slower air speeds.
There is also the fact that though the B-2 and F-117 have no Aircraft
flying actual escort duty, (in any type of formation, or even "nearby" in
actual distance terms) there will be CAPs around the area as a part of normal
combat operations. Once the AWACs spots hostile aircraft vectoring towards a
sensitive area, and the nearest CAP will be vectored to take em out. Probably
long before they get to within IR detection range..
> Your first problem is that the USN can't afford 15,000 TLAM's to go
Off by at least a couple of orders of magnitude. Try probably less than 150
TLAM's. They only have to take out the runway's or drop sub-munitions
and
each TLAM "knock's out" anywhere from 12-100 MIG's. They of course are
"soft kills" until we get strikes set up for the bunkers and revetments, but
even so, TLAM's have been designed to take out multiple bunkers and are really
good at taking out aircraft in revetments. Plus your also forgetting air
strikes and CAP missions which would take out those that do manage to get off
the ground. Against China, it would not be easy, but China is not going to be
a country we can get away with a battle of surgical and limited strikes. IF we
go at it, we'll be going at it as a full blown war.
> Your second problem is that China is a continental power.
Somewhat true. The problem is how is China going to USE the islands if we are
constantly blowing up the stuff they are trying to build? If they go after
Taiwan, this would be the point where we decide to fight them or not. As for
any of the other islands, there are no airbases there so they'd have to build
them. Again a point where we either let them do it or we use force to stop em.
If they try it during a war, part of our plan will be to take and use those
islands within range anyway so if we don't have them we'll plan to blast them
on a regular basis so they can't use them either.
> Battleships don't have much to fear from ASM's. They were design to
I'm sure the "Yamoto", and "Hood" would be glad to know this. The bombs and
torpedoes that sank these ships were less powerful than today's warheads by a
good amount. The Iowa's were re-fitted with Phalanx systems for
anti-missile
protection, not anti-aircraft. Specifically to protect them against
water-line sea skimers. A "modern" battleship would NOT shrug off a
Harpoon hit. It might not be heavily damaged but three or four good hits and
it's probably on the way to the bottom. As for "not doing much from shore"
your BB would be inundated with Silkworms, and squadron fighter attacks,
probably from far beyond it's gun range.
> A 6" gun (155 mm) does not have more range then a 16" gun. If you take
Given your statements about flexibility and money, this doesn't make a lot of
sense. The size ship needed to carry a 16" gun, powder, and shells is
enormous. To give the 16" an extended range and a guidance package is not a
simple engineering task. The 16" gun is a high pressure high stress gun while
the 6" (155mm) is not. To extend the range of the 16", you will either have
to A) pack more power/powder into the gun, increasing the stress and
danger, B) or put a propulsion system into the shell. The Army has done much
R&D on extending the range, accuracy, and lethality of the 155, so it would be
cheaper to build on the existing research rather than trying to build an
exotic new system. The use of a smaller gun system would allow smaller mounts,
more automation, and faster firing time. Not to mention giving the enemy
multiple targets instead of one slow moving on Missiles ships also have and
advantage in that they can "salvo" more firepower against more targets given
the proper computing and sensor power.
> By the way, the typical combat load flown by U.S. Marine Harriers in
Just curious where you got that from? The typical load of an F-18/15/16
was two AMRAAM's, Two AIM 9's, two, four, or six 500lb or two 2000lb guided
bombs, not to mention the 20mm load. The Harriers may have been carrying a
lighter close support load. Typicaly a F-14/18 will carry about the same
load. In the F-14 case double the Air to Air load at least, then add a
couple of Phoenix's.
> The problem is more then just the President. The purpose of the
Agreed in part, but also remember that if you don't have the "neatest" toys,
to do the job you have to have more of the older toys and the personnel and
money to keep them up and running. As we found out in WWII we CAN beat a
superior enemy's tech with massive amounts of inferior weapons, but you have
to be willing to take the loss' that will entail. We no longer have the luxury
of having great numbers of people in uniform, so we have to do more with what
we have. It's not easy nor is it simple. We are still playing
"Super-power" with non-super-power force levels. We need more bang for
our buck and the ability to make every shot count. Plus we have to adjust our
forces and strategy's to meet more challenges with less personnel and
equipment. The F-15/16's are reaching the end of their design life. The
BB's,
(and CVA's in my opinion) are reaching the point where they are putting to
many egg's in one basket. To many resources and personnel and not enough
flexibility. Given area we must cover and the job's we are doing, what is
needed is a
smaller and cheaper ship with multi-weapons capability.
Randy
> ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
> Just a few points:
Yep, I goofed.
> Other wise this doesn't make a lot of sense. Since the radar sets
Wrong. The USAF would love to have a longer range AMRAAM for the F-22.
Ideally F-22's would never engage at short range. Why? It is getting
very ugly out there with the proliferation of helmet mounted sights for short
range IR missiles that can lock on to anything in the front
hemisphere. What this means is that once F-22's get to short range,
they are not going to have a competitive advantage to justify their cost and
reduced RCS. Too compound this problem is the faster rates of closure to short
range by modern fighters.
> 2. It was decided that longer range missiles were of little use. The
The Phoenix is a long range AAM, and is irrelevant for the discussion of the
AMRAAM which is a medium range AAM. The USAF doesn't want an extended range
AMRAAM to have anywhere near the range of a Phoenix (110 nm). They want extra
15 to 20 nm (totally of 55 to 60 nm range) to give them the option of
loitering and firing more AMRAAM's before a furball can happen, or disengaging
and getting away without furball. Furballs are short range dogfights and very
ugly now days...
> 3. The REASON that the F-22 has an internal weapons bay is so the it
I know. But reduced RCS doesn't do jack in a furball. And that is
exactly the battle SU-27's and MIG-29's are designed to fight. The USAF
designed the F-22 to excel at medium range engagements to prevent
SU-27's and MIG-29's from getting to short range.
> 4. Stealth characteristics don't make a plane invisible. Like camo it
Not if it's IR and picking up the heat signature from the airflow over the
airframe... The purpose of the background EM passive radar is get the fighters
to within 20 km. The fighters IR can take over and due the job from there.
> >IR technology is out of the infant stage and is evolving
Sure, but the sensors keep getting better and better. Both more quickly and
cheaper then the counter measures... This is why I don't like
B-2's.
> There is also the fact that though the B-2 and F-117 have no Aircraft
Then good luck using B-2's and F-117's for interdiction. There is no
reason why the Chinese (or anybody else for that matter) wouldn't ground base
the passive background radar system and have very short flight
times by there fighters to get at the B-2's and F-117's. This will also
make the F-117's and B-2's area CAP's very easy to ID and counter...
> >Your first problem is that the USN can't afford 15,000 TLAM's to go
Runways can be repaired very easily and very quickly. Iraq proved that
most anti-runway munitions were not nearly as effective as advertised.
> >Your second problem is that China is a continental power.
Basically all that is going to happen is that those islands are going to be
turned into war zones. War zones very close to the Chinese mainland...
> >Battleships don't have much to fear from ASM's. They were design to
The Hood was a World War I battlecruiser that had not been modernized to WWII
standards. Gee, WWI battlescruiser meets WWII battleship and gets promptly
sunk. No surprise there... The Yamato was overwhelmed, but even then it took a
massive pounding. I'd love to see how a Nimitz would do in similar situation.
Massive air attacks and only a hand full of escorts with fifth rate air
defenses...
This topic started because implications of extremely long range, satellite
guided, guns the USN is developing. I think the ideal naval fire support ship
would be a modern nuclear powered battleship with 12 x 16" guns firing these
projectiles. Estimated range would be at least 200 nm's for these rounds. This
would give a battleship excellent standoff capability, and because of the
range, shore based air and missile attacks would be very difficult.
> >A 6" gun (155 mm) does not have more range then a 16" gun. If you
Guns do to have the ability to salvo. Look at modern artillery. They fire two
shots when possible, one on a high slow trajectory, one a low short
trajectory. The results are twice number of rounds arriving at the same time
in the barrage. Guns also have the advantage in logistics. It takes much less
space for an equal amount of through weight. The US Army's R&D into extended
range guns is not nearly as interesting as the one by the USN. There is no
reason why larger guns can't be automated to the same degree as smaller guns,
the technology is the same. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean
there is any reason it can't be done.
> >By the way, the typical combat load flown by U.S. Marine Harriers in
The USNI Proceedings. The problem with Harriers is that they are much smaller
then most people think, and while the vector thrust does give them some neat
capabilities, it also imposes real limitations. Ski jumps on the flight decks
would help some, but the USN still can't find the money or determination to
even do one experimental conversion.
> >The problem is more then just the President. The purpose of the
A recent in the Proceedings was about getting rid of all destroyers,
cruiser, and gators and replacing them with one multi-purpose ship that
had a gun, VLS system, landing deck, and well deck. The article still wanted
carriers, as do I. I don't think CV's or BB's are examples of two many eggs in
one basket, unless you build one or two. The arsenal ship was too many eggs in
one basket. Why? Let's build the cheapest ship when can and then stuff it full
with 500 Tomahawks... That's over half a billion dollars in a fragile...
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
I love the way you conveniently describe 16" HE shell and then don't mention
their effects. Same goes for the effects of plunging AP and SAP fire against
unarmored targets. It puts nice large 16" whole straight threw the bottom of
the ship. It usually doesn't take long for them to sink after that. 16" HE
shell were for lightly and unarmoured targets. When the over penetraed, they
usually did little damage. When they don't, one round can kill a destroyer...
> With a missile like a Sunburn, or the dreaded AS-6 Kingfish, it's a
But you don't have the kinetic energy for shore bombardment. A very big minus
point.
> This will not do more than dish in a big slab of armour: but less than
A lot of research has been done on this. Good designs don't have vital
components outside of the protection envelope. The "turtle deck" design of the
Bismarck and Trippitz were quite bad in this respect, and how much of a
pounding did the Bismarck take with this less then ideal design after a lucky
torpedo hit??? The Iowa's design is very good and would take much more damage.
A modern battleship would be even better...
> So although an Exocet sea-skimmer hitting an Iowa (ie a small warhead
Let's shoot a Nimitz with 20 too while where at it. A modern BB would have a
chance survival. Would the Nimitz???
> One AS-6 (MUCH bigger missile) would be unlikely to penetrate even the
Check the effects of HE shells in Juttland. One of the German ships was using
them exclussive. While it did degrade enemy fire, it was not nearly as
effective as they hoped. These rounds (and missiles) are best against lightly
or unarmored targets. Nimitz's, Tico's, etc. With satellite guided rounds,
effects of damage to ship fire control is not
as disabling as you suppose. As for one AS-6 taking out a turret if it
gets a lucky hit; gee, the battleships got 3 more... One AS-6 will
probably operationally kill a Nimitz WITHOUT a lucky hit...
> A Sunburn (Exocet-sized) thus actually has a lot more explosive power
Speed alone will not cause it to go through the deck armour. It will have to
have an airframe capable of withstanding the shock without breaking up. If you
do that, you end up with a SAP Sunburn. But an EMP warhead would be so much
more useful against a Nimitz. 90 airplanes without functioning avionics. A
large, thin skinned target that can't maneuver. The battleship would still
require one massive pounding to put down.
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> I love the way you conveniently describe 16" HE shell and then don't
Sorry, I thought the article was quite long enough for a GZG-L list as
it was. I'll try to be concise.
a) A 16" HE High Capacity round has possibly 1/5 as much explosive as a
standard 2000 lb bomb (which also has most of its weight in the casing, rather
than the explosive). b) Despite the above, I really don't want to be anywhere
on a ship, any ship, that's hit by either. c) Because of fusing problems, SAP
rounds are considered optimum vs ships these days (but see d), as HE rounds
often go off too early or not at all. AP was best against armoured, but isn't
carried these days.
d) But better than SAP vs ships are smart rounds, from WW2-era Proximity
fuses to initiate HE rounds reliably and blow away great chunks of
superstructure, to cluster munitions that elimate sensors and
communications, to pattern-recognising targeters that go for vulenarble
points.
> > With a missile like a Sunburn, or the dreaded AS-6 Kingfish, it's a
> But you don't have the kinetic energy for shore bombardment. A very
A 16" AP shell on a plunging trajectory is an excellent bunker-buster.
Better than any air-delivered bomb (except for special purpose
penetrators). But it didn't work very well in Vietnam. Example: One bunker,
made of nothing but rammed earth, took multiple 16" hits without destruction.
Then again, it took several 750- 1000- and 2000- bomb hits too. It then
took 3 M-48 tanks driving on top of it. Demolition engineers eventually
cratered it out with several tons of C4 etc. AS you can gather, the bunker was
rather thick. And the original rammed earth was at least 1000 years old, and
had been added to in every war since then.
Summary: Which is better,
a) 16" SAP with an approx 1-metre concrete penatration at high angle
b) 2000 lb warhead from a guided bomb or missile at low velocity, also capable
of similar penetration (see Desert Storm for proof) c) 81mm Dumb Mortar round.
Answer: c) if a) and b) aren't available.
> A lot of research has been done on this. Good designs don't have
True. But how vital is vital? Magazines are vital. Steering is vital. Fire
Control is vital. Weaponry is vital. Buoyancy is vital. Propulsion is vital.
Even the Iowas (probably the best protected ships ever built) don't have
that half-metre thickness of armour everywhere "vital". e.g. the
secondary weapons, the Tomahawk launchers, the radars, the communications
antennae, about 40% of the waterline etc.
Sounds as if you know your onions on this one though. May I recommend
Friedman's "Battleship Design and Development". I met the guy at a Royal Navy
Equipment Exhibition awhile ago, and he's the best source I know on warship
architecture and the compromises that have to be made.
The "turtle deck" design
> of the Bismarck and Trippitz were quite bad in this respect, and how
Main problem was a weak stern, aft of the citadel. Frame A32 IIRC. German
naval architects never did get this right, most of their designs from
destroyers upwards were too weak there.
> The Iowa's design is very good and
Concur.
> > an Otomat or other small
Better than you think: I forget the name of the US Carrier that had a
Really Bad Day in the gulf of Tonkin in the 60's. An A-6B landed badly,
amidst an alpha strike fully fuelled and armed. Over 20 tonnes of ordnance
went off within a minute, all round the ship's stern. Equivalent of about 60
Otomats, all in the same area of the ship. Lots and lots of holes in the 12"
of armour that was the flight deck over the reactor.
Funnily enough though, even a single sea skimmer might have sunk her. A single
warhead entering the side and detonating the contents of the flight deck might
have been more damaging.
> Check the effects of HE shells in Juttland. One of the German ships
..but the Brits were the ones who mainly used Common Shell, and it was
that rather than their p*ss-poor AP that did the damage.
> These rounds (and missiles) are best
Absolutely True, agree completely.
> Nimitz's, Tico's, etc.
With the caveat that any CVN's flight deck is heavily armoured, agree.
> With
Um. Why not?
> As for one AS-6 taking out a turret if it
Though only 2 operational, as the relevant magazine would be flooded as a
safety measure. Maybe it's my British Heritage, but such names as Hood, Queen
Mary etc spring to mind.
> One AS-6 will
For 6 hours, yes. (Based on Gulf of Tonkin data above)
> > Give it a precursor warhead, and its speed would
Correct, but precursor warheads are very bulky (won't fit in a gun barrel OR
won't stand the shock) but light. So instead of using 90% of explosive traded
for metal to batter your way through, you only lose
10%.
> But an EMP
Very true.
> The battleship would still require one massive pounding to
One under-the-keel explosion under the stern would take out the props.
OK, the ship isn't sunk. Heck, if some people are to be believed, the 5
longtitudinal stringers on the Iowas mean that it would take dozens of
underkeel hits to discomfit them (and Carriers likewise I might add).
But one, just one hit near the props will make that 100,000 t of fighting ship
into 100,000 t of very heavily armed unpropelled barge. Fitting new props
(which weigh hundreds of tonnes each) is a long job
for a shipyard. Assuming the shafts haven't ripped holes in the side -
not an unreasonable assumption in a very well built ship.
Remember Bismark was sunk by her crew opening the scuttles. But this was hours
after she lost all communication, propulsion, and ability to fight.
A 100,000 tonne ship in littoral waters that has its propulsion KO'd is a
nightmare. Towing it out of battle would be an interesting exercise.
BTW I'm a mere spectator at the great "BB vs CV" fight. THe CV proponents
greatly overstate their case, but the BB ones even more so. There's a very
good case for a new Monitor, but I know the technology in
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> > Let's shoot a Nimitz with 20 too while where at it. A modern BB
Forestal I believe. Scary thing. That was what finally brought good DC about.
(I don't think I will ever forget the chief that started hosing down some of
the munitions only to have it blow up in his face. They narrative said there
was nothing ever found of him.)
> Funnily enough though, even a single sea skimmer might have sunk her.
A
> single warhead entering the side and detonating the contents of the
I'm guessing you meant hanger bay?
> Roger Books wrote:
> Forestal I believe.
Could well be. There were a number of similar incidents, just not as bad, at
the same time.
> On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> > Forestal I believe.
Hasn't Forrest Fire^h^h^h^h^h Forestal been ablize twice?
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> > A lot of research has been done on this. Good designs don't have
Propulsion
> is vital.
The Bismarck and Tripitz had a lot (possibly most, I don't know) of the piping
and cabling outside of the turtle deck. This meant that while all of their
vital components were protected, most of the infrastructure to use them
wasn't. I personally don't like Tomahawks on Iowa's specifically because they
aren't armored. There have been several capital ships (BB's and BC's)
severely damaged or sunk because of un-protected magazines. The
explosion that put the Hood down didn't happen where main magazines were, but
rather where the spare torpedo warheads were stored. There was no armor
protection there. If you can't protect a highly dangerous item, don't mount it
on a BB.
> Sounds as if you know your onions on this one though. May I recommend
Sounds, I'll have to check it out.
> The "turtle deck" design
And 20
> > >
Sure, the carrier can take it where it has armor, but unless your opponent is
stupid, the missiles are going to impact the side of the ship where there
isn't any armor...
> Funnily enough though, even a single sea skimmer might have sunk her.
A
> single warhead entering the side and detonating the contents of the
Yep, carrier are great but they can go away very fast.
> > Check the effects of HE shells in Juttland. One of the German ships
The flight decks aren't going to stop plunging fire very well. To much kinetic
energy from something design to penetrate heavier armor then the flight deck.
> > With
There is no reason why can't have a massive number of mini-attenas the
size of cellular phone. All the electronics to make it work would be below the
armor, so you would end having to blast the ship from on end to the other.
Easy to do if the ship is in port, but quite difficult if she is free to
maneuver.
> > As for one AS-6 taking out a turret if it
That depends of the designs of the magazines...
> > One AS-6 will
For 6 hours the ship won't be able to provide ground support, if the
AS-6
doesn't hit the side. But what if it does hit the side.
> > > Give it a precursor warhead, and its speed would
Use multiple electric propulsars and you don't have the shaft problem.
Civilian ships have been using them for years. It is past time for an
experimental live fire test to see how they would hold up to damage.
> Remember Bismark was sunk by her crew opening the scuttles. But this
If the Bismarck had been a KGV or Iowa, then it would have probably been
rescued. The German Navy was too outnumbered. Granted the rescued ship would
probably need to be rebuilt, but that is usually both faster and cheaper then
building a new capital ship. A carrier wouldn't be alive.
> A 100,000 tonne ship in littoral waters that has its propulsion KO'd
With 200 nm guns why would you go closer then 100 nm to the shore if there was
a significant threat?
> BTW I'm a mere spectator at the great "BB vs CV" fight. THe CV
I never said I wanted Iowa's back in service. I said I wanted a modernized BB
with the Montana as the base line.
> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> There is no reason why can't have a massive number of mini-attenas the
Easy to
> do if the ship is in port, but quite difficult if she is free to
Get a single large HE burst there and most of your cellular antennas are
toasted. Literally. If an exocet sprays buring fuel all over your ship with it
does a terminal dive into the side I sincerly doubt that you will have much in
the way of commo active at that point.
Also something to note, big big explosions rock systems and dismount anything
not really really bolted down. Sometimes even things bolted down get
misaligned.
> Use multiple electric propulsars and you don't have the shaft problem.
What are you talkling about? Electric drive? All ships have props unless
someone has reverted to side paddles or slipped a mag prop ion drive system
past me.
> building a new capital ship. A carrier wouldn't be alive.
WWII. The Yorktown survived quite a pounding and was still being recoverd with
a massive hole in her side plus several bomb holes in her deck. Another set of
torps finished her during her recovery when a japanese submarine found her
under salvage.
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
...a whole heap re BBs in the 21st century, some of which I agree with.
But I would like to have all further correspondence via e-mail, as
everyone on the list has been really patient with me regarding putting
purely 20th-21st century Naval matters in a Ground Zero Games Mailing
list.
Of course if a large number of people are intersted spectators, I'll continue.
Unless one or more people object, in which case I'll just CC things to anyone
who wants.
On Wed, 08 Dec 1999 19:32:17 +1000 Alan E and Carmel J Brain
> <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
> Of course if a large number of people are intersted spectators, I'll
Mark me down as an interested spectator -- also my sons, who delight in
using more-or-less-heavily modified 1/350 battleship models as fire
support in DS games (!). Ah, the sound of 18" guns....
Phil, sometimes slightly worried about just what he's raising in the way of
offspring....