We’ve been discussing guns versus missiles and concluded,
unsurprisingly, that both are needed.
With that in mind, let’s recall a ship that pioneered the combined use
of missiles and guns!
The Boston class missile cruiser (CAG-1) was originally a
Baltimore class heavy cruiser (CA-68) built during WWII. After the war, in the early 1950’s, Boston
was converted to launch RIM-2 Terrier missiles by removing the aft 8” gun mount
and adding two twin-arm Terrier missile launchers (144 missiles in 2x 72
missile magazines).
 |
| USS Boston, CAG-1 |
 |
| One of Boston's Two Terrier Launchers |
 |
| Boston’s Stern Showing Both Missile Launchers |
In its original configuration, Boston was well armed and
armored. From Wikipedia[1],
Armament
3x triple 8”/55-caliber guns
6x twin 5”/38-caliber guns
12x quad Bofors 40 mm guns
24x single Oerlikon 20 mm guns
Armor
Belt armor: 4–6 in (102–152 mm)
Deck: 2.5 in (64 mm)
Turrets: 1.5–8 in (38–203 mm)
Barbettes: 6.3 in (160 mm)
Conning tower: 6.5 in (165 mm)
Bulkheads: 6 in (152 mm)
Let’s now consider a modern cruiser built along those lines
with the Terrier launchers being replaced by two VLS units, each perhaps 16-32
cells for a total of 32-64 missile cells (speculatively, 40 quad packed ESSM
plus the remaining 22-54 cells filled with Tomahawk cruise missiles?). With armor and two triple 8” mounts it would
be a formidable ship, able to conduct anti-air, cruise missile strikes, and
close range, heavy caliber gun strikes while its armor made it resistant (not
immune) and resilient to combat damage.
It would be the best protected, toughest ship in the world! It’s interesting that the original missile
version of Boston had more nominal missiles than our hypothetical, modern
version (144 vs. 64)
Boston was 673 ft long and around 15,000 tons displacement,
nearly the same size as a Zumwalt.
Imagine if the Zumwalt had, instead, been built as a modern Boston heavy
missile cruiser. It would have been a
much more combat-effective and useful vessel !
Oh, what could have been …
____________________________
I'd take Zumwalt over Boston any day. Boston's missile throw weight is equal to 48 Mk 57 cell's potential. Zumwalt has aviation and can do ASW. Also stands a chance of not being hit and has a protection system if it is hit. I've played this math with the other early CGs and Albany works out close to 128 Mk 57 cells. That would be a hell of a ship.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Navy and Congress screwed up the ship's Conops, That does not negate many things were done right in the design. We just don't adapt quickly any more. Don't blame the ships for a people problem.
"Boston's missile throw weight is equal to 48 Mk 57 cell's potential"
DeleteI have no idea what you're basing this on. I'm guessing you're attempting some kind of comparison using quad packed Mk57 cells although none of the arithmetic for that checks out. Try again.
"Zumwalt has aviation and can do ASW"
Zumwalt is no more capable of ASW than a Burke. Neither practice it and ASW is not something you can do once a year during a scripted exercise and be even a little bit proficient. Besides, no sane commander is going to risk a nearly $10B ship playing tag with a sub.
You might want to regroup and try your entire comment again.
Submarines have a nasty habit of not caring whether you want to do ASW...
Delete"Submarines have a nasty habit of not caring whether you want to do ASW..."
DeleteAnd if Zumwalt were going to take on the entire enemy military by itself, that would be a concern. Of course, since a ship like Zumwalt would always have escorts to conduct ASW, that's not much of a concern.
Step up your commenting or don't comment. I'm not going to accept many low quality comments like that. I expect more from my readers, if they choose to comment.
Step up:
DeleteAnyone still designing to move a multi billion dollar AAW battery inside basic enemy artillery is designing poorly. I like the Swedes putting 120mm mortar turrets on 24 meter patrol boats. I bet you could put an MLRS launcher on one also. 4 in an LPD well deck. Guessing about 20 could hitch a ride on an ESD. Also, how large are the turn tables on an LPD?
The Navy, not having a cheap & dedicated ASW DE/Frigate/corvette platform is leaving those expensive Burkes and Zumwalt's floating submarine targets in times of war
DeleteTheir is no value added to having large caliber guns on ships.
ReplyDeleteThe high end capability is with missiles.
But more importantly, R&D funding goes with missiles.
And budget allocations go with missiles.
Big guns are not high tech, but they add substantially to the combat capability of the Navy, but that is not what this is all about.
The Navy has been made into a highly efficient war-winning machine.
But the wars that they are configured to win......are defense budget wars.
Lutefisk
Related to what we could have and your previous Ford-Forrestal comparison: The Kitty Hawk class that improved on Forrestal looks like it was even lower cost at less than $2 billion in 2022 dollars.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2022-01-22/kitty-hawk-carrier-scrapyard
Your link appears to be behind a subscription paywall.
DeleteFrom a USNI article comes this quote:
"Commissioned at the Philadelphia Naval Yard in April 1961, she had been built at a cost of $264 million ($2.5 billion in today’s dollars)."
So, one can't help but wonder why we are building $18B Fords that have no more capability than a Kitty Hawk?
"Related to what we could have and your previous Ford-Forrestal comparison: The Kitty Hawk ... "
DeleteWhat about the larger question? Do you think a combined gun/missile, armored cruiser is a useful asset? Would it be more combat effective than what we have now?
"Do you think a combined gun/missile, armored cruiser is a useful asset?"
DeleteOn first thought, I like the concept.
Thinking more operationally, though, if you're getting close enough to the enemy that naval guns are useful, why have missiles at all?
There would be little point in giving up the major advantage of range.
If one expects naval guns to be used frequently, just build a new gun-ship class without missiles and save money.
"There would be little point in giving up the major advantage of range."
DeleteExcept for cost! We deliver large caliber shells for pennies compared to multi-million dollar missiles.
"if you're getting close enough to the enemy that naval guns are useful, why have missiles at all?"
Because sometimes you can't get close enough for guns.
"If one expects naval guns to be used frequently, just build a new gun-ship class without missiles and save money." And that's a completely legitimate statement. We already have many dozens of missile ships so would a dozen or so pure gun ships be useful? Would they be more useful than a combination gun/missile ship?
That is an idea I've struggled with myself, whether or not it is a good idea to mix missiles and guns on the same ship.
DeleteI believe in CNO's dictum of limiting the combining of roles.
But if I'm going to build a gun ship, it's going to require a certain size turret ring to support the gun, its breech, and its mount.
And depending on the size of that turret ring, the ship will need to be a certain length to be able to move forward efficiently through the water.
That is going to leave deck space available for other uses.
Why wouldn't that be VLS cells?
Some of those VLS cells would be used for defensive missiles.
But it seems to make sense to fill a good number of those with Tomahawk missiles.
Now you've combined to different, but related, roles into one ship.
Is that OK?
I think so, but it's certainly a good discussion topic.
Lutefisk
I'd lean towards guns only outside of point defenses like SeaRAM. The most likely use case will be onshore fire missions. The Navy has proven many times it can take ships out of the reserve fleet for this mission. So keep the ship as simple as possible to make it easier to acquire the capability and maintain it. If I'm counting right the Navy already has more VLS tubes than land attack missiles. So the incremental value of a missile cruiser is lower than a gun cruiser since there are no current 8" or 16" guns. At least that is the engineer rational decision making process, maybe it isn't budget fight optimal.
DeleteI think the Navy would want a range of shell options whether that be longer range or guided. Those could be adapted to ship to ship fighting if there was a need. The evolution of munitions has been a lot faster than evolution of firing platforms.
"We already have many dozens of missile ships so would a dozen or so pure gun ships be useful? Would they be more useful than a combination gun/missile ship?"
DeleteFor gunnery practice, sure (does USN even care about that anymore?).
Beyond that? As much as I like big guns I would need to see some realistic testing before committing to a series production: if visual range engagement turn out to be commonplace enough, then go on.
For land attack, lots of cheap firepower and no accuracy issues are attractive, but is the USN actually going to do a seriously contested landing anytime soon? I'd say no, but I'm not in charge of those decisions.
"is the USN actually going to do a seriously contested landing anytime soon?"
DeleteYou share a common misconception that naval guns are only useful for one task: amphibious assault support. In reality, there are many potential naval gun missions:
-Blockade enforcement (sinking merchant ships)
-Anti-ship naval combat (both sides practicing EMCON is a recipe for surprise, close range encounters)
-Remote base bombardment (Africa, Indian Ocean, Solomon Islands, etc.)
-Port/harbor destruction (fight your way in with a carrier group establishing and maintaining temporary air superiority)
-Anti-personnel bombardment in the Philippines or other occupied territories
And so on. Large caliber guns are a very useful capability to have available.
After both sides have expended the bulk of their exquisite, expensive, precision guided missiles in the first few weeks of a war, a handful of large gun cruisers or battleships would look awfully powerful ! Picture a carrier group establishing local air superiority and Burke escorts provide an AAW umbrella while a squadron of heavy gun cruisers makes short work of Chinese island bases.
Ill take the Boston over the Zumwalt any day...
ReplyDeleteYou cited that the Boston carried more missiles than our modern version with VLS. Im not familiar with Terrier, but if we reverted to twin arm launchers, would the magazine size (missile count) then be equal or close?? I don't mind using them (your post about them sold me), plus magazines buried deeper in an armored ship than a VLS struck me as another potential selling point.
I mean i supposein a notional ship the magazines could be whatever we want. I just didnt know how the Terriers compared with the missiles today in terms of size and bulk...
Delete"Boston carried more missiles than our modern version with VLS"
DeleteCareful with that statement. If you read very carefully, I delicately worded it. I said the NOMINAL missile capacity was greater because, depending on the missile type, we can now quad pack missiles which COULD mean more missiles in a VLS.
As you know, I am nowhere near sold on VLS. What I might be tempted to try would be THREE twin arm launchers on a cruiser size ship. If you were to design for it instead of retrofitting, as was done with Boston, they might fit. Just speculation!
"What I might be tempted to try would be THREE twin arm launchers on a cruiser size ship."
DeleteId considered the same. The question for me is: With a general agreement about multi- vs single-purpose ships, do we build a gun/missile cruiser from scratch? Boston was a way to get new tech into the fleet with older but still useful and viable platforms. It was a stepping stone from the gun to the missile era. It seemed to be a successful alteration, but should we copy it (in spirit, not exactly)??? Im completely behind new gun-centric ships, and armor, but...
"do we build a gun/missile cruiser from scratch?"
DeleteThat is the key question. I see value in missile ships. I see value in gun ships. Do I see value in combined missile/gun ships?
If we're going to build dedicated, all-gun ships then probably there's no need for the combination. On the other hand, if we're not going to build all-gun ships then a combo ship seems eminently useful.
What do you think?
Actually a bit of a tough decision!! Id like to see cruiser caliber guns back at see however I can get them!!! The first problem for me is, whats their main mission? Are we reverting to guns mainly for fire support? (will there ever be landings that need that support??) If so, then all gun is what wed want. But... If we are looking at guns with more of a liklihood of engaging surface targets, and its a way for a ship to still have combat value after its missiles are used up, then the gun/missile hybrid works.Having ships that could also act in a SAG, engaging targets with missiles and then being able to close in and "mop up" with large caliber guns seems useful. I guess wed just have to decide what the true conop and most likely scenarios the ship could be end up in before we choose all-gun or hybrid. But as I said before, I would take cruiser guns however I can get em!!
Delete"have to decide what the true conop and most likely scenarios the ship could be end up in"
DeleteYou've got it! CONOPS, CONOPS, CONOPS!
Unfortunately, our current naval leadership couldn't decide the CONOPS of a butter knife so we substitute a list of technologies for a CONOPS and produce useful ships and aircraft.
"Actually a bit of a tough decision!"
DeleteJack Welch, former head of GE, once said that anyone can make a good decision when every fact is known but what makes a great leader is being able to make good decisions with just partial information.
True...
DeleteSo, following Jacks statement, Im going to play the good leader role and direct the Navy to have a dozen or so of our hybrid cruisers laid down by weeks end...
"direct the Navy to have a dozen or so of our hybrid cruisers laid down by weeks end..."
DeleteThat's some decisive leadership! Jack would be proud.
Wondering if the day of the subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile is over in attacking well defended targets. Reports from Ukraine claim that the latest 2015 variant of the German Iris-T missile, the SLM (surface launched -medium range 40 km/ 25 miles) with its associated Hensoldt TRML-4D AESA GaN C-band radar had a 100% success rate with 60 kills with its first battery delivered last October, have seen missile cost quoted as $440,000.
ReplyDeleteThough understand CNO's well deserved skepticism on past missile preformance there does appear some truth to the claims as videos have shown how Iris-T system engaged and destroyed the Kalibr cruise missiles (often described as the Russian Tomahawk) amid a heavy Russian barrages.
"some truth to the claims as videos have shown how Iris-T system engaged and destroyed the Kalibr cruise missiles"
DeleteOf course, what they don't show you are the videos of the failed intercepts! Nothing is 100% successful except propaganda. I have no data, just skepticism based on all of history!
The details matter. Not everywhere can have an air defense battery in good position for a kill. And crews and equipment need to be in working order. A few subsonic missiles put that Russian cruiser on the bottom.
DeleteThere are also trade offs. Faster missiles require magnitudes more energy that comes with higher cost or shorter range. Would that money be better spent on reducing radar/thermal signature and electronic warfare for subsonic missiles?
Agree, but the question arises at what point a higher percentage of successful interceptions of the Tomahawk by the new gen of high tech AA systems it can take and still stay viable as a weapon, if not what are the alternatives.
DeleteShould the Navy should move on and be looking to replace the old subsonic Tomahawk which dates back to the 70's with ballistic missiles, maybe the Army PrSM with its manoeuvrable warheads or a hypersonic sram - HALO?
"Should the Navy should move on and be looking to replace the old subsonic Tomahawk"
DeleteI hope you aren't somehow misinterpreting my skepticism about intercept claims as a belief that Tomahawks are the ultimate battlefield weapon! Quite the contrary. Tomahawks are obsolete. They're slow, non-stealthy, have limited terminal maneuverability, lack modern terminal guidance and on-board intelligence. In a peer war, they would suffer significant losses. They're still useful but they are by no means a state of the art, front line weapon system. They must be replaced.
At one point, it looked as if the LRASM would be the replacement but interest in that seems to have died down as evidenced by the extremely low production rates and the abandonment of development of a VLS launched version.
We desperately need a new anti-ship cruise missile, preferably supersonic, stealthy, terminal sea-skimming, terminal maneuvering, with penaids. We also need short (0-1000 mile) and medium range (1000-3000 mile) ballistic missiles.
One big difference is electricity. Modern naval ships need to generate lots of electricity to power advanced radars. Power requirements for this huge amount of electricity means cut corner on other parts.
ReplyDelete"Power requirements for this huge amount of electricity means cut corner on other parts."
DeleteNo it doesn't. It just means that you have to design the ship and equipment properly. Power generation equipment has gotten smaller and more efficient over the years.
Can we even make armor anymore?
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether there is still lots of German armour that could be salvaged from Scapa Flow (where the German fleet scuttled after WWI). But even if there were could anyone use recycled armour?
Delete"Can we even make armor anymore?"
DeleteOf course we can ... if we want to.
We make it now but we just don't call it that. Armor, in the traditional sense, is just layers or thicknesses of types of steel. We use various types of steel now in hulls, bulkheads, decks, etc. but we don't apply it in thicknesses sufficient to call it armor.
"Can we even make armor anymore?"
DeleteOf course we can but that's almost irrelevant. The larger question is do you think a combined gun/missile, armored cruiser is a useful asset? More combat effective than what we have now?
Think of the guns as gun/launchers. MBTs now have gun launched drones, gun launched ATGM (Lahat). The Sheridan 152mm gun/launcher was an early example. The TOW missle we use now is 152mm. An 8 inch (203mm) tube could field a number of "launched missle complexes" if developed. Designed to fit the ammo hoist and loaded just like a round of ammunition (LAHAT) style. You could have a series of ISR/EW/Strike drones, short/medium range ASM (25-50 mi.) ect. I would keep the twin arm launchers. You could fill out the magazines for mission specific roles, ie fire support. There seems to be a lot of interest in shipboard HIMARS, adopt the 227mm rocket to be launched from the launchers. They even elevate and train to the desired location of the target.
DeleteI question the advantage of firing missiles out of gun tubes.
DeleteIt requires a fair amount of engineering to get the missile through the diameter of the gun tube.
Why not just simplify your life and bolt a launcher on the side of your tank turret, or bolt a launcher onto the deck of your ship.
If you want to use the firing of the gun to accelerate the missile, then you need to engineer the missile components to survive the shock of the sudden, massive acceleration.
It just seems like, for both tanks and ships, it's a lot more trouble than it's worth.
Lutefisk
To dearimie, not likely, ships in Scapa Flow are both badly rusted as well as protected by law.https://www.northlinkferries.co.uk/orkney-blog/wrecks-of-scapa-flow/
DeleteTube launched missile's are not shot out with a gun charge, they have a booster charge that launches the missile out of the tube before the rocket motor ignites. All ATGM pretty much work this way. LAHAT missiles can be used in 105/120mm gun size tubes, they have a sabot to fit the tube and are stored, loaded and fired just like a conventional round of ammunition. Having all your different types of munitions under armor in a magazine is better than having it exposed on deck. All the new IFV turrets( not the US ) have their ATGM launchers mounted under armor in the turret and pop up to fire when needed.
Delete"Tube launched missile'"
DeleteOf course, the drawback is that each tube launched missile is one less conventional tank round available from an already very limited tank or ship munitions inventory.
One can't help but wonder if tube launched missiles are yet another example of the US tendency to try to make every platform a do-everything, win-the-war-single-handed, wonder machine.
Tube launched anti tank missiles were developed by the Russians and later IDF. The US does not use any at this time. The Germans and India use the LAHAT. They were to give tanks a longer range round than conventional rounds. They are a complement to , not a replacement for standard AP rounds. I only mention them for shipboard use as it could be handy for horizon range combat, with out having to use more expensive longer range missiles.
Delete"for shipboard use as it could be handy for horizon range combat,"
DeleteFor horizon range combat, I'd much rather have an 8" gun! To fit into an 8" gun barrel, you're into the Hellfire size missile and that won't do anything to a vessel bigger than a patrol boat.
Is there a missile you'd see as being useful in naval combat that could be launched from an 8" gun?
something along the lines of the Spike NLOS. the newest example has a max range of around 31 miles. Already in use by IDF Navy. Just a nice all around OTH multi use missile. Hard to find diameter info, standard spike is 130-180mm depending on model.
DeleteSpike NLOS missile body is 6.7". The folded wings add an additional few inches as evidenced by the AUR cannister dimensions of 64.9” L x 9.2” W x 12.2” H, according to the manufacturer. The cannister walls are extremely thin so that would make the effective missile diameter around 10-11 inches.
DeleteI've been unable to find a warhead weight but it looks to be pretty small.
I think I'd rather have an 8" gun!
I still say, simplify your life. Just launch missiles from a dedicated launcher and gun rounds from guns.
DeleteLutefisk
"I see value in missile ships. I see value in gun ships. Do I see value in combined missile/gun ships?"
ReplyDeleteThe proposed 21st century Boston class counterpart seems to be a heavy cruiser (CA) dedicated to land attack. Suppose the Navy has a dozen of these heavy cruisers. If a significant number of Tomahawk cruise missiles accompany those 8-inch guns, the guided missile destroyers and cruisers might be able to carry fewer Tomahawks and carry more Standards and ASROC missiles.
I hope that makes sense, that I'm on the right track. This blog advocates ships that excel in a mission instead of being marginal at several missions.
Carlton mentions that if a ship can get close enough to the shore, his proposed NAVROC could quickly saturate an area with 600-pound warheads. This would be an additional way for the cruiser to provide fire support.
https://www.g2mil.com/NAVROC.htm
If too many Mk 41 VLS cells would make the cruiser too vulnerable to return fire, perhaps the old armored box launchers for the Tomahawk should be used. (I suggest finding a way to keep the ESSM capability.)
This ship would do the land attack mission much better than the Zumwalt class and cost much less. This heavy cruiser wouldn't be cheap, but I hope it would cost less than $1 billion. It wouldn't have Aegis and it wouldn't be pretending to hunt submarines.
If we were to make it a gun cruiser, without missiles (except for air defense), I'll be controversial and suggest three turrets with three guns each. It would be like a 21st century counterpart to the original heavy cruiser Boston , with a superstructure designed for a reduced radar signature. But with two turrets the ship would cost less and still provide great surface fire support capability.
"The proposed 21st century Boston class counterpart seems to be a heavy cruiser (CA) dedicated to land attack."
DeleteThat would certainly be one possible mission but there are others. For example, anti-ship combat or merchant ship sinking (blockade effort). Land attack covers a wide gamut of missions: ground support, amphibious assault support, port/harbor demolition, suppressive fire, island base destruction, and so on.
You're not wrong but there is more to it.
Enlighten us O wise ComNavOps, what "more to it" is there?
DeleteOn the topic of guns I would argue for larger caliber to put more high explosive with programming detonation to do more damage on target.
Like a ship-fire version of the programmable ammunition derived from the XM29 OICW as below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE
But carried by ships and not infantry and way bigger for bigger "bang."
"Like a ship-fire version of the programmable ammunition derived from the XM29 OICW as below"
DeleteProgrammable air burst fuses have been around for a long time.
"The proposed 21st century Boston class counterpart seems to be a heavy cruiser (CA) dedicated to land attack."
ReplyDeleteIf it were my choice, I would have two types of gun cruisers.
The first would be an updated Des Moines, with three triple turrets and 8" guns.
It would have VLS cells dedicated to Tomahawks, but the emphasis would lean towards the guns.
I would also have an updated Cleveland/Fargo-like ship with two triple turrets and 6" guns.
It would also have VLS with Tomahawks, and the emphasis would lean towards a larger number of these than the Des Moines would carry. This ship's primary function would be cruise missile strikes (like a SSGN) but with a secondary function of NGFS or ASuW.
Lutefisk
One reason I would like to see a armored cruiser missile-gun combo is we have forgotten how "messy" warfare is. Think this the one lesson NOT learned from Falkland wars was how many UK ships took a missile hit and sunk, a few did manage to survive bomb strikes but really navies should have realized that you have to make ships more survivable and still operate after taking some hits or maybe even a missile strike. No navy, even US navy that has a bunch of Burkes can afford to lose a Burke everytime it's hit or mission killed for 3 years waiting for repairs!
ReplyDeleteAnorher reason for a powerful gun: not every job requires a missile, rounds especially none guided, are far cheaper and what happens when you need to "finish" a target? Using another missile is a waste of resources compared to a few extra rounds to sink a ship or destroy a ground target?
We have forgotten or just assumed all combat will be long range punches, what happens if the enemy closes in or bad weather makes us stumble into each other?
The 80's Iowa class upgrades were a an example of "gun and missile". A few 5 inch mounts were lost to make room for the missile launchers, but that's okay as the 5"-38 guns were no longer performing the anti-air role as originally designed. The main strength of the ship, 16 inch guns, was not diminished, and the missiles added capability.
ReplyDeleteToday I would not set out to design a "gun and missile" ship. I would design around one or the other. If the other weapon system can be added without taking from its main ability, then consider adding it.
My plan:
We should re-designate the Burkes as "light guided missle cruisers" and strip them of most other functions. Build a dedicated class of anti-submarine ship, and a class of heavy gun cruisers (maybe a new version of the Alaska class).
Long range missile strike and gun-fighting are two different missions.
Just my thoughts,
MM-13B
We have so many old Burkes, I don't get why USN doesn't repurpose a few like you propose, use them for trials or put them in reserve status for war contingency.
DeleteWhy not go ultra-specialized and have nearly all-gun and all-missile ships with very heavy armor and should be relatively cheap (as emphasized on this blog many times) for new readers I point you to below for their benefit
ReplyDeletehttps://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2018/10/single-versus-multi-function-ships.html
Anyway this single-function missile ship would be like below and to be used in similar (planned) fashion too, replace torpedoes with missiles (and maybe additional torpedoes as well to finish off any enemies)
"Shimakaze had one of the largest torpedo capacities of any World War II destroyer"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Shimakaze_(1942)
Basically I envisioned this single-function missile ships to be used as the original plan for above(which in real life was never done as the Shimakaze was sunk) against China given Chinese invasion plans seems to be the type a modern (or even the original, if properly escorted) Imperial Japanese Navy Shimakaze would be effective against.
A little off topic but back in the days when I was playing the free online multiplayer game Navy-Field I had the Shimakaze with only torpedoes and no guns at all (I was one of the "Torp Whores" as we were called
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=torp%20whore
) and was quite effective without any guns, only Long Lance torpedoes so perhaps a single function all-missile ship may be effective in real life.
"all-missile ships with very heavy armor"
DeleteI like it but are you envisioning an offensive (cruise missile) ship, defensive (Standard and ESSM), or a mix? If defensive or a mix, it then requires advanced radar and fire control which adds cost. If purely offensive, how do you propose accomplishing targeting?
I would keep them separated of course and as for targeting for the offensive version why not have your scout ship do the targeting like the one you suggest
Deletehttps://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/02/scout-ship.html
As for the ship itself, why not forgot the radar (which is well known and there are lots of sources publicly on how to trick, like jamming and false emitters) altogether and use something like
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/19/business/detector-let-flight-crews-know-if-passenger-24c-really-turned-off-his-computer.html
After all the target I would want my offensive missile cruisers to destroy has computers, and if you have any other solutions please let us know thanks!!
Now in the Navy Field game I simply blind fire a spread of torpedoes at where I think the enemy may be and learn I have hit when I scored, in real life why not use Taiwan's submarine like the Collins as suggested by by Dr Carlo Kopp below
"An alternative model is to use the Collins as a targeting and BDA platform which supports air attacks by strategic tanker supported F-111 and F/A-18, retaining its torpedo armament for defence against ASW forces if it is cornered or otherwise exposed, or for high value targets of opportunity. While such a use of the submarine may not be gratifying to many of our naval enthusiasts, it is a model in which the Collins exploits its strengths, which are stealth and towed passive sonar, and avoids its weaknesses of limited firepower and submerged endurance / dash speed. The other side of this model is that the strengths of air power, rapid transit, massive firepower and flexibility, are best exploited, without incurring the large overheads of tanker supported and fighter escorted targeting recce and BDA sorties. "
https://www.ausairpower.net/maritime-deterrence.html
Instead of air power we use cheaper missile ships and have Taiwan modify their submarines to do so
"Taiwan's domestic submarine programme faces many difficulties but is going according to plan, Defence Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng said on Tuesday after Reuters reported a sharp increase in British exports of submarine parts to the island."
From below:
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-says-submarine-programme-going-plan-despite-difficulties-2023-03-14/
Basically I envision a submarine to act as the forward scout while a "passive Hawkeye" as you mentioned below
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2021/10/passive-hawkeye.html
Acts as the "gunner" like P-700 Granite (3M-45) below
In Runaway Fire mode, one missile acting as a "gunner" flies on a high trajectory to maximize the target area, while other missiles fly on a low trajectory. In flight, the missiles exchange information about their targets. If a guided missile is intercepted, then one of the other missiles automatically takes over its functions. The missiles themselves distribute and classify according to the importance of the target, choose the tactics of the attack and its plan.
https://en.missilery.info/missile/granit
Maybe we can fix up a few ES-3A Shadow to do this
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/01/es-3a-shadow.html
Maybe while in the bone yards we can also fix up some JSTARS for ship to shore target guidance (I think retiring them is a mistake below)
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/02/16/first-jstars-jet-flies-into-retirement-after-nearly-30-years-of-service/
JSTARS is great for tracking ground targets and would be useful for guiding our missiles.
Your computer detector link is behind a paywall. Regardless, I strongly suspect it's a VERY short ranged detector and would not be useful as a combat sensor.
Delete" I simply blind fire a spread of torpedoes at where I think the enemy may be "
Which assumes you already have a pretty good idea where the enemy is!
Of course one would have a good idea where the enemy is using passive sensors, even if the computer detector does not work, one could always use radio transmitters and home in, or "triangulate" on their radio signals as below
Deletehttps://www.techopedia.com/definition/14856/triangulation
Basically use like below by emitter locator systems to get a good ideas where the enemy is (and because the ships and missiles are relatively cheap one just shotguns where the enemies are and use submarine to confirm and/or finish off the enemy if needed) :
DeleteThe intent behind these passive sensors was to provide a capability to passively detect, locate and track US and NATO aircraft using their RF emissions, to cue other IADS elements to an engagement.
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Warpac-Rus-PLA-ESM.html
"Of course one would have a good idea where the enemy is using passive sensors,"
DeleteThis is the game that will be played in war. The enemy would, undoubtedly, institute strict EMCON so as to AVOID giving off emissions that can be passively detected and the searcher would avoid using active sensors so as to avoid revealing their own location.
This is analogous to two people feeling around in the dark, looking for each other and trying not to make a sound to give themselves away and not wanting to use a flashlight which would instantly reveal their own location. It might well be that two such naval groups would, literally, stumble across each other at close range. This has been one of my overarching themes on the blog. Worryingly, we are not training for such close range, surprise encounters.
"Basically use like below by emitter locator systems to get a good ideas where the enemy is"
DeleteI fear you're simplifying this beyond the bounds of reality. Passive detection works ONLY if there's something to detect - meaning, the enemy is emitting. Unless the enemy is incredibly stupid, they'll be practicing strict EMCON and there will be, in theory, nothing to detect. If that's the case, passive detection will have nothing to detect.
Blind shooting works if you have a good idea where the enemy is and you just want to confirm or pin down the exact location. That would obviously not work in open ocean where the enemy could be anywhere in a billion square miles.
Be careful that you don't oversimplify and be wary of making the assumption that the enemy will do exactly what you want (emitting, for example).
"It might well be that two such naval groups would, literally, stumble across each other at close range. This has been one of my overarching themes on the blog."
DeleteMay I suggest this statement favors having both guns and missiles on a ship?
"Worryingly, we are not training for such close range, surprise encounters."
On a previous blog post, I commented that because guns might be able to hit a threat more quickly, perhaps a crew should fire on on a surprise enemy with a gun while simultaneously preparing a missile launch. (I reason that a missile hit should still be attempted because the NSM and Harpoon outweigh a 5-inch shell.) I also admitted I don't know what the official policy is for such a situation.
"...because guns might be able to hit a threat more quickly, perhaps a crew should fire on on a surprise enemy with a gun while simultaneously preparing a missile launch."
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly.
Complicate their tactical situation.
The enemy CIWS might be occupied with incoming 5" shells and missiles could get through.
Why not have DPICM for the gun rounds to complicate their defense and maybe knock out sensors.
If close enough, put a torpedo in the water.
Overkill is underrated.
Lutefisk