tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post895780404427542906..comments2024-03-28T04:22:28.228-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Ship Magazines - Do The MathComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25459882723564456072018-08-07T07:43:39.263-07:002018-08-07T07:43:39.263-07:00"Reload of VLS at sea wouldnt solve my proble..."Reload of VLS at sea wouldnt solve my problem"<br /><br />Okay, good that you recognize that but what problem are you looking to solve? We've demonstrated that there is no reasonable scenario in which ships can exhaust their missile inventory so what problem are you looking to solve?<br /><br />Much of the overall discussion has focused on how to do reloads rather than acknowledging that there is no need for reloads. The general discussion is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29400723617067526172018-08-07T06:01:55.636-07:002018-08-07T06:01:55.636-07:00The UKs 113mm naval gun prioritised first round en...The UKs 113mm naval gun prioritised first round engagement speed over rate of fire to give some anti missile capacity<br /><br />I cant see it working these days though, the missiles are just too fast, if a stream of heavy 30mm projectiles hitting head on dont stop it, its hard to imagine a few shotgun or canister pellets doing it.TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43772064254253033542018-08-07T05:57:40.892-07:002018-08-07T05:57:40.892-07:00On further thought
Reload of VLS at sea wouldnt so...On further thought<br />Reload of VLS at sea wouldnt solve my problem, it would still be necessary to leave the area to meet a stores vessel.<br /><br />How quickly are rail launchers reloadable?TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72289904618891323852018-08-06T09:40:19.526-07:002018-08-06T09:40:19.526-07:00I couldn't get the link to work. But FWIW I be...I couldn't get the link to work. But FWIW I believe that for both the odd and even class the LCS is electro-optically guided using the SAFIRE system. <br /><br />I don't think that system has a chance of hitting a missile. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55678567280670041672018-08-06T05:58:40.134-07:002018-08-06T05:58:40.134-07:00"What is the shelf life for an SM stored in a..."What is the shelf life for an SM stored in a VLS"<br /><br />I have no idea but I note one of the major reasons for sealed canisters is to eliminate dirt, corrosion, and maintenance. There is still a shelf life but I have no idea what it is. I would guess 5+ years and then just diagnostic tests to find any replace any problems but, hey, that's a really wild guess.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51499657036006685602018-08-06T05:55:42.505-07:002018-08-06T05:55:42.505-07:00"SLQ-32"
There is no good reason why th..."SLQ-32"<br /><br />There is no good reason why the Navy hasn't kept its electronic warfare up to date. There is no good reason why the Navy hasn't provided effective ground fire support. There is no good reason why the Navy has deferred ship maintenance to the point of having to retire ships early. There is no good reason ... You get the point. The Navy makes many (all?) decisions that are wrong and baffling. No one knows why.<br /><br />As I've described in various posts, the best AAW is a combination of ESSM and ECM. Long range (and expensive!) Standards are a limited, niche capability. Why we aren't designing for that, I don't know.<br /><br />As far as jamming as a tactical action, once the missiles have found you, there's no point not radiating. Jam away! Deal with HARMs by doubling or tripling the number of CIWS and shoot them down.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28486674706507633892018-08-06T05:30:12.373-07:002018-08-06T05:30:12.373-07:00One other thing... and this may not be strictly re...One other thing... and this may not be strictly relevant. <br /><br />What is the shelf life for an SM stored in a VLS at sea, or in a warehouse somewhere? <br /><br />Given the Navy's general lack of maintenance on it's surface vessels is it unreasonable to think that maybe its not doing what is needed to keep it's SSM's in shape and ready to fly? JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25734659231639974132018-08-06T05:24:36.925-07:002018-08-06T05:24:36.925-07:00I hadn't thought of those SAM numbers. You bri...I hadn't thought of those SAM numbers. You bring up good points, even if we are assuming 3-4 missiles/intercept we still have quite a few (assuming we send a task force with enough AAW ships; and the ability to do that also plays into your cheaper, more focused ship design).<br /><br />One thing I don't understand, and a lot of this is I don't know what I don't know, is why (it seems) have we spent so little time/money on soft kill options. Iron Duke makes a good point about soft kill but how long did SLQ-32 hang off of ships un-upgraded? It's 70's tech, and it's hard to believe it's as effective as it was. <br /><br />I'm convinced by you that we'll have enough missiles, But to me we still have an issue with being on the wrong side of the cost curve, and maybe still have a reaction time issue in just firing the things fast enough. <br /><br />According to Wiki (caveat emptor) the SM3 is about $18m/copy. ESSM is ~ 1m/copy. <br /><br />So to outfit that task force it's going to be 18billion for the standards and 2.4 billion for the ESSM. <br /><br />I know war isn't cheap but that's a crap load of money to shoot away. <br /><br />They are now starting to update SLQ-32, but if we could have spent a little more money up front on keeping the standards relevant (like we have) *and* keeping our soft kill options razor sharp, it seems a more affordable way of making our ships survivable.The soft kill options might also make our hard kill more effective. <br /><br />Yes, a missile might turn around (Though, at the super/hypersonic speeds that they are going at this sounds easier said than done), but even if it does you just gave the SAM's that much more time to react. <br /><br />I know this seems too bean-counterish, but I'm a firm believer that 'money is the sinews of war'. The Navy has a ton of money now, and it has to be more efficient in the way it spends it, and maybe that would be a way. <br /><br />Maybe there is a valid tactical reason we haven't (radiating to jam missiles might invite a HARM shot, for instance), I don't know. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76717752023430507872018-08-06T00:10:17.093-07:002018-08-06T00:10:17.093-07:00Yes. A TF commander may abort a patrol for lack of...Yes. A TF commander may abort a patrol for lack of munitions reserve and individual escorts may be sent home early or be drawn from outer defences to very close CV escort tasks due to largely emptied magazines. I don't consider it a probable scenario that a battle would be fought to exhaustion of SAMs (unless the attacker seeks exactly this, by providing gazillions of decoy drones as targets).<br /><br />The low stocks of missiles outside of VLS are the much bigger issue than the reloading process, and both LWT and HWT stocks torpedoes may be insufficient as well. LWT stocks are certainly insufficient if the Mk 46 / Mk 54 propulsion turns out to be insufficient against SSNs, which is rather likely.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60838108686956607812018-08-05T20:45:17.085-07:002018-08-05T20:45:17.085-07:00I've wondered if the LCS could be converted to...I've wondered if the LCS could be converted to an Anti missile ship- It has a lot of space above deck, and also below deck.<br /><br />Please forgive my very amateurish attempt, but I've cut and paste the 57mm gun several times, on the independence class LCS, so that such a ship would have x6 57mm guns. If we assume it can do what, on paper, BAE says it can, surely x4-5 57mm guns would be useful in anti missile defence.<br /><br />https://www.instagram.com/p/BlmlsyQnc-GNbq46uW_H4Qt7x-9xEsnoH6frqY0/?taken-by=optimus.prime.autobot.legend<br /><br />Please don't comment on the mismatched lines- I had to do it using a free app on my phone, and then screencap it, since it wasn't easy to find the folder it gets saved into!<br /><br />AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52612699398849560532018-08-05T20:21:10.837-07:002018-08-05T20:21:10.837-07:00I'm reminded of a story a Singaporean buddy of...I'm reminded of a story a Singaporean buddy of mine related: he's assigned to his Patrol Vessel, and he asks, "Hey, what's our CIWS in case the Malaysians fire AShM at us?"<br /><br />"Man the .50 and shoot it down."<br /><br />"...I'm good, but I'm not THAT good."<br /><br />:P<br /><br />Theoretically you could use 5-inch and 76mm to intercept missiles, but for that to work you really, really need guided rounds, you can't do that with dumb rounds, even with VT fuse. OTO Melara keeps shilling their DART smart rounds, and Raytheon's been claiming that Navy Excalibur Block 2 will turn 5" into smart homing rounds, but I'll believe it when I see it - not that I don't think it can be done, but it hasn't been provably demonstrated yet.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25556161642536035102018-08-05T20:15:58.997-07:002018-08-05T20:15:58.997-07:00Yeah, that's what I mean with the whole jettis...Yeah, that's what I mean with the whole jettison process - if the missile fails to fire on the launcher, you've got to spend time to jettison the missile and draw a new missile from the magazine, which can be a make or break deal depending on the situation (not so much of an issue with TLAM shore bombardment, a bit more urgent when intercepting sea skimmers). Note the following videos, btw, of Perry and Tico missile shoots - it looks a lot like the missile rides the rail, instead of being jettisoned and fired. Unless the delay between separation and rocket motor igniting is a lot shorter than on air-launched missiles, I suppose.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4zfsN4Ndd8" rel="nofollow">USS Gary Mk 13 firing</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTz5kL6gzSI" rel="nofollow">CG-51 Mk 26 firing</a><br /><br />At the end of the day it all boils down to pros and cons and the tradeoffs therein between the two and whether the operator considers the tradeoffs acceptable. That said, unless things change I don't think rail launchers are coming back though; everyone is either buying VLS, or making their own systems. VLS is just so much more efficient in terms of space and volume: on the Ticos, the space where they fitted a Mk 26 and a 44-round magazine now fits 64 VLS cells - that's almost a 1/3rd increase in missile throw weight! WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79613382004485768202018-08-05T06:50:28.518-07:002018-08-05T06:50:28.518-07:00You correctly identify a key distinction. It'...You correctly identify a key distinction. It's quite alright to run out of ammo while conducting planned fire support and, presumably, having planned replacement ships to rotate on and off the firing line. That's not running out of ammo, that's a planned and managed usage.<br /><br />A prolonged littoral engagement is not something a commander would even enter into unless he knew he had, again, a planned system to rotate ships in and out.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9682685092099320952018-08-05T06:46:22.903-07:002018-08-05T06:46:22.903-07:00"I was talking about a missile that failed to..."I was talking about a missile that failed to fire."<br /><br />I think you know this but just for everyone's benefit, the rail launchers "ejected" the missiles and then the motors ignited as opposed to the motors igniting and "flying" off the rails.<br /><br />I recall seeing a film on TV about Desert Storm and it showed a Perry single arm launcher launching a missile (don't recall what type of missile). Unfortunately, the missile motor never ignited so what happened was the missile ejected about twenty feet and then just dropped into the sea! <br /><br />This illustrates a potential advantage of a rail launcher. The missile always separates from the rail and can't drop back down on the launcher. A VLS launch could, I suppose, drop back down on the VLS cluster. Theoretically, it shouldn't explode but could probably still cause a bit of damage.<br /><br />Overall, VLS seems a better way to go but it's not quite as overwhelmingly cut and dried as it might seem. An alternative approach might be to use rail launchers but use several of them, each with their own mini-magazine. Just a wild thought.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16123795954657773232018-08-05T06:37:55.166-07:002018-08-05T06:37:55.166-07:00"A gun-based anti-air ship? Interesting but I..."A gun-based anti-air ship? Interesting but I don't think it's viable. Manufacturer's claims aside, no one thinks a gun is a viable anti-air weapon. The rate of fire is way too slow. To the best of my knowledge, the Navy doesn't train for gun anti-air and doesn't even pretend it's viable. Are you aware of any navy that actually trains for 5" gun anti-air?<br /><br />Compare the guns that are actually built for anti-air to larger naval guns. The true CIWS-type guns have insanely high rates of fire and many have dedicated fire control radars.<br /><br />Having said all that, I've actually got a post coming that proposes a 16" anti-air projectile! So, under a particular set of circumstances, your idea is not impossible. Wait for the post. You'll enjoy it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50995333334640208672018-08-05T06:04:09.278-07:002018-08-05T06:04:09.278-07:00Interesting analysis, and I think pretty valid for...Interesting analysis, and I think pretty valid for open ocean engagements or "Hit and run" attacks against shore targets. I do wonder if we might occasionally find ourselves in a prolonged littoral engagement, wherein the enemy had the ability to replenish his stocks, but we did not? That would, it seems, leave us with the choice of rotating ships back to a base or not maintaining the engagement or risking our ships, none of which are good choices. My history muse seems to recollect that the USN developed rearming at sea to address exactly that dilemma off Okinawa during WW II, since the transit time back to "Base" (Ulithi) was unacceptable. Of course that was mainly shore bombardment ammo vice AAW, but it would seem to me the analogy is still valid.Captain Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17297301009511642108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17146937266231044462018-08-05T06:02:38.186-07:002018-08-05T06:02:38.186-07:00@Storm Shadow: maybe, but from what I recall of ph...@Storm Shadow: maybe, but from what I recall of photos of Saschen's VLS, the affected cell is utterly fucked up, the blast doors on the immediately adjacent cells have scorch marks on them, but it's hard to determine what damage if any is suffered by the rest of the VLS cells. <br /><br />Also, when I said missile failure, I was talking about a missile that failed to fire. In the same scenario as what happened to Saschen - the missile blows itself up because something went fucked somewhere - you're now out the missile *and* the twin arm launcher, so operationally you're still just as fucked - albeit that because Burkes and Ticos have bigger VLS clusters, the law of numbers means that there's less chance a single catastrophic hit fucks the rest of the missiles.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34465248350312816692018-08-05T04:34:13.652-07:002018-08-05T04:34:13.652-07:00" if there's a missile failure, you now n..." if there's a missile failure, you now need to jettison and clear the missile from the rail, whereas with VLS being both magazine and launcher, you just move on to the next cell."<br /><br />Well well, remember the recent VLS missile launch that failed on the German frigate, indeed if you have a launch failure directly over the VLS cells you might expect not to launch anything from that cluster . . Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13011592367063262652018-08-04T20:55:54.265-07:002018-08-04T20:55:54.265-07:00To also point out your Phalanx and 5in guns killin...To also point out your Phalanx and 5in guns killing missiles close in.<br /><br />Hmm. Could we have the new cruisers/Destroyers as some sort of modern atlanta? Maybe replace those 2 AGS on the Zumwalts with 3 5 in guns for some.<br /><br />Can the MK71 be used for AA?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074400411280663565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83994752714285831362018-08-04T17:20:46.409-07:002018-08-04T17:20:46.409-07:00Oh, definitely, but what I was getting at was that...Oh, definitely, but what I was getting at was that in that era, there was a window where the Soviets' offensive missiles could outweigh the defensive fires put up by the desron, particularly given the limited numbers srsface AAW ships; though, as you said, the ranges and times to target involved mean that the desron had more than a fighting chance.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91168683385106616262018-08-04T16:06:25.020-07:002018-08-04T16:06:25.020-07:00You might be interested in the data from an older,...You might be interested in the data from an older, May 2013, post.<br /><br />"Historically, there have been very few combat AAW missile launches so there is not much of a database to draw conclusions from. The best data set that I’m aware of is from the Falklands War between Britain and Argentina. During that conflict, at least 26 Sea Dart missiles were launched. Wikipedia reports that of 5 missiles launched against helicopters or high flying, relatively slow aircraft, 4 hits were achieved. By contrast, there were only 2 hits out of 19 launches against low flying aircraft. The Falklands totals for the Sea Dart, then, were 6 hits out of 26 launches (23% success). Wikipedia further notes that an unspecified number of launches were made without guidance in an attempt to break up low level attacks as a result of limitations of the missile system. In addition, the Sea Wolf missile, designed for use against low level targets, achieved 2 kills in 8 launches for a 25% success rate, according to Wikipedia."<br /><br />Not a lot of data but it gives some indications of success rates against fairly easy targets, at least compared to anti-ship missiles.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83042338524654300452018-08-04T12:31:54.885-07:002018-08-04T12:31:54.885-07:00Or a simpler question before asking " hey why...Or a simpler question before asking " hey why can't we reload at sea" ask, hey who else can reload at sea ? Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21034559258252061572018-08-04T12:04:12.150-07:002018-08-04T12:04:12.150-07:00Re Falklands
I know the kill percentage was quite ...Re Falklands<br />I know the kill percentage was quite low, but the methodology was pretty inconsistent.<br />Exactly what missiles were fired at what targets and under what circumstances they were or were not counted do not seem to be easily verifiable, likely by design.<br /><br />But, there were incidents of single aircraft were engaged by at least 4 missile systems, with the possibility of more than one of each missile type.<br /><br />My point re Guadalcanal was primarily that you may not be in control of the pace.<br />In a purely naval engagement, both sides reasonably have the expectation of breaking the engagement at will.<br /><br />But once it becomes a combined operation, that becomes a lot more complicated.<br />The enemy could, at least in theory, organise a situation in which you either deplete your batteries and abandon thee ground contingent, deplete the batteries and remain, or risk rationing weapons.<br /><br />As I ( think I ) said, actual reloads are likely to remain a bigger problem than reloading per se, but I just cant get the image of sailors belting 50.cal ammunition in their bunks out of my headTrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62188350538375516212018-08-04T06:22:34.180-07:002018-08-04T06:22:34.180-07:00Did you seriously think about this before you repl...Did you seriously think about this before you replied? I don't want to be unduly harsh but there is not a shred of reality to this comment.<br /><br />No one has 3000 air launched, anti-ship cruise missiles in their inventory. No one has anything remotely approaching that.<br /><br />Even if you had 3000 anti-ship missiles, for your scenario to work they'd have to ALL be miraculously located in one fairly central location, ready for use, at the exact moment that the ships appeared. The reality is that the available anti-ship missiles would be distributed across the enemy's entire military, at every base that might need them. At any one or two bases that might be in range of the target ships, there would be only dozens or perhaps a hundred available.<br /><br />The same comments as above apply to the aircraft. No one has a hundred maritime strike aircraft sitting in one location. Aircraft are distributed across many bases across thousands of miles of territory. Any individual base might have one or two dozen. For your scenario to work, you'd have to have a hundred maritime attack aircraft sitting at the exact right base at the exact right time, ready to go. Utterly ridiculous.<br /><br />Modern aircraft can't run non-stop, consecutive missions for days on end. They'd be lucky to run two sorties in a row. Modern aircraft demand maintenance. There's also attrition. Aircraft aren't going to attack a large surface/carrier force and suffer no casualties.<br /><br />Please reconsider your comment and delete it as utterly unrealistic and save me the trouble.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38352375140991928782018-08-04T06:20:47.973-07:002018-08-04T06:20:47.973-07:00While rail launchers versus VLS is a valid concern...While rail launchers versus VLS is a valid concern, it's a minor one in such an attack. The concept was that defending missiles would be launched - ideally at the bombers rather than their missiles! - while the targets were a hundred miles away. Thus, there would be plenty of time to fire off all the needed defensive missiles. A few seconds difference in launch rate is meaningless given those kinds of distances. <br /><br />Now, if attacking missiles "pop up" over the horizon then launch rate is critical. Of course, even then one can make an argument that a trainable launcher is advantageous in that the missile starts off pointed directly at its target instead of having to go up, tip over, and acquire. Which launch method is better in the quick reaction case depends on how many attacking missiles you face. If just a couple, a trainable launcher is probably better. If many missiles, a vertical launch is probably better.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com