|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 9, 2014 18:14:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 10, 2014 17:29:09 GMT -6
I mentioned those earlier along with the 3-4 Mobile Landing Platforms in the pipeline. What really interests me is the possibility of using those two designs along with LCS to substitute for a full amphibious group in a disaster-relief, counter-piracy, or other light-duty role.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 10, 2014 18:12:58 GMT -6
I mentioned those earlier along with the 3-4 Mobile Landing Platforms in the pipeline. What really interests me is the possibility of using those two designs along with LCS to substitute for a full amphibious group in a disaster-relief, counter-piracy, or other light-duty role. A disaster-relief group might be good possibility, stationed in Singapore near the volcanism of Indonesia and possibly near the Philippines. A group in the Med near the eastern shores is another disaster prone area. It would relieve the rest of the navy. Another in Seattle or Vancouver to deal with the Aleutian chain and the Juan De Fuca plate, and available for San Francisco and south. I guess one for South America but where to locate is another issue.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 11, 2014 14:59:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 11, 2014 15:51:19 GMT -6
Excellent idea and long overdue. If these littoral nations want protection from pirates and rogue nations, build and protect your own littoral and brown water areas. The US Navy can focus on protecting the blue water where it does its work the best.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 11, 2014 16:42:13 GMT -6
Well, LCS is something the Japanese can use. Mine warfare and ASW have been two of their major post-WWII fields (after being on the receiving end of both), and with the current disputes over the Senkakus they could use a small surface combatant for sovereignty patrol and rapidly transporting ground forces. Funny suggestion of yours there - just saw this today: www.informationdissemination.net/2014/03/offshoring-flotilla-combatant.html
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 11, 2014 19:51:39 GMT -6
Well, LCS is something the Japanese can use. Mine warfare and ASW have been two of their major post-WWII fields (after being on the receiving end of both), and with the current disputes over the Senkakus they could use a small surface combatant for sovereignty patrol and rapidly transporting ground forces. Funny suggestion of yours there - just saw this today: www.informationdissemination.net/2014/03/offshoring-flotilla-combatant.htmlHow about that! It isn't hard to figure. Those who have a vested interested in the region, will defend it better because they have a stake in its future plus they have the advantage of knowing the area and the other nations bordering it. Once the rogue nations realize that all the nations are going to work together with the US behind them, things will get better. Let's use the Aussie idea and continue with it in other places. Another aspect of this idea is the economics. If we let our shipbuilding industry take the lead on this, they will get the bulk of the work, giving us jobs and other such economic benefits. This concept not only makes the sea lanes safer, but might help rebuild our shipbuilding industry. The only issue is that this is a geostrategic decision, not made at the Pentagon but in Congress and the Executive branch. If the politicians decide to make the change, then the US Navy can change its requirements and develop other types of ships. It's top down, I am afraid.
UPDATE: I started searching the WWW for information on the Aussie program that was used as an example - nautilus.org/publications/books/australian-forces-abroad/pacific-islands/pacific-patrol-boat-program/#axzz2vl0LGSyC
I wonder what kind of boat, like the LCS and others, would be appropriate for certain areas of the world like Somalia etc. I wonder if the Coasties could use some for hunting drug runners.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 15, 2014 14:54:03 GMT -6
Off the topic of LCS, this is a question that interests me (especially since the remaining NWP team is moving towards the 19.3 release, meaning I expect to be playing with Fleet Command again in the near future): defensetech.org/2014/03/03/tomahawk-re-routes-faster-to-hit-moving-targets/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Anti-Ship_MissileSince we've deleted the VLS reload cranes on the Aegis ships (and as I understand, reloading the launch cells at sea was not fun anyway), our surface combatants are going to go to war with what they have, and if they run low on weapons after multiple engagements they have to return to port. The list of available weapons for the Mk 41 VLS includes Standard SAMs (both the SM-3 ballistic missile interceptor and SM-6 general-purpose SAM), quad packs of Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missiles, RUM-139 VL-ASROCs for ASW, Tomahawk, and now potentially the LRASM. The question is, how best to stock the 96 cells on a DDG-51, and how much room should you make for specialized offensive weapons like ASROC and LRASM? For all the surface community's talk of getting back into ship-versus-ship fighting, their main reason for existing is to keep flattops and amphibs safe from air, missile, and ASW threats. SAMs cover the first two and most of the Aegis ships have LAMPS helos to help with ASW. I'm not sure LRASM is going to be something packed aboard surface warships in numbers; the rule generally is that if you want to kill a surface ship you use aircraft or subs. Eight LRASMs is eight more Standard SAMs or more 32 ESSMs you could have available to defend against air and missile attacks. On the other hand, having an antiship mode on the Tomahawk means you have a dual-purpose weapon that can fill two missions (Strike and SUW) while not taking up more VLS cells. I can see LRASM being used effectively by aircraft, but a dual-purpose Tomahawk might be a better idea for arming surface ships and subs.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 23, 2014 16:08:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 23, 2014 21:30:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 24, 2014 19:01:21 GMT -6
Link to information page on Chinese SAM carried on the new destroyer. Question to ask is how many reloads does it have, guidance both primary and secondary. My read is that it uses INS and anti-radiation terminal guidance seeker. That means long range, not short to medium so it appears this is not a tactical SAM but a strategic for shooting down large aircraft like Early warning and such.
www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-IADS-SAMs.html#mozTocId934076
Update: Just an update on another question: CODAG fuel efficiency at speed. Typical CODOG configuration will use about 120 kilograms per nautical mile or about 400 pounds of fuel per nautical mile, if my math is correct. However, at 28 knots that figure rises to over 280 kilograms per nautical mile or 617 pounds per mile. For a typical configuration for a patrol boat, at 5000 nm the CODAG will consume 703 tons of fuel. The mission of this ship requires that when an unidentified ship or submarine is found, that it accelerate and investigate. That acceleration will eat fuel considerably, so will an aircraft that is unidentified. This brings use to endurance. They don't provide total fuel storage which would give use total endurance at different speeds. My guess is that these frequent accelerations will reduce the range by half, so a valid range is about 2500 miles under normal combat conditions.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 24, 2014 22:48:15 GMT -6
This design reportedly features a 64-cell VLS; the standout feature being that unlike previous Soviet/Russian/Chinese systems it's compatible with multiple types of missiles including SAMs, ASROCS, AShMs, and land-attack missiles. I imagine the bulk of the weapons loads will be SAMs - there are reports that they've developed a shorter-range weapon that can be quad-packed like ESSM - but there will be some space allotted for other weapons.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 25, 2014 7:42:25 GMT -6
Here is another link with good pictures and drawings for use as a reference - www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/type052d.htm
I would still like some accurate range measurements of the ship and reloads. Also possible loadouts on the VLS system, I can't believe it would be all SAM's. Possibly we can relate it to US or some foreign VLS system for discussion purposes.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 25, 2014 16:56:37 GMT -6
It's being discussed as the PLAN equivalent to the Mark 41 VLS, which would fit with the apparent efforts to make it a DDG-51 counterpart. As far as SAMs, I think it depends on the threat. If we're talking about squaring off against the US or another first-rank naval power, especially inside the First Island Chain, I'd bet at least 2/3 of the loadout will be SAMs. These are their most capable AAW escorts and that will be their first and foremost priority. After that, it depends on what they have in mind. I don't really see them carrying a large number of standoff ASW missiles; given the near-term lack of sea-based PLAN airstrike capability I imagine AShMs and possibly LACMs would have a higher priority than ASW. I doubt that there will be any reloading at sea; we've pretty much given up on that and the PLAN has far less experience in UNREP operations.
I am somewhat amused that this design still sports the RBU-type ASW rocket launchers. Old habits die hard, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 25, 2014 19:34:43 GMT -6
A problem that has to be considered is the number of missiles that one illuminator can control. Are the missiles semi-active homing or active homing and in what phase. A semi-active homing will require illumination by the ships radar for the launch and main movement phase then at terminal phase, the onboard illuminator takes control. This is different in Active homing missiles who do not need an illuminator. The number of illuminators and their height above the water is important. On this particular ship, there are only two illuminators and in fact, it does not have an illuminator facing forward; both are facing at 45 degrees. The HHQ-9 missiles are inertial/datalink and terminal active radar homing so I believe they require an illuminator for part of the flight. So the number that can be controlled at any one time is important. We should probably try to get more information on this and other factors.
|
|