Tweet
"CIWS/RAM have been deleted on Burkes from DDG85 and up.ESSM is it."
I was under the impression that CIWS had been deleted, but that the Mk31 Ram guided missile system was taking it's place. The USN was also working on a direct "SEARAM" mount that directly mounted where the Phalanx is, and uses the same electronics/radar but replaces the 20mm vulcan with a 11rd RAM magazine.
Mk31:
SEARAM:
You're definitely right about the lack of Phalanx on the DDG85 though, as this photograph clearly shows...it aint there.
However, it is still completely true that the RAM is the intended direct replacement for Phalanx, and ESSM is the intended direct replacement for the NSSMS.
ESSM by all acounts is an extremely capable weapons system, but it has no short-range small craft engagement capability such as was implemented with the RAM Block1 missile and the Phalanx Mk15 Block 1B CIWS.
Good to see the navy NOT learning from the Cole disaster... :(
"The "Your joking" comment was about non Aegis being capable AA defence ships. Maybe in the 80s but not anymore."
The NTU ships(such as the Kidds) are still very capable warships, even today. Not to the level of the latest Baseline 7B Aegis ships, but still very good. As Rick has pointed out, for many years AEGIS was second fiddle in the AAW role, with the NTUs providing the primary fleet air defense capability. Once upon a time AEGIS was an acronym for "Aint Ever Gonna Intercept Shiit'...lol ;)
"(G G)
The tubes may be watertight but salt air and banging around < movement of the ship>
Causes damage to the electrical systems and the solid fuel rockets have a shelf life."
So far as i know the tubes are sealed...ie airtight(and watertight), but i could be wrong. Rocket fuel definitely does have a shelf life though, no doubt about that.
"We could fill enough ships for one large scale contingency. The taxpayers would have a fit if we bought enough to fill all tubes, than 10 yrs later have to buy a complete new fill, Or have them all refurbished due to shelf life expiring on LLCs."
True, but....if we get into a major war, the USNs calculated risk of a limited SM-2 stockpile may very well bite us in the asss.
"And all those ships will be gone by next year. I think Gates is the only one left."
I can't say, i havn't looked into the status of the Mk26 ships in the last year. It wouldn't surprise me though.
That means that all the remaining Mk26 Standard missiles will be left without a home though.
"(GG)
I knew that they were going away wasn’t sure it was done to all yet. No wonder the big push for TRAM."
I can relate to not knowing(see above, lol). The USN is in a seemingly constant state of flux nowadays, and capabilities are seemingly added and withdrawn at a bewildering pace.
The VLS cranes were removed a few years ago though, i'm definitely sure about that.
"(G G)
Well you now know that the B-52 carry Harpoon. All were upgraded for them when they upgraded for Have Nap.
S-3 are not tankers they are the anti surface s*******. That’s why the squadrons were renamed “Sea Control Squadron”. Still keep the “VS” though
18s carry more juice in the tanker role than the KA-6s ever did. And they do it armed. No need for escorts. Gotta love that Super Hornet"
The KA-6D didn't carry as much fuel, but it had much better range and loiter time(compared to the -18E/F) with it's own on-board supplies, so it could operate farther from the carrier and still perform in the refueling role. The S-3s are very similar in that respect. When are the S-3s being withdrawn? I reckon it's gotta be coming up pretty soon.
"Yes, but that’s not always the threat. Small boats and patrol craft can be handled by the Lamps or S-3s until they retire."
Quite true. In fact, since they've yanked the small craft capable Phalanx 1B and RAM B1 from the new DDG51s, the helos will have a lot more pressure on them to protect the Burkes from C-4 filled zodiacs such as the one that blasted the Cole.
"You say it isn’t. The Navy and MC say it is"
So they're lying to get themselves a shiny new strategic weapon by selling it as a NSFS solution. Smart, but not exactly honest either.
"SM-4 was faster but only had 1 warhead option and 1 target option."
There were several planned versions of SM-4 including a DPICM and a MMW guided submunition warhead as well. It was cancelled before it was developed. Regardless, the SM-4 was simply too expensive.
"Tac Tom has 3 warhead options (ICM, Blast,Penetrator) and
Can be preprogrammed with 15 targets and diverted in flight to others if necessary."
Yep, sure can. Very capable missile, but also a very SLOW missile. At a cruising speed of 500kts, it is clearly inferior to most CAS assets wrt reaction time(ERGM is in the same boat, it also has a 500kt transit speed), and it cannot drop on a visual reference or interact with the on the scene ground commander to coordinate it's attacks like CAS can. It will be a tremendously effective weapon, but not for direct support fires. That's just not what it does well.
"As a former Fire Support planner, I would rather have Tac Tom. Can submit my fire support worksheet to the NGLO. Ships can have the data already programmed and on call. Can even change tgts midstream."
Yep, and with a 50 mile ship to shore standoff range for the launch ship(such as the USMC and Navy cling to), and a 500kt flight speed, plus radio and targetting delays, it might actually make it to the requested target 40 minutes later. By that time, who knows if the firefight will even still be ongoing, or how far the enemy target will have moved- or closed on friendly forces. TACTOM has WAY too much warhead for close support missions, especially with it's unitary warhead option.
Yay for us....that's just what we grunts need.
If your support fire is going to take that long to get on target, you DEFINITELY need a means for the ground commander to interact directly with the shoot-er to update the support asset wrt enemy positions, friendly positions, ingress route, drop pattern, etc. Trying to do all that from shore to ship to missile back to shore seems to me to be a very cumbersome process, and far less than ideal.
TACTOM is a tremendous strategic asset(and a very expensive one, with limited fleet availability), it's just not going to be wasted in a direct fire support role, nor should it be IMO. It's also the USN's only viable surface launched OTH antiship missile, which will place it in even greater demand in a major conflict against China.
"This is turning to a naval fire support vice 14 vs 18 thread. Lets take it over there"
Done. ;)
I was under the impression that CIWS had been deleted, but that the Mk31 Ram guided missile system was taking it's place. The USN was also working on a direct "SEARAM" mount that directly mounted where the Phalanx is, and uses the same electronics/radar but replaces the 20mm vulcan with a 11rd RAM magazine.
Mk31:
SEARAM:
You're definitely right about the lack of Phalanx on the DDG85 though, as this photograph clearly shows...it aint there.
However, it is still completely true that the RAM is the intended direct replacement for Phalanx, and ESSM is the intended direct replacement for the NSSMS.
ESSM by all acounts is an extremely capable weapons system, but it has no short-range small craft engagement capability such as was implemented with the RAM Block1 missile and the Phalanx Mk15 Block 1B CIWS.
Good to see the navy NOT learning from the Cole disaster... :(
"The "Your joking" comment was about non Aegis being capable AA defence ships. Maybe in the 80s but not anymore."
The NTU ships(such as the Kidds) are still very capable warships, even today. Not to the level of the latest Baseline 7B Aegis ships, but still very good. As Rick has pointed out, for many years AEGIS was second fiddle in the AAW role, with the NTUs providing the primary fleet air defense capability. Once upon a time AEGIS was an acronym for "Aint Ever Gonna Intercept Shiit'...lol ;)
"(G G)
The tubes may be watertight but salt air and banging around < movement of the ship>
Causes damage to the electrical systems and the solid fuel rockets have a shelf life."
So far as i know the tubes are sealed...ie airtight(and watertight), but i could be wrong. Rocket fuel definitely does have a shelf life though, no doubt about that.
"We could fill enough ships for one large scale contingency. The taxpayers would have a fit if we bought enough to fill all tubes, than 10 yrs later have to buy a complete new fill, Or have them all refurbished due to shelf life expiring on LLCs."
True, but....if we get into a major war, the USNs calculated risk of a limited SM-2 stockpile may very well bite us in the asss.
"And all those ships will be gone by next year. I think Gates is the only one left."
I can't say, i havn't looked into the status of the Mk26 ships in the last year. It wouldn't surprise me though.
That means that all the remaining Mk26 Standard missiles will be left without a home though.
"(GG)
I knew that they were going away wasn’t sure it was done to all yet. No wonder the big push for TRAM."
I can relate to not knowing(see above, lol). The USN is in a seemingly constant state of flux nowadays, and capabilities are seemingly added and withdrawn at a bewildering pace.
The VLS cranes were removed a few years ago though, i'm definitely sure about that.
"(G G)
Well you now know that the B-52 carry Harpoon. All were upgraded for them when they upgraded for Have Nap.
S-3 are not tankers they are the anti surface s*******. That’s why the squadrons were renamed “Sea Control Squadron”. Still keep the “VS” though
18s carry more juice in the tanker role than the KA-6s ever did. And they do it armed. No need for escorts. Gotta love that Super Hornet"
The KA-6D didn't carry as much fuel, but it had much better range and loiter time(compared to the -18E/F) with it's own on-board supplies, so it could operate farther from the carrier and still perform in the refueling role. The S-3s are very similar in that respect. When are the S-3s being withdrawn? I reckon it's gotta be coming up pretty soon.
"Yes, but that’s not always the threat. Small boats and patrol craft can be handled by the Lamps or S-3s until they retire."
Quite true. In fact, since they've yanked the small craft capable Phalanx 1B and RAM B1 from the new DDG51s, the helos will have a lot more pressure on them to protect the Burkes from C-4 filled zodiacs such as the one that blasted the Cole.
"You say it isn’t. The Navy and MC say it is"
So they're lying to get themselves a shiny new strategic weapon by selling it as a NSFS solution. Smart, but not exactly honest either.
"SM-4 was faster but only had 1 warhead option and 1 target option."
There were several planned versions of SM-4 including a DPICM and a MMW guided submunition warhead as well. It was cancelled before it was developed. Regardless, the SM-4 was simply too expensive.
"Tac Tom has 3 warhead options (ICM, Blast,Penetrator) and
Can be preprogrammed with 15 targets and diverted in flight to others if necessary."
Yep, sure can. Very capable missile, but also a very SLOW missile. At a cruising speed of 500kts, it is clearly inferior to most CAS assets wrt reaction time(ERGM is in the same boat, it also has a 500kt transit speed), and it cannot drop on a visual reference or interact with the on the scene ground commander to coordinate it's attacks like CAS can. It will be a tremendously effective weapon, but not for direct support fires. That's just not what it does well.
"As a former Fire Support planner, I would rather have Tac Tom. Can submit my fire support worksheet to the NGLO. Ships can have the data already programmed and on call. Can even change tgts midstream."
Yep, and with a 50 mile ship to shore standoff range for the launch ship(such as the USMC and Navy cling to), and a 500kt flight speed, plus radio and targetting delays, it might actually make it to the requested target 40 minutes later. By that time, who knows if the firefight will even still be ongoing, or how far the enemy target will have moved- or closed on friendly forces. TACTOM has WAY too much warhead for close support missions, especially with it's unitary warhead option.
Yay for us....that's just what we grunts need.
If your support fire is going to take that long to get on target, you DEFINITELY need a means for the ground commander to interact directly with the shoot-er to update the support asset wrt enemy positions, friendly positions, ingress route, drop pattern, etc. Trying to do all that from shore to ship to missile back to shore seems to me to be a very cumbersome process, and far less than ideal.
TACTOM is a tremendous strategic asset(and a very expensive one, with limited fleet availability), it's just not going to be wasted in a direct fire support role, nor should it be IMO. It's also the USN's only viable surface launched OTH antiship missile, which will place it in even greater demand in a major conflict against China.
"This is turning to a naval fire support vice 14 vs 18 thread. Lets take it over there"
Done. ;)