Most needed in US NAVY - Page 8

Anon · 11-17-2004, 20:24 PM

You hit the nail on the head rick.

The Slava is a capital 'prestige ship'.

It's about as useful as that rusting POS carrier they bought a few years back, lol.

rickusn · 11-17-2004, 20:45 PM

You are correct.

The Russian strong point is submarines but they really dont have the money to do much but they are trying. The udaloys have become their most useful and reliable ships. This wasnt the case prior to having an indigenous marine GT manufacturing capability. Contrary to popular belief they no longer get their marine GTs from Ukraine but have built themselves a marine GT manufacturing facility. They also need to make those ships more multi-mission but the funding isnt there. They are excellent platforms. But like the Spruances(although to a lesser degree) lack adequate AAW systems. AsuW mods would be relatively simple. Excellent helo facilities. ASW of course quite good.

They operate in pairs. Four in both the Northern and Pacific Fleets. There is another in the northern Fleet but apparently it is going out of service. Probably for lack of funds for a.refit. Plus the Udaloy II in the Northern Fleet.

Franco Lolan · 11-17-2004, 21:43 PM

you mention TU22's, why not TU160's?

-{SpoonmaN}- · 11-17-2004, 23:28 PM

Because there's only like 20 Tu-160s in service, and while I'm sure China (Or anyone) would be happy to have them since they have a massive range etc., they are a little too much for the PLAAF to handle. At least that's what I figure. Anybody got any other ideas?

Franco Lolan · 11-18-2004, 00:56 AM

only "20 in service" wow, never knew that.

"too much to handle"?

-{SpoonmaN}- · 11-18-2004, 01:42 AM

Well as far as I know about 30 something have been built, and judging by the fact that the B-1 is really expensive, then the fact that the Tu-160 is larger and has greater range etc., would probably mean that it must at least cost a similar amount. And since China dosen't really have the money to spend lots and lots of money on their bombers, I doubt they'd opt for something like the Blackjack.

Franco Lolan · 11-18-2004, 02:11 AM

good point

CoyoteNature · 11-22-2004, 18:03 PM

I picked Amphbious assault mainly because it was the most practical at least from a standpoint of what future conflicts the US Navy and military is likely to face.

After that I would have picked Aircraft carriers for continuous air support.

After that would be probably nuclear submarines of a type, for missile support and special forces insertions.

The rest well are very nice probably very sexy and good against monolithic superpowers such as the old Soviet Union, but very little use against the foes we have now and are likely to have in the future. This is of course not talking about the possibility of China having possible superpower status in the future, which is supposed to be 10 years at minimum.

I mean we simply don't need most of these categories, I have a feeling they still exist simply because of it being cool and of nostalgia.

D-Wray · 11-22-2004, 18:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Perhaps we could use battleships if they were designed to carry cruise missiles. Are those battleships with the big guns really that useful anymore?

Before their last decommissioning all four Iowa Class Battleships had been equiped to fire both the Tomahawk Cruise missile and the Harpoon anti ship missile.

Franco Lolan · 11-22-2004, 19:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

This is of course not talking about the possibility of China having possible superpower status in the future, which is supposed to be 10 years at minimum.

I mean we simply don't need most of these categories, I have a feeling they still exist simply because of it being cool and of nostalgia.

In my opinion, its irresponsible not taking into account all possible threats, including your "nostaligic" PRC.

do you agree?

D-Wray · 11-22-2004, 19:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

stating that modern missiles and torpedos can not hurt Iowa... is indeed a brave statement.... I thought that US do remember Pearl Harbour - when it became clear to everybody that days of large steel coffins like Iowa are over..... Today when modern systems are threating any big object floating on water (doesn't matter Russian heavy rocket ship or American carrier) it has no chance at all. Aegis itself makes a good taget for few P270 Moskit.

Hope Iowa never meets this:
___________________________
The SS-N-19 Shipwreck, or "P-700 Granit", was in turn built as a follow-on to the P-500. Work was begun in 1969, but development was also protracted, with test flights in 1975 and introduction to service in 1982.

P-700 GRANIT / SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK:
_____________________ _________________
spec metric english
_____________________ _________________
wingspan 2.6 meters 8 feet 6 inches
length 10 meters 32 feet 10 inches
total weight 3,250 kilograms 7,165 pounds
speed Mach 1.6
range 445 kilometers 275 MI / 240 NMI
____________________ _________________

Source: http://www.vectorsite.net/twcruz5.html

While Aegis will be handled with P270 Moskit:
____________________________________________
..................A high supersonic speed was specified to reduce the target’s time to deploy self-defense weapons, indeed the weapon was designed specifically to strike ships with the Aegis command and weapon control system and the SM-2 surface-to-air missile...........
...................

The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.

The air-launched version, officially called ASM-MMS and apparently also Kh-4, is intended specially for Su-27K (Su-33) carrier-based fighter aircraft. It was for the first time shown to the CIS leaders in February 1992 in Machulishche and then to the public in August 1992 at the Moscow Air Show in Zhukovskiy. The missile is propelled by a dual (rocket-jet) engine operating by the same principle as the Kh-31 engine. The missile, suspended under the aircraft, has a folding wing. The missile is guided by an autopilot during the initial fight stage, with possible correction by the aircraft pilot, and by active radar during the final flight stage.
_______________________________________
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...sia/moskit.htm

I think you missed the lesson of Pearl Harbor; we took a beating there because we were caught by surprise, remember no U.S. Battleship was sunk after that. Your missile data is nice but where is the armor penetration data on them? By the way when citing the sinking of the Bismarck or Yamato why don't you cout the number of shells, torpedoes, and bombs it took to sink them? The data is out there and the numbers are in the thousands.

-{SpoonmaN}- · 11-23-2004, 02:10 AM

True, it was hit by something like 16 torpedoes.

CoyoteNature · 11-23-2004, 13:57 PM

Depends is it even possible to take into account all possible threats, do we have enough resources to do so, or should we use those resources for what we most need. And lastly are the current resources more than enough for any possible threat. Would a Navy that already has the capability to fight a Cold War Soviet Union be able to handle a up and coming China, especially considering the fact that China won't even be as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was.

And bear in mind the topic was what you or I felt was the most important for the Navy now, I listed my three choices, but did not say that we should elliminate other ship alternatives already existing.

Besides if China is considered from a viewpoint of conflict, given its large population, and large army, with a possible resurgent technological base perhaps derived from Russia, its likely that any direct ground combat would have to be fought long range, as the facts are there simply aren't enough troops to fight them.

Which means nukes, various missiles, special insertion teams, and continuous air bombardment, with guerrilla style attacks by ground combat forces.

Anon · 11-23-2004, 21:32 PM

In the entire history of the USN, no US Battleship under power at sea has ever been lost to enemy fire.

All the missiles designed for antishipping today are designed to kill thin skinned Cruisers and Frigates.

An Iowa battlship has dual spaced hull armor that is roughly equivelant to about 3000mm RHA.

The superstructure is made of 18" thick class B armor.

Franco Lolan · 11-23-2004, 21:36 PM

[quote=M21Sniper]
All the missiles designed for antishipping today are designed to kill thin skinned Cruisers and Frigates.
/QUOTE]

Granit and Sunburns are dedicated carrier killers.

Also, it is important to take into account the fact that an Carrier is hard to defend against a mission kill: Destroyed elevators, catapults, or a hole in the deck result in no flight ops.

View Poll Results: What does the US NAVY need most?
Iowa Class Battleships	39	24.68%
Virginia Class Nuclear Attack Submarines	34	21.52%
Amphibious Assault Ships	16	10.13%
Aerligh Burk Class Destroyers	10	6.33%
Nimitz Class Carriers	30	18.99%
Littoral Combat Ships	29	18.35%
Voters: 158. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
World Navies in Review	rickusn	Naval Forces	7	06-14-2007 23:51 PM
UK Drawdown?	rickusn	Naval Forces	19	05-03-2007 11:22 AM
BMD Article	rickusn	Naval Forces	6	02-05-2007 23:04 PM
Royal Navy ASW, MW,careers, etc	rickusn	Naval Forces	8	12-04-2006 15:12 PM
PLAN Analysis	rickusn	Naval Forces	9	06-12-2006 15:05 PM

11-17-2004, 20:24 PM	#106 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	You hit the nail on the head rick. The Slava is a capital 'prestige ship'. It's about as useful as that rusting POS carrier they bought a few years back, lol.

11-17-2004, 20:45 PM	#107 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	You are correct. The Russian strong point is submarines but they really dont have the money to do much but they are trying. The udaloys have become their most useful and reliable ships. This wasnt the case prior to having an indigenous marine GT manufacturing capability. Contrary to popular belief they no longer get their marine GTs from Ukraine but have built themselves a marine GT manufacturing facility. They also need to make those ships more multi-mission but the funding isnt there. They are excellent platforms. But like the Spruances(although to a lesser degree) lack adequate AAW systems. AsuW mods would be relatively simple. Excellent helo facilities. ASW of course quite good. They operate in pairs. Four in both the Northern and Pacific Fleets. There is another in the northern Fleet but apparently it is going out of service. Probably for lack of funds for a.refit. Plus the Udaloy II in the Northern Fleet.

11-17-2004, 21:43 PM	#108 (permalink)
Franco Lolan *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-29-04 Posts: 789	you mention TU22's, why not TU160's?

11-17-2004, 23:28 PM	#109 (permalink)
-{SpoonmaN}- Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-08-04 Location: The badlands of West London. Posts: 1,455 Country:	Because there's only like 20 Tu-160s in service, and while I'm sure China (Or anyone) would be happy to have them since they have a massive range etc., they are a little too much for the PLAAF to handle. At least that's what I figure. Anybody got any other ideas?

11-18-2004, 00:56 AM	#110 (permalink)
Franco Lolan *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-29-04 Posts: 789	only "20 in service" wow, never knew that. "too much to handle"?

11-18-2004, 01:42 AM	#111 (permalink)
-{SpoonmaN}- Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-08-04 Location: The badlands of West London. Posts: 1,455 Country:	Well as far as I know about 30 something have been built, and judging by the fact that the B-1 is really expensive, then the fact that the Tu-160 is larger and has greater range etc., would probably mean that it must at least cost a similar amount. And since China dosen't really have the money to spend lots and lots of money on their bombers, I doubt they'd opt for something like the Blackjack.

11-18-2004, 02:11 AM	#112 (permalink)
Franco Lolan *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-29-04 Posts: 789	good point

11-22-2004, 18:03 PM	#113 (permalink)
CoyoteNature Regular Join Date: 11-17-04 Posts: 28	I picked Amphbious assault mainly because it was the most practical at least from a standpoint of what future conflicts the US Navy and military is likely to face. After that I would have picked Aircraft carriers for continuous air support. After that would be probably nuclear submarines of a type, for missile support and special forces insertions. The rest well are very nice probably very sexy and good against monolithic superpowers such as the old Soviet Union, but very little use against the foes we have now and are likely to have in the future. This is of course not talking about the possibility of China having possible superpower status in the future, which is supposed to be 10 years at minimum. I mean we simply don't need most of these categories, I have a feeling they still exist simply because of it being cool and of nostalgia.

11-23-2004, 02:10 AM	#117 (permalink)
-{SpoonmaN}- Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-08-04 Location: The badlands of West London. Posts: 1,455 Country:	True, it was hit by something like 16 torpedoes.

11-23-2004, 13:57 PM	#118 (permalink)
CoyoteNature Regular Join Date: 11-17-04 Posts: 28	Depends is it even possible to take into account all possible threats, do we have enough resources to do so, or should we use those resources for what we most need. And lastly are the current resources more than enough for any possible threat. Would a Navy that already has the capability to fight a Cold War Soviet Union be able to handle a up and coming China, especially considering the fact that China won't even be as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. And bear in mind the topic was what you or I felt was the most important for the Navy now, I listed my three choices, but did not say that we should elliminate other ship alternatives already existing. Besides if China is considered from a viewpoint of conflict, given its large population, and large army, with a possible resurgent technological base perhaps derived from Russia, its likely that any direct ground combat would have to be fought long range, as the facts are there simply aren't enough troops to fight them. Which means nukes, various missiles, special insertion teams, and continuous air bombardment, with guerrilla style attacks by ground combat forces.

11-23-2004, 21:32 PM	#119 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	In the entire history of the USN, no US Battleship under power at sea has ever been lost to enemy fire. All the missiles designed for antishipping today are designed to kill thin skinned Cruisers and Frigates. An Iowa battlship has dual spaced hull armor that is roughly equivelant to about 3000mm RHA. The superstructure is made of 18" thick class B armor.

11-23-2004, 21:36 PM	#120 (permalink)
Franco Lolan *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-29-04 Posts: 789	[quote=M21Sniper] All the missiles designed for antishipping today are designed to kill thin skinned Cruisers and Frigates. /QUOTE] Granit and Sunburns are dedicated carrier killers. Also, it is important to take into account the fact that an Carrier is hard to defend against a mission kill: Destroyed elevators, catapults, or a hole in the deck result in no flight ops.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)