Whoa Navy!

[ladajo]

Ladajo,

No, the needed capabilities are very specific. The mount needs to perform shore fires, anti-surface, and anti-air. The most effective use is anti-surface, the next is debatable. Certainly it is useful against slower larger air targets, but against manuevering anti-ship sea skimming missiles, it is not.

Would you like to say that it is possible to develop the artillery mount effective against approaching antiship missiles?

I think it is possible and certainly has been done as so far as point defense weapons (CIWS and Goalkeeper). However, you also have a point that with point defense, if you hit the target, either directly or fragmentation, that there is a high chance it or its remanents will hit you, as it is close and fast. It may not explode, but some damage is likely. I think that further development of larger bore guns systems like the Mk75 firing a changing mix of rounds as the incoming target closes could be effective. The Mk75 was designed for anti-missile work, and was actually fairly effective against older missiles (larger, straight line or ballistic). However, improvements cost money... Other than Vertical Launch, missile batteries tned to be slow to cycle against high mach low observables. RAM is an exception, but is round limited in a Saturation attack environment. Personally I think Vertically Launched ESSM is the soup d'jour for missile based ship defence against sea skimmers. RAM is also good.

For example I have read that when approaching sea skimmers are damaged only by fragments (as you are proposing) in the most cases that does not change its directions but missile continuous to fly like throughn parallelly to water flat-shaped stone hitting with high probability the defended vessel.

Yes, see above comment.

And only direct hit (not fragments) would be effective.

Not neccessarily. The closer it is when you hit it, the more likely you'll get fragged. But if you introduce guidance failure or aerodynamic instability further out, it is likely to burn into the water. Water is a brick wall at those speeds and will tear it appart. In WWII, many a torpedo plane was actually taken down by flying into water splash/spray introduced by shell hits in front of it vice actual direct hits or fragmentation. This tactic was used on purpose by the defenders.

The similar problem has also an Anti-ballistic Missile Defense. And new THAAD missile has not fragmentation warhead at all. But so called “kill vehicle” without any explosive).

This is a differnet kill regime where a garaunteed hard kill is required due to incoming weapon risk factor. The only garauntee is for skin to skin.

And so, as Rolling Aeroframe Missile (RAM) has high direct hit probability, its usage would be the most effective.
Vertically launched Standard missile can not be used as sea skimmers appearing only at a direct vision distances (about 5 nautical miles = ~9km).

In my opinion, it is Extremely (if not impossible), that a sea skimmer will get within 5nm of a Vertical Launch platform without detection. It is extremely unlikely it will make it past radar horizon without detection. Especially in a CEC environment. ESSM has a much lower pitchover point, and operates effectively as a direct fire weapon, as compared to a pop and drop Standard Missile. Newer generation Standard Missiles are even markedly faster than older gens, and this means reaching intercept point faster and further out. I will not discuss numbers on this.

RAM is a very good system as it is a flat line trajectory, inherently fast, and fire and forget. I think it can have issues if you have multiple inbounds in the same bearing arc. The lead weapons (or decoys) soak up the RAM rounds, and the following are free and clear to penetrate. Classic Soviet style Stream Raid saturation tactics. But it takes a number of inbounds and obviously launch sources. Gone are the days of the massed Bear Bomber Saturation attacks...This is all classic ship defense discussion points found in many books and forums.

And also I heard that on most US vessels 20mm CIWS mounts (Phalanx) has been changed on SeaRAM mounts.
Am I right?

No. The are two issues, one is yes, SeaRAM is a good system. However, it is round limited. If you fire two RAM's per target, you get about 5-6 engagments, then have to go into a reload cycle that is slow. The other is that you give up surface engagement capability by removing the CIWS Block 1B. RAM can hit larger surface targtes, but is not so good against smaller ones unlike the 1B. CIWS in an up to date mount is about 1500 rounds. That means if you run 300 or so rounds per engagement, you are at about 5 engagements, comparable to RAM. But, CIWS can also use up more rounds per engagement, as it will shoot until kill assessed. However, if you winchester the mount, a well trained reload team can have it back up and running with a full load in easily less than 15 minutes. I am not sure that current configurations of RAM will support this time.

My personal Mod favorite is CIWS with a Laser module. This is being tested now, and has great possibilities (especially if FEL makes it out afloat). The CIWS aquisition and tracking system is simply the best thing out there. What you choose for its kenetic side is independant.

What do you think is the most effective Soviet or Chinese variant for a ship killer? What do you think is the best US counter for it?

[Joseph Chikva]

Thank you, all you have written was very informative and interesting.

What do you think is the most effective Soviet or Chinese variant for a ship killer? What do you think is the best US counter for it?

As I speak Russian in perfect (unlike English ) and as I am a little interested, I have read some about Soviet doctrine. Certainly, only in open sources.
As I know Soviets was focused on supersonic anti-ship missiles. I heard about meaning that in case of supersonic velocity the probability of break of warship's missile defense system is much higher.
Now only can recall the Russian and Indian joint development of BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missile on base of old Soviet technology.

Also missiles with which their missile cruisers e.g. "Peter the Great" are equipped. They also are heavy and powerful. And as claimed can be equipped with nuke warhead. As I know they was for destroying of US aircraft carriers' orders.
As claimed with nuke warhead there is not necessity to hit aircraft carrier directly but enough if device would explode in the middle of order.

And certainly the saturating attack doctrine. They call a set of missiles going to the single high value target as “wolf flight”.
Now I do not remember the nickname.

They have a number of smaller missiles launching from missile boats and missile corvettes as well.

And certainly, air launched anti-ship launching unlike US from not fighters (e.g. F-18 Hornet) but mainly from strategic bombers TU-160 and as I remember TU-85 or 95.

[ladajo]

As I speak Russian in perfect (unlike English ) and as I am a little interested, I have read some about Soviet doctrine. Certainly, only in open sources.
As I know Soviets was focused on supersonic anti-ship missiles. I heard about meaning that in case of supersonic velocity the probability of break of warship's missile defense system is much higher.
Now only can recall the Russian and Indian joint development of BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missile on base of old Soviet technology.

Yes the BrahMos is interesting. At Mach 3 it gives a defending unit about 20 seconds to detect, classify, identify, schedule a weapon, launch and intercept before impact. For arguments sake, say the intercept occurs at 1nm from the ship (which would hopefully minimize frag). The BrahMos is a high G weaver as well. This is an interesting feature that is designed to complicate automatic targeting systems, but, it also slows down the weapons speed of advance on its attack axis. And, as the weapon nears the target it reduces the weave, so in effect, it creates a "cone of approach" vice a line of approach. Interesting, but IMO not un-beatable.
Plus, as I understand, the BrahMos is not yet really deployable by the Russians on their ships. It is too big.

The simple rule of thumb is that a Mach 1 Weapon is 10 nm in 1 minute, Mach 2 is 10nm in 30 seconds, Mach 3 is 10nm in 20 seconds, Mach 6 is 10nm in 10 seconds. So as you can see keeping a man in the loop is near impossible at these kind of times. Especially in a "wolf flight" scenario with multiple tracks.

Also missiles with which their missile cruisers e.g. "Peter the Great" are equipped. They also are heavy and powerful. And as claimed can be equipped with nuke warhead. As I know they was for destroying of US aircraft carriers' orders.
As claimed with nuke warhead there is not necessity to hit aircraft carrier directly but enough if device would explode in the middle of order.

Surprsingly, ships are very survivable when faced with a nuclear attack. The US did a lot of research on this topic, both from an attacking and defending standpoint, and conducted live tests to this end. You actually have to get fairly close to mission kill the ship. And you probably won't sink it, unless you are even closer.

And certainly the saturating attack doctrine. They call a set of missiles going to the single high value target as “wolf flight”.
Now I do not remember the nickname.

The US calls it a stream raid. I like "Wolf Flight" better.

They have a number of smaller missiles launching from missile boats and missile corvettes as well.

And certainly, air launched anti-ship launching unlike US from not fighters (e.g. F-18 Hornet) but mainly from strategic bombers TU-160 and as I remember TU-85 or 95.

These tactics are all about getting as much in the air at the same time as possible. Very classic Soviet doctrine, the "Human Wave" modified for robots.

So back to your expertise area, what do you think of Chobham Armour and Composition K variants?

[Joseph Chikva]

So back to your expertise area, what do you think of Chobham Armour and Composition K variants?

I do not know what Composition K is. Know what is Composition B. But that is high explosive.

About Chobham I know also from the web. As I know that is multilayer armor with ceramic and plastics insertion layers.

I am sure that heavy armor has not a future at all.
If we consider the recent Israel campaign in Lebanon, 14 extremely heavily armored Merkava 4 was lost.
Mainly as result of Russian Kornet anti-tank missiles.
Yes, Merkava 4 vs. Kornet showed only 30% of penetration probability.
But if we recall that Merkava is the heaviest tank in the world, even Merkava is not enough defended. Israelis in Lebanon fought against irregular forces in asymmetric scenario. In case if instead of Hezbollah the regular army would be (e.g. Syrian) the losses would be heavier. As regular army except of anti-tank missiles has many other anti-tank capabilities.
Also here we should recall modern top-attack anti-tank missiles (US Javelin, Israeli Spike, Swedish Bill2 and N-LAW, Japanese 01 LMAT. All those are much more capable than very powerful but dumb Kornet.
I think that tank battle (1000 tanks from one side vs. 1000 tanks from another) like Prokhorovka in WW2 will not repeat.

But also think that advanced light armored vehicles for transportation of infantry are needed. Like German-Dutch Boxer, Finnish Patria for minimizing losses of infantry during transportation to battle site.
Than dismounted infantry supported with very accurate indirect fire will play.
So, I like US Stryker Brigade doctrine.

[palladin9479]

So back to your expertise area, what do you think of Chobham Armour and Composition K variants?

I do not know what Composition K is. Know what is Composition B. But that is high explosive.

About Chobham I know also from the web. As I know that is multilayer armor with ceramic and plastics insertion layers.

I am sure that heavy armor has not a future at all.
If we consider the recent Israel campaign in Lebanon, 14 extremely heavily armored Merkava 4 was lost.
Mainly as result of Russian Kornet anti-tank missiles.
Yes, Merkava 4 vs. Kornet showed only 30% of penetration probability.
But if we recall that Merkava is the heaviest tank in the world, even Merkava is not enough defended. Israelis in Lebanon fought against irregular forces in asymmetric scenario. In case if instead of Hezbollah the regular army would be (e.g. Syrian) the losses would be heavier. As regular army except of anti-tank missiles has many other anti-tank capabilities.
Also here we should recall modern top-attack anti-tank missiles (US Javelin, Israeli Spike, Swedish Bill2 and N-LAW, Japanese 01 LMAT. All those are much more capable than very powerful but dumb Kornet.
I think that tank battle (1000 tanks from one side vs. 1000 tanks from another) like Prokhorovka in WW2 will not repeat.

But also think that advanced light armored vehicles for transportation of infantry are needed. Like German-Dutch Boxer, Finnish Patria for minimizing losses of infantry during transportation to battle site.
Than dismounted infantry supported with very accurate indirect fire will play.
So, I like US Stryker Brigade doctrine.

As nice as the Merkava is, it is not the best armored tank in production. It's using layered modular ceramic armor armor with steel nickle allow. Vs something like the US M1A1 Abrams with SEP upgrade which is using depleted uranium layered armor. The exact specifics are classified and the technology involved is controlled and non-exportable.

[Joseph Chikva]

As nice as the Merkava is, it is not the best armored tank in production. It's using layered modular ceramic armor armor with steel nickle allow. Vs something like the US M1A1 Abrams with SEP upgrade which is using depleted uranium layered armor. The exact specifics are classified and the technology involved is controlled and non-exportable.

I heard about Internet polls "best main battle tank", "the best assault rifle", etc.
Let's say that such questions put by amateurs and answered also amateurs.
I am not sure that M1A1 SEP is better defended than Merkava 4.
Sure that Merkava 4 has at least better anti shaped charge protection.
That follows from Israelian doctrine. Have you ever seen Abrams standing at a crossroads in hostile settlement? I did not.
Boron Carbide and all the more Boron Nitride ceramic gives very good protection against both kinetic and shaped charge's jet penetration and at the same time has very low density.
I have not data on Uranium but it is well known about its high density - almost ten time higher than ceramic.
“Non marketable” technology not always means “the best”.
Israelis are most demanded in better protection.
But certainly what is good for them not obligatory would be good for all others. That is highly dependent on usage doctrine.

[palladin9479]

I'd suggest you research the M1A2 SEP (most current model). It use's a DU mesh layered armor on the front and sides along with the typical high density ceramic of other tanks.

The main cannon is a 120mm riffle capable of firing HEAT, SABOT and the newer shotgun rounds. The SABOT's utilize a DU penetrator that basically tears every other armor on the planet apart. During Desert Storm and later the Iraq Invasion the US Army had to use HEAT rounds on the Iraq tanks because SABOT's would just tear straight through the enemy tank, was serious overkill.

The point to the above paragraph is that a M1A2 can take one of those 120mm DU SABOT's at close range to the front or front sides and the round will be unable to penetrate the M1A2's armor. It proved to be a big problem as a disabled tank can not be left for the enemy to acquire. Thus another tank is needed to destroy the disabled one, being so heavily armored it often takes the second tank multiple shots at near point blank range (on a disabled non-moving tank) to finish the job.

Of all the Armor on the world, none compare to the M1A2. Then again this comes at a hefty cost. The M1A2's jet turbine engine drinks 10 gallons of JP8 just being turned on and gets less then 1mpg during operation. This engine is required as the tank weights 68 tons without ammo or fuel. It's a big logistical nightmare to keep these things fueled.

[Joseph Chikva]

Thanks but I have not any possibility to research the M1A2 SEP.
Also I doudbt that you too.
You have mistaken twice:
• First saying "typical high density ceramic of other tanks" - 2.5 g/cm3 for Boron Carbide is higher or 19.1 g/cm3 for Uranium? What prize in weight gives uranium in comparison with RHA? Have you data? I have not.
• Second saying "120mm riffle" - not riffle but smooth bore gun as I know. The same that Merkava has. Yes, as claimed APFSDUDS rounds allow higher penetration than tungsten penetrators. But 120mm tank gun are common for all NATO forces (may be except UK), designed by Rheinmetall and quite can be fired from any of them.

[kunkmiester]

For the gun, something I've read on another forum in which tactics and strategy are discussed more is target identification.

For a while at least, there was a doctrine in a lot of nations that you had to visually verify the target before engaging, and line of sight is limited to about 20 miles. This is well within the range of a decent sized modern gun, so you might as well save a missile. Of course modern ships, while not nearly as heavy as older ships like the venerable battleship, probably do need more than a 5" gun to kill them.

I'd bet an 8" gun cruiser with decent armor could tear most modern navies apart, weapon penetration wise.

[Joseph Chikva]

I'd bet an 8" gun cruiser with decent armor could tear most modern navies apart, weapon penetration wise.

Aircraft carriers have closed the linear battleships era when showed their (battleships) uselessness.

First of all when you are proposing to use ship armoring you should achieve agreement with you potential enemy not to use air and ship launched antiship missiles.
Against which threat are going to use armor? Armoring against antiship missiles is impossible.
Look how easy Maverick missile the warhead of which is very similar to antiship missile's warhead can kill any existing tank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w81mYvho ... re=related and http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/pr ... 055755.pdf
Then compare tank armoring surface and required surface of modern warship. For this I would provide you some data: length of tank is about 7 m vs. 100-200 m of warship, width - 3 m vs. 20 m, etc.

According which criteria are you betting on 8" gun? Why not 16"?
For note: land based 8” (203mm) gun fires about 100 kg rounds, so 16” should fire not less than 800 kg.

[kunkmiester]

You're right with the combined arms point, but as I conditioned, a 5" gun ship will lose to an 8" gun ship, all else being equal.

8" is a decent step up from the current crop of 3-5" guns, and with modern armor, is reasonable. We built up to 16" from less, and it'd simply happen again, as navies realize that the new 8" guns put their now underarmored ships at a disadvantage, and design new ships with more armor. The gun caliber would move to match, etc.

8" also comes from the conversations here, where a balance between power and capacity are needed. A lot easier to put an 8" gun on a current ship design than a 16" gun, and 8" is good enough for the main use of the gun, but still effective on the other uses, save for AA use.

[Joseph Chikva]

I think that Navies as such are rather conservative. And once choosing the caliber keep those at least on decades: 20-30-35-40mm for CIWS, 57-76-100-127mm multipurpose with limited AA - all those are traditional calibers using for decades.
Ship-ship artillery battle can occur only in littoral waters and only big vessel or order of few vessels against small not powerful vessels or boats. As I can not imagine who will economize missile at long range knowing that hostile fleet approaches. I am sure that in this scenario the game will over till warships approach each other close enough for artillery duel.
Will you economize 2 million USD costing missile when there is a big probability to loss multibillion warship?

[ladajo]

Line of sight at sea is not 20nm. It is about half. Radar horizon is based on mostly height of antenna. There are some other factors, such as freq and atmospherics, but essentially it is hieght of the antenna. On an average warship, you can figure about 50 feet for bridge eye height. That puts visual horizon around 8.5nm. If you add in the height of the other ship, you can see "something" at out to about 11.5 to 12 nm. This is also affected by atmospherics, and optics in use (be they naked eye or enhanced high grade manual or electronic devices. Some ships are now mounting higher position imaging devices, that on a good day(better at night) can go out 15nm.

The only way that ships would be able to effect ship to ship long range gunnery (ie beyond Liine of sight) would be if they adopted some sor tof over the horizon sensor system or extension. CEC could do this, but the 5inch gun ranges do not support it. If ERGM ever (not likely) made it out ot hte fleet, then this could become a possibility.

Newer designs with 8inch or better guns could take advantage of CEC or something like it to do gunnery battles at longer ranges. Especially if the projectiles carried some sort of seeker and manuevering capability. And it would be MUCH cheaper than missiles, with a MUCH greater magazine depth.

As far as ships fighting gunnery only in the littoral, yes this is mostly true, but also dependant on what you define as the littoral. Consider the possiblity of going after a High Value Asset in a well offshore well travelled shipping lane. The best option could be to sneak up and rip him apart with guns. Garaunteed kill, with a garaunteed target.

[Skipjack]

Well I would think that naval warefare is probably decided by air superiority. If your carrier group has the air superiority and planes in the air, then those planes increase your (radar) line of sight dramatically.
In addition to that, you can use attack submarines to sneak up on an enemy.
Submarines also are somewhat vulnerable to attacks from the air. So I guess the lesson to take away from this once again is that air superiority trumps everything. This is probably more true for the sea than for land even, since you do not need any occupation of conquered territorries on sea.
I think the point that heavy armor is not needed is not completely right. Yes, the naval cruise missiles and other rockets do make armor less effective, but it can still make the difference between a heavily damaged and a sinking ship and it can give the crew a greater chance of survival (prevent shrapnell and injuries as well as damage from secondary explosions. Even if it means that the ship will stay aloft x amount of time longer, you have already increased the chances for survival for the crew by that.

In regards to tanks, I have heard that the German Leopard peformed quite admirably in the gulf war, even compared to the M1A1.
It too recently got an armor upgrade. Not sure how that compares to the Merkava or the updated M1, though. As has been pointed out though most tank rockets nowadays hit the target from above where the armor is the weakest, instead of from the front where it is the heaviest.

[Joseph Chikva]

I think the point that heavy armor is not needed is not completely right. Yes, the naval cruise missiles and other rockets do make armor less effective, but it can still make the difference between a heavily damaged and a sinking ship and it can give the crew a greater chance of survival (prevent shrapnell and injuries as well as damage from secondary explosions. Even if it means that the ship will stay aloft x amount of time longer, you have already increased the chances for survival for the crew by that.

Not heavy armor but optimal design of anti-fragment screens, anti-spall liners, etc. Or I do not understand what you mean saying "heavy armor". Under this term I mean the armor equivalent of which is about 800-1000-1200mm or may be even more of Rolled Homogenous Armor like to head armor of Main Battle Tanks. That would be absolutely useless. And also impossible due to weight issue.

As has been pointed out though most tank rockets nowadays hit the target from above where the armor is the weakest, instead of from the front where it is the heaviest.

That is not truth. Only mentioned above Javelin, Spike, Bill2, N-LAW and Type 01 LMAT.
And in operation only by a very few nations.
But equipment of other nations with those missiles or similar is only the time issue. And I am sure that Main Battle Tanks will become useless when that time will occur. Taking into account other modern anti-tank assets e.g. sensor fused weapon now also used by US Army.