Go Navy!

[choff]

When I play Allied General I regularly put Matilda 2's up against anything Jerry throws it's way. Slow, armed with a pop gun, but mechanically reliable and well armored.

[GIThruster]

DARPA and LockMart giving the sailors some new toys:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... ssile.aspx

[Tom Ligon]

'Bout time. A few years back I mentioned a particular ship-ship missile we had deployed in the fleet, and to my surprise I was told it had been retired, with no replacement. I believe the discussion was on the Harpoon, but my memory is a bit fuzzy. These are still in service, so maybe we were just in between "blocks" at the time. But the basic design is definitely long-in-the-tooth.

Considering how dependent our Navy is on missiles these days, that was a shocker. Modern destroyers and cruisers typically mount a single 5" gun, and do the rest with an assortment of missiles. Without missiles, a WWII Fletcher-class destroyer would outgun a modern destroyer. With missiles, a modern destroyer could have taken out the entire WWII Japanese fleet and they'd have never seen what was hitting them.

[GIThruster]

Testing the new system:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-navy-testin ... rs-1493392

[Diogenes]

Navy to Test Powerful 150-Kilowatt Laser

The Office of Naval Research “will perform a shipboard test of a 150-killowatt laser weapon system in the near future,” said Adm. Bill Moran during a speech at Booz Allen Hamilton’s Directed Energy Summit, which was held in Washington, D.C.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=2233

[kunkmiester]

'Bout time. A few years back I mentioned a particular ship-ship missile we had deployed in the fleet, and to my surprise I was told it had been retired, with no replacement. I believe the discussion was on the Harpoon, but my memory is a bit fuzzy. These are still in service, so maybe we were just in between "blocks" at the time. But the basic design is definitely long-in-the-tooth.

Considering how dependent our Navy is on missiles these days, that was a shocker. Modern destroyers and cruisers typically mount a single 5" gun, and do the rest with an assortment of missiles. Without missiles, a WWII Fletcher-class destroyer would outgun a modern destroyer. With missiles, a modern destroyer could have taken out the entire WWII Japanese fleet and they'd have never seen what was hitting them.

I've been told it doesn't take much to use a Standard as an antiship missile. It's more a ballistic type trajectory but it seems that's not too much of a disadvantage, and it simplifies your load out and logistics.

Only a few ships these days really need a heavy missile like the Harpoon to kill them.

[ladajo]

A modern destroyer mounts a single Mk.45 5/54 (short) or 5/62 (long) mount. The rate of fire (16-20rds/min), range, and targeting exceeds the capabilities of WWII 5 inch mounts, which used less capable hoist systems, and targeting. A modern ship would rape a legacy one. CG's mount two 5/54 inch mounts. WWII ships mounted mk. 12 5/38 mounts (short barrel/less range). It is not a matter of how many guns you have in this argument, it is about ability to hit the target, and being able to do so before he can hit you. That said, if you let the older ship get close, then yes, it would do some damage. You would need to be an idiot to let that happen. A 5/62 with fully kitted Mk.46 Optical Sight System is essentially a 5 inch sniper rifle with 20 rds/min capability.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php

The fleet still fields Harpoon, and it is slated to be replaced by LRASM.

SM's can be used for Anti-ship, and are very effective, this has been the case for years. The newest variant, SM-6 has specific anti-ship capabilities designed in, and has been demonstrated publically (recently), and advances the argument with a seeker not dependent on external illumination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDWGuAaEHy0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnUhdi09miE

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=146_1455225409

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/s ... face-ships

[KitemanSA]

A missile can go where a laser cannot...
over the horizon.

[ladajo]

In the current construct, lasers are really a point defense weapon system. Be it more or less aggressive in range and punch, for the foreseeable future, it remains point defense. Kite's point is valid.
There are some initiatives looking at lasers as an offensive weapon, albeit at limited ranges for current tactical platforms. That said, we may well be looking at more aggressive systems in the near future.

[KitemanSA]

When I was part on the system, lasers were looked at as point defense against missiles and against unsymmetrical attacks like speedboats with heavily armed terrorists or pirates. Offense was not on the table.

[ladajo]

The earliest concept (still running) was aerial offensive. This is being looked at as air to air, and air to ground. Some of the air to ground testing has been released as I recall.

They are making some fantastic progress with fiber bundles. The next few years should be really interesting on that front.

[KitemanSA]

I guess I should have specified "ship born".

[paperburn1]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... -own-ship/
Last July, the U.S. Navy subjected one of its newest ships, the USS Jackson, to so-called shock trials. Designed to test the ship's ability to withstand nearby underwater explosions, these test involve detonating a really big explosive charge right next to the ship.

[ladajo]

I've been out for that, it is humbling. I call it the slap of god.

[paperburn1]

I have been near some big bangs before but that would be incomprehensible to me. It looked like hatches bounced in that on vid.

I think the technical term is Big da da boom