WanshanAll you need is the range to cue and lay the weapon along the target bearing in sufficient time to set up a shoot at optimal engagement range. More than that is superfluous. The Goalkeeper on-mount set is perfectly capable of servicing the weapon.
Agreed in principle (but that makes you wonder why Phalanx and Goalkeeper were provided with an on-board search/track radar to begin with). I suppose redundancy could be one reason. Further, the on-board search/track radar on Goalkeeper is scanning/rotating at a high rate and optimized for very low level detection (which can’t necessarily be said for most ships’ other sensors).
I’m not sure I understand the point that offboard sensor cueing is better?. Goalkeeper can take an external cue as well as off the own-mount sensor…why isnt it optimal to have both on your last ditch hardkill system?.
I’ve not said or suggested that an on- or off-board sensor is better.
I’m also not so sure why you lot are talking about gun CIWS as a defence measure against supersonics?. Countering systems to larger supersonics are primarily VSHORADS/SHORADS missiles such as ESSM, Aster15, VL MICA, RAM etc and softkill….gun CIWS faced with supersonics is to catch the odd leaker that wont be distracted only!.
Agree. CIWS has always been a last ditch line in a layered defence.
WanshanWar is your political method 😉 You are willing to kill thousand to millions based on speculation and complete ignorance and indifference for the fates of those endangered by your political methods. This is typical for right wing militaristic politics, the kind of politics responsible for the death of millions in the 20th century.
I recommend Harry Lasswell :diablo:
WanshanFCU-17 naval gun fire control unit of 054 FFG, receiving target designation from ship combat system, executes integrated fire control of all naval guns:
Conceptually very similar to Russian systems as found on e.g. Missile boats (e.g. like Indian Veer class):
Search radar
Tracker (MR-123)
2 AK630
1 AK-176
WanshanA CIWS’s search radar will never get anywhere near the power and fied of view of all other shipborne sensors combined.
That may be true. Then again, the search radar on Goalkeeper is especially suitable for the suite of target, which can’t be said of any and all external search radars, their power not withstanding. And I’m sure it is not too hard to feed the CIWS (fused) info from multiple external sensors.
Wanshani’m not sure that on- or off-mount search radar has big effects on system reaction time in all cases. i think more important is the quality and capability from the off-mount radar and the cms. technical it should be no big deal to queue targets into the ciws by the off-mount radar and the cms nearly as quick as the ciws does it on it’s own with an on-mount search radar. but you will need capable off-mount systems to be that quick. or you simply connect an off-mount radar to a ciws in the same way as the on-mount. in this case you will get the same reaction time.
Agree. IMHO the CIWS on a Type 054A should be considered a 2 Type 730 firing units plus a dedicated search radar, much in the same way the Russians use Kashtan on larger units (2 or more firing units plus 1 radar unit. See e.g. IN Talwars class and FRSN Udaloy II).
WanshanJust to pick up on the unexploded ordnance thing there….the chances of that are actually very slim. The detonation occurred at just the right point under the keel to break the ships back. A loose moored mine would have struck the hull and done entirely different damage. I cant imagine that the SK Navy isn’t stringent on its watchkeeping for just that kind of threat.
A ground influence mine, even a large one, has to be within 100ft or so of the target hull and directly under the keel to generate the effects seen. So, to get the damage seen, the ship would have to be at just the right course and speed in waters less than 100ft depth to trigger a mine that had somehow laid undisturbed for x no. of decades previously. The odds against are quite high.
Earlier it was mention that a Yu-3 or Yu-4 from a NK Ming/Romeo class sub could fit the bill.
Yu-3 electric-propelled, acoustic-homing torpedo (Range: 13 km, Speed: 35 kt)
Several modifications have been incorporated to Yu-3 torpedo. One of the important upgrade was to incorporating ASuW capability to Yu-3 torpedo so that the submarines would no longer need to carry separate ASuW and ASW torpedoes. In May, 1985, Dawn Machinery Factory (Shuguan Jixie Chang, 曙光机械厂), 750 Test Range and 705th Research Institute jointly developed an export version as Chinese sturgeon (中华鲟)-II, with export designation as ET32, but there was no known export. Other modifications included updating electronics and incorporating the capability of being launched from different platforms and being used as part of the CAPTOR mine type mine system
…
ET32 … as of 2009, there is no known export … can only be launched from submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu-3_torpedo
Yu-4 (Russian SAET-50/60 copy) electric-propelled, passive acoustic-homing anti-ship torpedo (speed: 30kt original 40 kt after upgrade; range 6km original 15km after upgrade).
Yu-4 torpedoes in Chinese inventory have been continuously modified, such as incorporating ASW capability, updated electronics and propulsion system, and being converted as part of CAPTOR mine type mine systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu-4_torpedo
IMHO, if this is the case, the mine-variant shouldn’t be dismissed alltogether just yet.
On Page 16, as part of Table 1. PRC Sea Mine Order of Battle.
Model: PMK-2
Fuse: Passive, active, acoustic
Type: (Rocket?) Propelled warhead encapsulated torpedo
Laying Platform: Air, submarines, surface ship
Case Depth (Meters): 400 M (Anchor depth 100–1000M) close-tether capable
Mission/Target: ASW
page 90:
The oceans to the west and south of Taiwan are generally too deep for such mines, although drifting mines or encapsulated moored mines such as the Russian PMK-2, which China has obtained, are said to be capable of being laid in waters as deep as 2,000 meters—particularly if outfitted with advanced cables.
The first active mine systems came into service with the Navy in the early 1970s. They were represented by the PMR-2 antisubmarine rocket-assisted mine, which is unrivaled in the world, and the PMK-1 mine system (the export version of the PMR-2 system), which was basically a combination of a moored mine and a fast underwater automatically targeted rocket, as well as the PMT-1 antisubmarine mine-torpedo (the export version of the PMK-2 system) – a combination of a moored mine and a small antisubmarine homing torpedo. The caliber of the PMK-2 weapon is 533 mm and its length is not more than 6 m.
China’s interest in the CAPTOR-type of mines is documented. It is clear Russia has mastered buiding CAPTOR type mines and has exported these to China. The Russian system – like the western/US counterpart – uses a small ASW homing torpedo. Nonetheless, it cannot be ruled out that the Chinese have managed to come up with a variant with a heavyweight dual use ASW/ASuw torp.
Significantly, China began to develop rocket rising mines in 1981 and produced its first prototype in 1989.16 Thus, Beijing has been working on this technology for well over two decades. Today, China reportedly offers two types of rising mines for export.17 Rising mine systems are moored, but have as their floating payload a torpedo or explosive-tipped rocket that is released when the mine system detects a suitable passing vessel. The torpedo or rocket rises from deep depth to home in on and destroy its intended target, typically a submarine. As one source notes, “The so-called ‘directional rocket rising sea mine’ is a type of high technology sea mine with accurate control and guidance and initiative attack capacity.… Attack speed [e.g., against a target submarine] can reach approximately 80 meters per second.”18 China’s EM52, a guided rocket propelled destructive charge, reportedly has an operating depth of at least 200 meters.19 Russian rising torpedo mines such as the PMK-2 are said to be capable of being laid in waters as deep as 2,000 meters.20
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_33/china.html
Then again, if we agree on this being caused by a (heavyweight) torpedo, and assume that these are not available in encapsulated form in a mine application, then attention should shift to the launch platform. In theory:
– aircraft/bomber (e.g. Il-28T, Harbin H5/B5 naval torpedo bomber)
– missile (e.g. SS-N-14 a.k.a. 70R w. AT-2U, 85-RU w. UMGT-1 or APR-3M, URPK-3/4 Metel)
– torpedo craft (incl. semi-submersibles and modified civilian craft)
– submarine (e.g. Romeo class)
Which of these could totally surprise the SK navy vessel? Which of these available in the area?
WanshanIf not North Korea? I love how you guys leave out South Korea or how about the US? To bring it up shows there is motivation on their part so they can blame it on whoever. Like South Korea is not known for extreme politics? Yeah the Moonies and their leader who believes he’s Jesus Christ returned and owns the politically sensational Washington Times. And you guys make fun of Kim? The Moonies are worse. Or how about a gay lovers’ quarrel was the cause of the USS Iowa turret explosion? Or how about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Or Saddam was about launch nukes? Or how about Pat Tillman? Yeah there’s no history these people would ever exploit or stage a lie for politcal gain.
Earlier on I did mention the KAL 007 and Gulf of Tonkin incident as examples of things not being quite what they appear to be at first or even second glance.
WanshanYeah I hear Paraguay wants to see NK and SK duke it out so they can buy the Pay For View rights and market it all over the world in order to boost their sagging economy.:rolleyes:
At least I don’t take a narrow view on the interests and rivalries among asian countries (and by extention the non-asian countries supporting some of them).
WanshanPeople die in war. I except that.
Hence you’ll have no problems with someone suggesting to nuke Washington DC.
WanshanRelax, Jonesy wants a stealth ironclad:D
Now there’s an idea ….
WanshanSpain, Greece, Italy, France and UK? 😀
All of the above, with the possible exception of Italy, plus the US and quite a few others.
Spanish empire
Greek empire
French empire
Italian empire
United Kingdom
American Empire
WanshanLets assume torpedo attack by submarine. How do you know who’se submarine. Are there any submarine owing nations (besides NK) that would have an interest in keeping tensions between SK and NK? Can or has this scenario be(en) ruled out?
WanshanRelated non-us example: Triton
In August 1998, the UK Ministry of Defence awarded a contract to Vosper Thornycroft to construct the Trimaran, called RV (Research Vessel) Triton. The vessel was launched in May 2000 and delivered in August 2000. Triton then began a two-year risk reduction trials programme for the UK MOD and the US Department of Defense.
Following completion of the trials programme, Triton has been used as a trials platform for other QinetiQ technologies including the composite propeller.
In January 2005, Triton was sold to Gardline Marine Sciences, a UK company based in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Triton will be used for hydrographic survey work for the Civil Hydrography Programme (CHP) on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). The vessel is being fitted with a sensor suite which includes the Kongsberg Simrad EM1002 multi-beam echo-sounder, a GPS attitude / heading system, surface navigation and ultra-short baseline sub-surface acoustic tracking system, Gardline Voyager5 integrated survey system and Caris post-processing system.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/trimaran/
So, trials with a friendly navy may be a possibility, so is sale to a foreign service or transfer to a US-sister service. Sale to a US commercial pary might also be possible, the vessels can then be loaned/rented back by US government services. I can also see the loosing contender joining the small fleet of USN X-craft and/or ending up supporting e.g. special forces ops. Or they may just be retired at some point and stored or disposed of (see e.g. what happened to the Pegasus class PHMs patrol hydrofoils and PC-1 Cyclone class coastal patrol ships, or some the the more recent mine counter measures ships)
WanshanDon’t forget to throw in Moscow, Bejing, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Libson and Madrid since they have done the same thing. Most before the US even exsisted.:rolleyes:
Well, that makes it all right then, doesn’t it. So, let’s someone please nuke Washington DC. And a few other places.
WanshanI’m looking to end over 50 years of a father then son dictatorship with an outdated military and broken economy making three of the best equipped and best trained armed forces in the world (ROK, USA and Japan) look like the Three Stooges. I’m fed up with the entire Pacific Command going on alert (and yes they do and I did, even though you don’t hear it from CNN) everytime NK rattles its saber.
Personally, I want to pull all US forces out of SK and Japan and bring them home then I wouldn’t care what NK would do.
I will take your suggestions as seriously as those of someone who would state: “Considering the number of oppressive military regimes and dictatorships the US has backed over the past 50 years, and the number of countries it has attacked or invaded, let’s nuke Washington DC!”
Sign In
