radarBecouse with ships of this size, 6000-7000 tons or even more, a GODAG with only two LM2500 isen’t exactly the best choise.
you have to explane this because other (western) navies are doing this too.
as i sayed earlier both systems are equal to each other in terms of low to medium speed. i do not know why china did this but the western navies have access to both reliable diesels and gas turbines. one country takes gas turbines an other on diesels. for me it’s more a political/historical choice than a technical one.
most countries choose the best from the homemarket (usa -> g.e -> gas turbine; uk -> Rolls-Royce -> gas turbine; france -> SEMT-Pielstick -> diesel; germany -> man -> diesel; to count the big independent shipbuilder nations)
radarpersonally i think one of the major points has not been discussed yet.
everybody speculated on how easy or difficult it is to shot down a subsonic or supersonic ashm. but destroying a ashm by a sam is not the only way to avoid a hit.
imho soft kill systems like decoys and jammers are also very effective. so another point is if a ashm is able to reattack a target if it missed the ship on the first try. it is also important that the seeker works well. i would prefer dual mode (radar/ir) guided subsonic ashm to a supersonic one with an radar seeker only. best way would be a very good radar seeker, a ir seeker with iir abilitiy and additional esm systems for home on the target jammer or even the target radar (but also using the other sensores to avoid hitting the radar mast only ). if the computer can fusion these seekers to one single contact it would be nearly impossible to decoy it.
imho subsonic ashm have a advantage on this because they have more time for discriminating the target and if they miss they can do a smaller curve for reattacking. of course the same time can be used by the target for shoting at the ashm.
imho all the supersonic divers are not able to do a reattack because they can not identify the decoys early enough to avoid hitting the sea.
i think all the soft kill systems are underrated but of course decoying an ashm is even more gambling than shoting at it with a ciws because you can only fire of the decoys and pray. if the ashm missed the ship it is because of a fault in the ashm control algorithms, if the ciws missed the ashm it is a fault of the ciws. so all the soft kill systems are a sort of fault games. you can only win if the opponent makes a misstake. but in the real world the opponent will make misstakes, so soft kill may be very effective.
another issue is target selecting without ew. in the near future there is not so much room for bearing only attacks over 300 or 500km because most states want not hit a civil ship or maybe a friendly one. with ew it becomes even more complicated.
imho nsm is an interesting ashm. if the iir-seeker could match target pictures with a database it may actually select a special type of ship out of a group because of the image (and not because of the radar echo). if nsm gets an additional radar seeker or if other subsonic ashm like harpoon or rbs-15 gets iir besides there radar seeker, this would be my first choice.
of course most of the seeker stuff may also be fitted to a supersonic ashm but imho it is a lot more tricky to get this up and running.
radarIn my base of thinking an aircraft carrier is a warship even without its aircraft. The aircrafts, should be only part of the vessel’s armament. CdG, is NOT a warship, is a carrier. Kuznetsov has the Greatest self defence fitted in warship without any counterpart in the world. The only negative is that is NOT nuclear powered.
the hangar size of both are nearly equal and as far as i know the airgroup is also compareable. but kuznetsov weights nearly 60.000t full loaded whereas cdg is only 40.000 full loaded. 20.000t for 12 ssn19 and 18 aaw self defence systems of 3 different types? i would call this waste of space which can be better used for the airgroup. i know this is or was russian philosophy but it is still wastage.
the cdg has vls for 32 aster 15 and 2 additional sadral pdms. imho this is enough for self-defending the carrier. if they had installed ram instead of sadral i would rate this defence systems equal to the russian ones (if not higher) but french uses french systems.
radarthere are a lot of points to rate naval warship propulsion systems:
– volume and weight in relationship to the power
– fuel consumption
– reaction time
– safety
– handling
– reliability and the need of service/repairs /mtbf
– noise emission
– in service costs
i can’t see any points which can be rated for a steam system if compared to codag, cogag, cogog.
imho today it is more a political decision to choose between diesels or gasturbine for the low speed system because diesels get more reliable and more powerful and the gas turbines consumes less fuel then the earlier models. historical and logistic reasons may also affect the decicion.
in the future more and more ships will use electric drives for low/medium speed because of the advantages of this solution. compared to these systems the conventional steam power plants are two generations behind.
so imho the plan stil uses steam not because of advantages of the steam systems but because they have problems to get more modern systems. when was the last (non nuclear) steam powered ship launched in the western navies?
radarthe burkes have 3 spg-62 illuminators and the ticos 4. imho both can use 3 to each side, maybe the ticos can also use the fourth one, if it’s not completly masked by the other illuminator. pointing to targets behind or in front of the ships will usually only allow two illuminators to be used. (burke only one for targets in front of the ship?) i’m not sure how much small superstructures will effect the usage of the illuminators.
it’s plenty speculative but imho the rcs of a target should not effect the time of terminal illumination that much.
radarfrom my knowledge there is no interrupted continuous wave illumination (icwi) on the aegis ships. this feature is unique to the apar equipted ships.
both sm-2 and essm are first controlled by mid course updates which is provided by the spy1 (not the illuminators). imho these mid course updates are based on a two way data link and not on illuminating the target. the illuminators take the control for the last seconds and each illuminator paints a single target for the missile with continuous wave illumination. the illuminators can not switch between targets for icwi because they are mechanical steered.
radarUSN has 14 Nuclear supercarriers, and is much better to escord a CVN with nuclear vessel rather with conversional.
[…]
Also Granit has artificial intelligence and a unique command system which permits two flying granits to reprogram their targets in order to avoid 2 missile to hit the same ship. Further more their “brain” considers which target is more “valuable” and they start the destuction from the most Valuable ships of the CBG.
[…]
Both tomahawk and granit with nukes are out of service. Tomahawk and Granit are very different missiles.
last time i counted there were 11 planned/in service cvn not 14.
in the seventies the us-navy had planned to get 3 nuclear escorts for every cvn. in this time there were 3 cvn’s and about 9 nuclear surface ships. but they realised that they will run out of money doing this for 12 (planned) cvns. it’s a question of money, that’s all. i would prefer an escort of one tico and two burkes for every cvn than a single “supercruiser” with nuclear power plant. money is limited and everybody has to do the best out of it.
as you sayed tomahawk and granit are total different missiles. tomahawk is a subsonic, low flighing, terrain following, land attack cruise missile and granit a high flighing supersonic ashm. so why do you still compare them?
i accept that if a granit hits a ship it would be very devastating but as i sayed a high flighing ashm is an easy target. i don’t know much about all the ai and electronic onboard the granit but i’ve also read this one or two times. maybe you could explain this but imho not all of this is true. you sayed two missiles will not attack the same ship but they start with the highest value unit. imho these points exclude each other. if i want to be sure to hit the carrier i’ve to attack the carrier with more than one missile at once. and there are a lot of other questions:
– how do they rate the value of a contact? the radar echo is a very poor indicator for this.
– how do they communicate? it must be a fast and jamming resistent data link.
– how does the sensor fusion work? they can not talk to each other like “i get the ddg 53, you must get the ddg 89.”. first they have to be sure that every missile has all the target data for each contact and that contact x in the computer of missile 1 is also contact x in all the other computers. i know a bit about programming and real world sensors gathers cloudy data but for such a coordinated attack you must have exact data very early.
– how does this missile swarm react on ew like off board decoys, jamming, …?
decisions can only be as good as the related data. i think as long as the target data is not perfect it’s better to keep the systems simple. of course it’s possible that the target area is divided into small areas and every ashm gets a primary targetarea. and every missile must take a decision if it’s turn’s on the seeker and there are more than one targets, thats not a unique feature of granit. this decision may based on previously collected data so that the flight path of the missile will lead to this target first or it’s based on simple routines, like attacking the biggest radar echo (which could be easily mislead to an decoy). but all of this has nothing in common with ai. so for me it’s hard to belive that granit missiles react like an autonomus swarm.
and we are talking about a system on which development has startet in 1969. (in service 1982)
radarThe Kirovs are not primarly AAW ships are “Missile carriers” and are nuclear powered which means 40 -50 years for life, with modernizations.
[…]
Kirovs are floating missile batteries. Granit is a State of Art, a fantastic cruise missile. This 7 ton missile can easily sing an entire CBG is is nuclear tipped.
[…]
but even Yakhont is larger than tomahawk having 2 times greater weight 3 tons instead of 1.5t. The only negative points of granit are 1. the very small range only 500km and 2. that is not a land attack weapon.
[…]If i were leader of USN I wouldn’t create Burges nor Ticos! There was a project at the begging of 90’s. The Aegis version of Virginia class nuclear cruisers, but they were cancelled in favor of conversional Burges. The Aegis version of Virginia is the most suitable vessel for USN.
so far 2 of 4 kirovs are out of service and it’s not clear how long the others will stay in service. maybe russia can repair one but i think it’s unlikely that they keep both in service. and what’s about modernisation? only keeping them in service is not enough, they must be modernised and they have to go to sea often for training.
and every nuke can destroy a cbg but nobody will use nukes because they risk a nuclear war. imho even a tlam without a radar seeker can sink a carrier with a nuke if the target data are ok before missile launch (or with in flight course update) a direct hit is not needed with a nuke. but using a nuke is not possible so it’s not a point for me.
and granit is not a state of the art ashm, it’s a high flighing missile. aegis may have problems with very low flighing missiles but it will do well on highflighers. and a single tico or burke can shot 4 to 6 sm-2 at each of the 20 granits, not to mention essm, ram, phalanx and all the ew/softkill systems. a high flighing ashm can be detected very early and the aegis system can start defending the ship at the maximum range of the sm-2 sams. that’s enough time for several engagments on each of the ashm.
nuclear power has advantages of course but it is to expensive for now. and as far as i know the kirovs are conas ships.
until now if have not seen the superb russian navy. if kirovs are no aaw ships, where are they?
radarRussia today has a really superb army, look at all military units not only the naval. maybe usa has more naval units but the quality of these are not like russians.
maybe you can show us these superb russian ships.
how many warships with more than 1000t did russia build in the last 10 years (and which are in service today)? let me think: none? e.g.: do you really think, that 20 year old air defence ships are better than new burkes or de zeven’s or …?
if russia has all that money and the economic power why are they not able to repair and modernise their ships (not to talk about building new ones). i have seen some nice drawings from new ships but you can not rule the see with drawings.
no more political replies from me. i made my point clear, that’s all. let us talk about the superb russian navy. 😀
radari’m wondering how much are talking about streched and shortend versions of type 45. i do not know how much a type 45 will cost but i think they are to expensive for replacing the type 22/23. steel is cheap, the radar and all the other electronic systems makes up a large part of the unit cost. so either the streched/shortend type 45 will have nothing in common with the aaw type 45 or they will be to expensive. sampson for exapmle is a nice system even on a non aaw ship but there are a lot of other rotators which may be a lot cheaper and which will do a good job on a asw/asuw/general purpose unit.
radaryes 30 years ago russia had a big navy but what happened? welcome to the real world. i can only repeat myself: study the history
maybe russia should first modernise and repair their ships before building new destroyers/cruisers. if they build up new ships which are crap in ten years because of lacks of funds for repair and modernisation programs, it is a waste of money to build the ships. compare the naval budgets first and then compare equal navies. as long as russia has not enough money for building up a new blue sea navy it will stay a coastal one. nearly everey nation want to have a strong navy but either the countries have not enough money for that or they have other things where they think the money is needed more. so until now only the usa has both.
and war on terrorism eat’s up money like nothing else at the moment. even the usa has to save money by cutting procurement plans, so if russia wants to build up a big new navy in a short time they have to stop the war.
if the usa continues on their war on terrorism like they do today, there will be significant holes in the us-navy in a few years.
radarhow far is sampson behind at the moment? is it already on the test barge? it would be sad to see all the type 45 shipping around without the main radar 😉
radarMaybe you could explain how you’d get this mess past a Hawkeye without being seen?
i think the question is about aegis and supersonic ashm and not on deploying hawkeyes 24/7 all around the world where a us-aegis ship is deployed. so WisePanda asked a lot of interessting questions.
radaris it verified, that this picture is from the hanit after the attack?
radar@raygun: the pics, you have posted is not from the c-802. it is c-701. the c-802 has a total length of 6.4m. the c-701 has a total length of only 2.5m. and the main fins of the c-802 are near the middle of the missile wereas the main fins of the c-701 are more on the tail.
imho all the pics around showing the saar 5 are either not showing the shipt after the hit or there was no direct hit of a c-802. even if the pics are showing the wrong side of the ship there must be some significant damage on this side also. maybe the warhead did not explode but the missile has a weight of more than 700kg and a max range of more than 100km. the kinetic energy and the fuel should cause a lot of damage and fire.
Sign In
