Jump to content

ARCNA442

Members
  • Content count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    272

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About ARCNA442

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

73 profile views
  1. I think that monstrosity is more a result of the Russian propensity to mount way too many separate radar systems rather than anything a normal navy would do (also, is that a secondary bridge halfway up the forward tower?). If you look at an Iowa most of the bulk comes from the stacks and the fire control towers. And nuclear propulsion and drop the need for long distance optical spotting and the superstructure could be cut down to next to nothing. Of course, that doesn't change the fact the basic idea would be insanely impractical.
  2. How do I Survive in the Omaha?

    What's weird reading these topics is that Omaha feels like the best ship I've played (of course, as a new player I haven't played many ships) and I actually have a higher average damage and better survival percentage in her than in Cleveland. Maybe I'll understand the dislike when I start playing other lines, but right now Omaha strikes me as a great balance of firepower and maneuverability.
  3. And such missions can be more efficiently performed by missiles - that's what the Army does with MLRS and they're the experts in ground combat. Indeed, that was also the conclusion the Navy came to back in WWII when it developed the LCT(R). More to the point, you can't fire the 16" shell you describe because it was never actually built, the only ships that could utilize it are long out of commission, and any replacement would be ridiculously expensive ($4b minimum - how many Tomahawks does that buy you?). However, TLAM-D is in service right now and can be launched from any VLS in the fleet.
  4. Yes, Tomahawk costs more than an individual shell but comparing them one for one is ridiculous. First, Tomahawk is more accurate, more destructive, and vastly longer ranged than even a 16" shell. Second, the cost of the launchers also has to be figured in (a 5" gun costs $25 million + $10 million for its fire control system compared to the $50 million for a 96 cell VLS + $10 million for the Tomahawk specific systems). Third, how many scenarios are there where you would want to sail a $2 billion Burke with her 300 man crew within 10 miles of a hostile shore to conduct a bombardment? Once you add extended range guided shells to mix the cost difference shrinks dramatically ($200,000 for ERGM up to $1 million for LRLAP) while the capability gap barely closes at all. Further, the development costs for this niche capability are completely disproportionate - we spent $600 million developing ERGM. Even if 1 ERGM magically had the same effect on target as 1 Tomahawk, you would have to fire around 400 of them before you even broke even - but we've fired fewer than 200 Tomahawks since the Invasion of Iraq and maybe 10 of those were against targets within range of ERGM. Thus, realistically it actually is cheaper to just fire Tomahawk at everything instead of trying to make guns relevent.
  5. Here's another one - make the fire control directors rotate with the guns! It's just weird to be firing at a target on your beam while the directors are aimed fore and aft and it would take almost nothing to fix it.
  6. If you like heavy metal, Sabaton's song "Wolfpack" about convoy ON-92 prominently mentions the USCG cutter Ingham. This ship was in commission from 1936 to 1988, served in both theaters of WWII as well as the Vietnam War, and today is a museum in Key West.
  7. I would probably go with two single 8" guns mounted on a fully capable 15,000 ton destroyer as the ideal (basically, extremely close to what the Navy did with DDG-1000). However, I think that gunfire support is extremely overrated and is a product of an age when guided missile didn't exist. While it can be valuable on occasion, unless you use DDG-1000 style gun-launched missiles it requires bringing a ship far too close to shore for comfort and that means playing to the strengths of land forces (camouflage, survivability) rather than those of naval forces (maneuver) - just look at how many ships were damaged in Korea and Vietnam while on bombardment missions. I think DDG-1000 was was a perfect example of this and the current state of the program is less a result of mismanagement than of 1980's thinking meeting the modern world. Back when she was designed there was a feeling in the Navy that missiles are expensive and guns are cheap. Thus, when they designed a land attack ship to replace the ASW-optimized Spruance, they decided she needed really good guns to supplement her Tomahawks. Then we went to war and realized that missiles could do everything guns could do and more without really costing that much in the grand scheme of things. With that discovery, the Navy no longer had a use for DDG-1000 since a Burke could carry just as many Tomahawks and tried to get the program cancelled (the Navy also ended development of the guided 5" round that same year). Therefore, I would argue that the Navy's post-2008 track record with guided shells is not unacceptably bad, but rather remarkably good as they realized they were throwing large amounts of money at a niche capability and simply stopped.
  8. That action was actually far more impressive - 8 seaskimming missiles that were either C-801 (Exocet clone) or C-802 (Harpoon clone). Just last week I read everything I could find about that and wrote this summary: https://influenceofhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/modern-naval-battles-2016-missile.html
  9. But with that argument why not just armor them against 8" fire and call it good? The turrets in question have armor thicknesses that would only make sense if they were trying to defend against BB fire. I wonder if there were technical limitations to how thick a plate they could forge so they just put on as much as they could?
  10. How would missiles affect a gun battle.

    The shoulder mounts appear to be only rated for Sparrow & AMRAAM (http://navybmr.com/study material/14313a/14313A_ch15.pdf page 15-33). The same document claims that the outboard wing pylons cannot handle multiple ejector racks which suggests that they do not have the same weight / clearance as the center and inboard pylons. Looking at pictures, I am also not sure that the outboard pylons do have the same spacing as the others. This image lists the shoulder mounts carrying 317kg, the outboard pylons as 522kg, and the center and inboard pylons as 1134kg and 1304kg respectively: This image also lists no heavy weapons (other than GBU-10, but that might be an oversight) on the shoulder mounts or outboard pylons: While I wouldn't consider any one of these to be a reliable source, taken together and combined with the fact that I have not found any pictures of Harpoon or similar weight weapons on the stations you list, I feel that a 6 or 8 missile load is simply impossible. However, all of the above does suggest that the Super Hornet may be able to carry a 5th Harpoon on the center line station.
  11. I doubt even the larger warheads will penetrate the belt - but the belt armor covers an awfully small portion of the ship and missiles are very good at starting fires. Just think about HE shells in World of Warships and take that up a few notches
  12. Does the USN need ASuW torpedoes?

    Instead of Harpoon's radar seeker, SLAM-ER has an infrared seeker that would likely be less effective at finding the target. However, unlike Harpoon, it also has a two-way datalink which might actually make it the better choice if the launch aircraft can stick around to provide updates.
  13. Styx / Silkworm is rather easy to counter for any guided missile ship (HMS Gloucester shot one down back in 1991). However, the DPRK almost certainly has more advanced weapons as well - Wiki claims they have an indigenous version of SS-N-25 Switchblade and China has probably given them C-801 / C-802 missiles. These can be defeated, but it means keeping an Aegis ship with the battleship at all times and there is still always a chance that something will get through.
  14. How would missiles affect a gun battle.

    Do you have any evidence for the 8 Harpoon load? This article sure makes it seem that 4 is the limit: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/1346-video-fa-18f-super-hornet-take-on-a-full-load-of-harpoons-anti-ship-missiles-for-the-first-time.html
  15. In 1953 the North Koreans didn't have antiship missiles. Truck mounted launchers would be extremely difficult to detect and could be fired at anything within the horizon (such as a battleship on a gunnery mission) even after their C2 networks have been destroyed. There is a reason we designed Zumwalt with 100 mile guns and advanced stealth. Further, when it comes down to it, 16" guns just really don't offer much. There is a reason why armies around the world have settled on 105-203mm weapons and all the massive old siege guns were abandoned. Smaller shells are more efficient against soft targets and hard targets are better dealt with through guided weapons. Even when the Iowa's were recommissioned in the 1980's it wasn't because of their 16" guns, it was because we needed large hulls that could carry lots of Tomahawks in ABL's (the Navy actually wanted the Des Moines but they were too small).
×