Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: acgetchell@*******.edu (Adam Getchell)
Subject: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 16:58:36 -0700
>Remember, that's a US naming convention: this is the UCAS, who absorbed
>what there was of the Canadian navy and a few of its traditions too. US
>conventions have swung in the last ten or fifteen years, though.

Hmmm ... not to offend any Canadians, but I'm not sure what sort of
maritime traditions were left after they conglomerated their military.
Canada doesn't have an Air Force, Navy, Army, but rather one combined
service.

The Canadian naval forces comprise mainly DDs and FFs, with some Ojibwa
SSs. There wouldn't be much effect on U.S. naval naming conventions, since
the Canadians don't possess SSBNs, CVNs, BBs, or CGs.

><naval pedant mode on>
>Right now... Carriers now are mostly named for Presidents (the latest
>two Nimitzes are the Harry S. Truman and the Ronald Reagan - no, I am
>not kidding).

This is again, particular to the Nimitz class CVNs; the Nimitz itself is
named for Admiral Nimitz of WWII. There is also the Forrestal class of CVs,
the single Enterprise CVN, the Kitty Hawk CV, and the old Midway and Coral
Sea CVs dating from just after WWII.

By the way, since Ronald Reagan instituted the "600 ship fleet" naval
rebuilding, there is a very good reason to name a CVN after him.

>Cruisers are battles now: Ticonderoga, Anzio, Mobile Bay, Antietam (all
>CG-47s).

Again, this applies to the Ticonderoga class CGs, optimized for air defense
and Aegis. Previous cruiser classes were named after states (California
class CGNs) or cities (the single Long Beach CGN) and the ordinance
ship/strike cruiser may again revive state names.

Submarines used to be fish, were cities for a while, are now
>confused (Seawolf and Conneticut, SSN-23 still unnamed).

Not really. Los Angeles class attack submarines (SSNs) are named after
cities while the new Seawolf class seems to be named after whatever
congressman's state can generate the most pork for the submarine shipyards.
;-) But SS(N)'s in general are named after fish: Barbel, Sturgeon, Narwhal,
Skate, etc.

Future naval technology re Shadowrun: more serious warships will be
submarines, with ordinance ships (lots of launchers on a fairly
low-performance hull) for firepower. Maritime nations such as UCAS and
Imperial Japan may build submarine aircraft carriers, especially in the
face of orbital weaponry. Surface ships with advanced hullforms (SWATH,
Seaknife, or SES) may enjoy a burst speed advantage over submersibles
(which cannot exceed a certain velocity due to cavitation stresses on the
hull), which will help them in antisubmarine warfare, but may not matter in
an extremely air-heavy combat environment. Corporations will most likely
not invest in large warships; the support structure, escort vessels,
ordninance and combined fleet-ops experience isn't there and too costly to
acquire/maintain. I'd expect the big naval powers to be UCAS and Imperial
Japan, with second-stringers being UK, France, Germany, China, perhaps
Australia (to counter Japan). Russia may also be in there but lack of an
year-round icefree seaport has hampered their naval ambitions since the
1800's. Other nations and corporations would have smaller forces, and there
could be some mercenary flotillas out there, but the nations above would
probably be the only ones fielding any sort of blue water navy. Other
countries would compensate with air force units.

>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

=================================================================
Adam Getchell
acgetchell@*******.edu
http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~acgetche/
=================================================================

"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent."
-- Sun Tzu
Message no. 2
From: James Meiers <polbdm@***.unm.EDU>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 20:28:59 -0600 (MDT)
I noticed that Adam Getchall had mentioned future subs and ships in
Shadowrun, and it just happens that a friend and I created a possible
UCAS submarine called the Megaladon (named for fish and aquatic
creatures). It is on my Shadowrun page and at
http://www.arc.unm.edu/~polbdm/shadow/sub/Sub.html

Later,
James

"I have just the prescription for you, Doctor. A hot beef injection"
- Homer Simpson
Visit me at: http://www.arc.unm.edu/~polbdm
Message no. 3
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 11:08:13 +0100
>
>><naval pedant mode on>
>>Right now... Carriers now are mostly named for Presidents (the latest
>>two Nimitzes are the Harry S. Truman and the Ronald Reagan - no, I am
>>not kidding).
>
>This is again, particular to the Nimitz class CVNs; the Nimitz itself is
>named for Admiral Nimitz of WWII. There is also the Forrestal class of CVs,
>the single Enterprise CVN, the Kitty Hawk CV, and the old Midway and Coral
>Sea CVs dating from just after WWII.

For all of these, I'm sticking to the last ten or fifteen years' worth
of building (hence the 'right now' disclaimer). The Essex and Midway
class were battles, and their class names have been subsumed by the CG-
47s and in some cases LPAs.

>By the way, since Ronald Reagan instituted the "600 ship fleet" naval
>rebuilding, there is a very good reason to name a CVN after him.

Except he's still alive, which breaks another convention :) And Truman
was never a Navy man.

>>Cruisers are battles now: Ticonderoga, Anzio, Mobile Bay, Antietam (all
>>CG-47s).
>
>Again, this applies to the Ticonderoga class CGs, optimized for air defense
>and Aegis. Previous cruiser classes were named after states (California
>class CGNs) or cities (the single Long Beach CGN) and the ordinance
>ship/strike cruiser may again revive state names.

The strike cruiser is dead concept from the 1970s and the "arsenal
ship" only floats because it's full of shit :) Check the debates on
sci.military.naval or the International Naval Studies Group list for
further details. Cruisers were historically cities, the nuclear cruisers
were states to give them battleship gravitas. Oh, and territories were
battlecruisers - Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, in WW2.

> Submarines used to be fish, were cities for a while, are now
>>confused (Seawolf and Conneticut, SSN-23 still unnamed).
>
>Not really. Los Angeles class attack submarines (SSNs) are named after
>cities while the new Seawolf class seems to be named after whatever
>congressman's state can generate the most pork for the submarine shipyards.
>;-) But SS(N)'s in general are named after fish: Barbel, Sturgeon, Narwhal,
>Skate, etc.

Apart from Seawolf, every US SSN/SSBN built in the last twenty years has
been a city, personality or state. "Fish don't vote", as Rickover put
it. The 637s and other older boats are being decommissioned at the
moment.

>Future naval technology re Shadowrun: more serious warships will be
>submarines, with ordinance ships (lots of launchers on a fairly
>low-performance hull) for firepower.

The arsenal ship revives Jackie Fisher's battleship concept: eggshells
armed with hammers. By the time you put in the defensive systems, you no
longer have a cheap, simple hull with a crew of twenty: leave them out,
and your ship is a floating target stuffed with explosives.

Agreed on submarines remaining a key naval force, though: corporate
navies would have very little ASW capability, and SSNs would be a key
equaliser for nations.

>Maritime nations such as UCAS and
>Imperial Japan may build submarine aircraft carriers, especially in the
>face of orbital weaponry.

1956 study for a submersible aircraft carrier: 40,000 tons, nulcear
propulsion, submerged speed five knots (had to be optimised for surface
handling and stability), aircraft complement six STOL fighters.
(Submarine Design and Development, Norman Friedman)

Submarines are far too tightly volume limited to be useful aircraft
carriers.

>Surface ships with advanced hullforms (SWATH,
>Seaknife, or SES) may enjoy a burst speed advantage over submersibles
>(which cannot exceed a certain velocity due to cavitation stresses on the
>hull), which will help them in antisubmarine warfare,

Doesn't matter: this is why you embark a helicopter or two. When you're
moving that fast you're blind, and by closing to attack over-the-side
you expose yourself to attack: better to put your weapon on a platform
the submarine cannot attack, together with sensors to localise and
classify vague contacts.

Also, for burst speed for submarines, check the Russian "Shkval" weapon:
a 200-250 knot torpedo, unguided and rocket propelled, intended as a
reaction-fire weapon. Adapt the technology used there to submarines, to
give them a burst of "blind and noisy but fast" speed for evasion.

>but may not matter in
>an extremely air-heavy combat environment.

Good point. Primary threat for most warships will still be cruise
missiles, so an AAW emphasis will persist: nations operate submarines,
corps don't fight nations, so they will ignore ASW capability on the
warships they do have: mostly frigates for escorting merchantmen (I'd
guess piracy to be a major problem in the China Sea for instance: it is
today, and there's little to suggest it'll get better).

>I'd expect the big naval powers to be UCAS and Imperial
>Japan, with second-stringers being UK, France, Germany, China, perhaps
>Australia (to counter Japan).

>Russia may also be in there but lack of an
>year-round icefree seaport has hampered their naval ambitions since the
>1800's. Other nations and corporations would have smaller forces, and there
>could be some mercenary flotillas out there, but the nations above would
>probably be the only ones fielding any sort of blue water navy. Other
>countries would compensate with air force units.

Apart from the quibbles I've identified, spot on as far as I'm
concerned.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 4
From: acgetchell@*******.edu (Adam Getchell)
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 17:01:35 -0700
>The strike cruiser is dead concept from the 1970s and the "arsenal
>ship" only floats because it's full of shit :) Check the debates on
>sci.military.naval or the International Naval Studies Group list for
>further details. Cruisers were historically cities, the nuclear cruisers
>were states to give them battleship gravitas. Oh, and territories were
>battlecruisers - Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, in WW2.

I'd say the strike cruiser concept was reborn in the "Surface Action Group"
and recommissioning of BB's. Having enough Aegis cruisers for decent air
defense helps. The semi-submersible design I've seen for the arsenal ship
is not bad: faced with incoming SSMs, just submerge under them. That forces
development of heavy, expensive, Soviet SS-N-20 Shipwreck type missiles
with Torpedoes for warheads. And forces increase of size/weight/expense or
reduction of warhead/range/capability.

>Apart from Seawolf, every US SSN/SSBN built in the last twenty years has
>been a city, personality or state. "Fish don't vote", as Rickover put
>it. The 637s and other older boats are being decommissioned at the
>moment.

Well, that's because we've been building 688 Los Angeles class SSNs and
Ohio class SSBNs. And Seawolf allows the U.S. Navy to replace older designs
and try to maintain the margine of superiority over the Akula class Russian
boats.

>The arsenal ship revives Jackie Fisher's battleship concept: eggshells
>armed with hammers. By the time you put in the defensive systems, you no
>longer have a cheap, simple hull with a crew of twenty: leave them out,
>and your ship is a floating target stuffed with explosives.

Defensive system is simple: dive underneath incoming. Plus a few
anti-torpedo countermeasures. Current ASW weapons limited to ranges < 20
nautical miles. If you've got aircover (and the U.S. fleets tend to operate
on that assumption) you can leave the guidance/tracking/targetting to
someone else. You only need one expensive SPY-1 Aegis type radar on your
AAW capital ship: the fleet is datalinked.

>1956 study for a submersible aircraft carrier: 40,000 tons, nulcear
>propulsion, submerged speed five knots (had to be optimised for surface
>handling and stability), aircraft complement six STOL fighters.
>(Submarine Design and Development, Norman Friedman)

Now, that's really dated. 1990's study for submersible aircraft carrier
from _Proceedings_: 40,000 tons, nuclear powered, composite hull, submerged
speed 40+ knots, aircraft complement one squadron attack aircraft, one
squadron patrol aircraft, one squadron multimission transport. Defensive
weaponry with exoatmospheric (anti-Thor) intercept capability, multipurpose
torpedo/missile tubes, and reinforced company of Marines for landings. G.
Harry Stine develops these ideas in his novel _First Action_.

>Submarines are far too tightly volume limited to be useful aircraft
>carriers.

Not anymore. There are civilian designs for submarine supertankers: with
their under-the-pole crossing capability, they may be able to traverse some
routes in much less time (and be less vulnerable).

>Doesn't matter: this is why you embark a helicopter or two. When you're
>moving that fast you're blind, and by closing to attack over-the-side
>you expose yourself to attack: better to put your weapon on a platform
>the submarine cannot attack, together with sensors to localise and
>classify vague contacts.

Actually, I was thinking of the burst speed for avoidance and pursuit
reasons. As you point out, sonobuoys and tilt-rotor aircraft ensure that
you're not blind.

And it's no longer true that submarines cannot attack aircraft. Akulas have
a mast mounted SA-7 system (equivalent of a Stinger, but plenty enough for
a prosecuting helicopter) and the Seawolf will probably incorporate a
submerged fire SAM weapon. Sure, you can't stick around and slug it out
(submarines need to HIDE) but it's useful for picking off that really
annoying helo laying sonobuoys and dropping fish on you.

Having a surface ship able to sprint near to where an aircraft is
prosecuting a sub contact ups the effectiveness of the ship-aircraft team.

>Also, for burst speed for submarines, check the Russian "Shkval" weapon:
>a 200-250 knot torpedo, unguided and rocket propelled, intended as a
>reaction-fire weapon. Adapt the technology used there to submarines, to
>give them a burst of "blind and noisy but fast" speed for evasion.

Read about the Russian "underwater missile". But, large hulls cannot
withstand the stresses of such high speeds. That's why the Soviet Alfa
class, with a Titanium hull, still tops out around 40 knots.

And of course, when you're nosing a Mark 48 fish up to the target on wire
guidance, you don't have it attack from the same quarter that you're in for
just this reason.

>Good point. Primary threat for most warships will still be cruise
>missiles, so an AAW emphasis will persist: nations operate submarines,
>corps don't fight nations, so they will ignore ASW capability on the
>warships they do have: mostly frigates for escorting merchantmen (I'd
>guess piracy to be a major problem in the China Sea for instance: it is
>today, and there's little to suggest it'll get better).

Yes. Corporate naval vessels would be akin to what the Coast Guard is
today: sufficient weaponry for dealing with most threats, but not up to the
level of a professional navy. A corporate force lacks a fleet, coordination
with significant land and aerospace-based resources, and cannot afford the
expense of truly state of the art weaponry. An Ares frigate probably have
some good theatre defense SAMs, and perhaps even a decent defensive laser
array and some sort range SSM, but would not mount be able to coordinate
with a well-constructed, purpose-built fleet designed for seapower
projection.

>>I'd expect the big naval powers to be UCAS and Imperial
>>Japan, with second-stringers being UK, France, Germany, China, perhaps
>>Australia (to counter Japan).

After thinking about it more: given the messes in Indonesia, Antarctica,
Japan, Korea, and China, by 2057 the Aussies may have a pretty decent fleet
with sizable capabilities. They sure taught the U.S. Seventh fleet
something about effective use of stealth in Team Gold exercises.

>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

=================================================================
Adam Getchell
acgetchell@*******.edu
http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~acgetche/
=================================================================

"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent."
-- Sun Tzu
Message no. 5
From: Ken <kwhorner@*******.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 17:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 27 May 1996, Adam Getchell wrote:

> >>Australia (to counter Japan).
>
> After thinking about it more: given the messes in Indonesia, Antarctica,

There's enough people in Antarctica to bother wrrying about them?

> Japan, Korea, and China, by 2057 the Aussies may have a pretty decent fleet
> with sizable capabilities. They sure taught the U.S. Seventh fleet
> something about effective use of stealth in Team Gold exercises.
>
Nutcracker
Message no. 6
From: acgetchell@*******.edu (Adam Getchell)
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 18:15:18 -0700
>I noticed that Adam Getchall had mentioned future subs and ships in
>Shadowrun, and it just happens that a friend and I created a possible
>UCAS submarine called the Megaladon (named for fish and aquatic
>creatures). It is on my Shadowrun page and at
>http://www.arc.unm.edu/~polbdm/shadow/sub/Sub.html

Overall, I liked the design. A few comments, since you seem receptive to them.

First, the dimensions seem a bit large, or your tonnage small. Given your
stated tonnage (5670 tons, 6517 submerged) and your dimensions (roughly 103
by 18 by 9.75 meters), looking at a teardrop design (~.577 times the volume
of a rectangular solid) your sub should weigh around 10000 tons, given that
water is 1 ton/cubic meter and subs need to stay very near the density of
water. Your current design has a "packing factor" of .314, so it's very
wasteful of space.

Second, submarine designs since the 1988 Improved Los Angeles use jet
propulsors vice propellors.

The range on your Mark 56 torpedo is a bit short. You state a rigger can
control it by wire guidance out to 1000 meters. The Mark 48 can be
controlled out to about 26 nautical miles on wire guidance.

Probably, the torpedo room would be fully automated for speed of loading
and automated datalinks to the weapons. If you have manual loaders, you
have a break between the data from the fire solution and the weapon
computer.

By 2057, there would doubtless be no difference between the "standard"
torpedo and an underwater rocket. Unguided munitions don't fare as well.
What required an 8 torpedo spread in WWII can be accomplished with just one
or two Mark 48s. Guided weaponry is too big an advantage to give up when
you must maximize bang for buck (and volume) in a submarine. Most likely,
your Mark 58 torpedo will be rocket propelled and guided (similiar to
vectored-thrust air to air missiles cf. Russian "Vympel"), with guidance
capability through green laser link. A 1000 kilogram warhead with a 250
kilogram Directed Energy cap is likely, for maximum lethality (and of
course, explosive composition will have improved).

Your Seawyvern missile (250 warhead kg, 25 nm range, mid course guidance)
has less capability than today's Block C Harpoon (250 kg warhead, 80 nm
range, selectable waypoint guidance with up to three midcourse changes,
selectable pop up). Increase its capabilities: speed, range, and warhead
(or all three to a lesser extent) and make sure it's stealthed.

Warhammer should have greatly improved capabilities over Tomahawk, which it
seems to mimic. Tomahawk definitely carried nuclear tips.

Mines nowadays tend to be of the CAPTOR type (encapsulated torpedo). I'd
say it would just be "lie silent-autonomous mode" for a Mark 58 torpedo.

I agree wholeheartedly about the drones. I'd say, in fact, that a
significant complement of weaponry and space should be devoted to them.
Certainly, they should carry Mark 58 torpedoes and smaller, short ranged
anti-torpedo weapons. There should also be some sort of launch and recovery
system, probably amidships.

Oh yes, and add a powerful excimer laser array for close-in knife fighting
and torpedo countermeasures. It can run off the backup battery system, or
the fusion powerplant (backup batteries for extreme silent running: no real
penalty for shutdown of a fusion reactor).

Sensors on future subs will definitely incorporate acoustic noise arrays, a
sensor which uses ambient ocean sound to see in exactly the way our eyes
do. Accordingly, stealth measures will have to be upped. The presence of
this system means the sensor operators will have a clear view of the
surrounding ocean for at least several nautical miles.

Passive countermeasures would be employed first, at Convergence Zone range
(30-100 nautical miles). Active countermeasures such as torpedo intercept
weapons give away the game, and the submarine game is all about stealth.

That's why its the silent service.

The crew might be even smaller than you have listed for an attack boat.
Crew tends to be concentrated into Powerplant, Propulsion, Weaponry, and
Ops. Automation will reduce crew requirements in all areas, although
classical Engineering ratings will probably be less affected. No
substitution for warm bodies to plug up holes and crawl places to fix
things.

It's a cool concept. I like it. May have to do one for a future run. ;-)

>
>Later,
> James

=================================================================
Adam Getchell
acgetchell@*******.edu
http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~acgetche/
=================================================================

"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent."
-- Sun Tzu
Message no. 7
From: acgetchell@*******.edu (Adam Getchell)
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 18:33:45 -0700
>There's enough people in Antarctica to bother wrrying about them?

No; it seems that with the U.S. cutting funding of the science station in
Antarctica, nations all over the world are claiming sections of the
continent as national territory. The U.S. (and others) has maintained that
Antarctica is International territory, and not subject to any nations
sovereignty.

The same issue came up in the Gulf of Sidra. We know how that turned out.

>Nutcracker

=================================================================
Adam Getchell
acgetchell@*******.edu
http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~acgetche/
=================================================================

"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent."
-- Sun Tzu
Message no. 8
From: Russ Myrick <rm91612@****.net>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 10:57:49 -0700
Adam Getchell wrote:
<snip>
> Future naval technology re Shadowrun: more serious warships will be
> submarines, with ordinance ships (lots of launchers on a fairly
> low-performance hull) for firepower. Maritime nations such as UCAS and
> Imperial Japan may build submarine aircraft carriers, especially in the
> face of orbital weaponry. Surface ships with advanced hullforms (SWATH,
> Seaknife, or SES) may enjoy a burst speed advantage over submersibles
> (which cannot exceed a certain velocity due to cavitation stresses on
> the hull), which will help them in antisubmarine warfare, but may not
> matter in an extremely air-heavy combat environment. Corporations will
> most likely not invest in large warships; the support structure, escort
> vessels, ordninance and combined fleet-ops experience isn't there and
> too costly to acquire/maintain. I'd expect the big naval powers to be
> UCAS and Imperial Japan, with second-stringers being UK, France,
> Germany, China, perhaps Australia (to counter Japan). Russia may also
> be in there but lack of an year-round icefree seaport has hampered
> their naval ambitions since the 1800's. Other nations and corporations
> would have smaller forces, and there could be some mercenary flotillas
> out there, but the nations above would probably be the only ones
> fielding any sort of blue water navy. Other countries would compensate
> with air force units.
>
Being a Bubble Head myself I try to keep up on available tech for boats
around the world.

With regards to hull forms --
1. Any submersible these days has to be deep diving (excess of 400 ft)
three reasons a. Many of the "super tankers" currently afloat
have a draft of 200' to 250' fully loaded; b. General Dynamics
has been playing around with a prototype semi-submersible cargo/
container vessel for the past 5 years (the sail ... err.. bridge
rides about 10-12m above, while the rest is below water - arial
photos place this to be about the size of the USS Eisenhower);
c. ASW/surveilance tech allows airborne and satellites to
optically spot a submerged vessel upto 200 ft in depth.
2. As noted GD does have one sub type freighter and they are working on
other hull designs that will allow for greater depth & speed.
One note on this ... the deeper you go the faster you can go
before cavitating ... unfortunately there reaches a point that
in spite of your depth & screw (that's propeller to you skimmers
and dry landers) design, the noise created by rapid water
displacement gives you away first (that can be pin pointed half
way around the globe with any of the current issue French sonar
systems
Notes on speed --
1. See 2. above for the serious limitation
2. There is indication that the Swedes have been doing some serious work
on magnetic impeller propulsion systems (an underwater ramjet).
The advantage here is high speed with no cavitation. So we're
only limited by hull noise.
3. There is some development of a slug shaped hull (as opposed to the
current tear drop shape in use now) going on around the world
at the moment that is proving to be very promising. One of the
best I've read reports on is one that is the basic slug (pointy
on both ends) viewed from the side, but is more manta shaped when
viewed from above -- high speed, VERY maneuverable, small size
though for the people tank -- behaves very much like a jet plane.
Russian Ports --
Until the break up of the USSR, the Vladivostok(sp?) river was dredged on
a regular basis so that subs could come and go below ice (6 in.
of snow covered ice is equivalent to 200 ft of depth as far as
satallites are concerned) -- we lose track of more ruskie boats
that way. It would make sense that Russia would want to maintain
this capability in the future.
Armed Transports --
Under current maritime law all merchant marine vessels under US and UK
registry must have triple redundency on key systems and be equiped with
hard points for mounting weapon systems in time of war. They are also
subject to naval service in times of regional conflict or relief efforts
as directed by their government or the UN.
Message no. 9
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:35:55 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 27 May 1996, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> >Maritime nations such as UCAS and
> >Imperial Japan may build submarine aircraft carriers, especially in the
> >face of orbital weaponry.
>
> 1956 study for a submersible aircraft carrier: 40,000 tons, nulcear
> propulsion, submerged speed five knots (had to be optimised for surface
> handling and stability), aircraft complement six STOL fighters.
> (Submarine Design and Development, Norman Friedman)
>
> Submarines are far too tightly volume limited to be useful aircraft
> carriers.

An interesting study. Actually, if you scrap the idea of making
long-distance "power-projection" (which is what the aircraft carrier is
good at) and load the thing with a whole mess of small attack
helicopters (Apache, Pave-Low, Longbow, etc.), you could make a sub
carrier that packed a tremendous wallop over ground and was sneaky to
boot. Arguably, however, you could do the same thing by gutting an Ohio
class of its ballistic capabilities and packing it full of vertically
launched, long-range cruise missiles.

> >Surface ships with advanced hullforms (SWATH,
> >Seaknife, or SES) may enjoy a burst speed advantage over submersibles
> >(which cannot exceed a certain velocity due to cavitation stresses on the
> >hull), which will help them in antisubmarine warfare,
>
> Doesn't matter: this is why you embark a helicopter or two. When you're
> moving that fast you're blind, and by closing to attack over-the-side
> you expose yourself to attack: better to put your weapon on a platform
> the submarine cannot attack, together with sensors to localise and
> classify vague contacts.

Actually, the Soviets (when they still *were* Soviets)
experimented with a pretty rude weapon. It was a modified man-pack SA-7
Grail launcher mounted onto the periscope mast. The object of the unit
was to be able to spot, acquire, and launch a small SAM at offending ASW
choppers. They didn't have a whole lot of success with it, but that was
mainly due to the fact that the thing was based off a Grail system (lame)
and was basically jury-rigged together and held on with gum and baling
wire. If this concept were seriously studied, it's entirely possible
that subs could be death to aerial search platforms.

Marc
Message no. 10
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:51:41 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 27 May 1996, Russ Myrick wrote:

> With regards to hull forms --
> 1. Any submersible these days has to be deep diving (excess of 400 ft)
> three reasons a. Many of the "super tankers" currently afloat
> have a draft of 200' to 250' fully loaded;

I'm with you on the rest of your post, but this one leaves me
cold. I've seen the designs (being a naval architect and all) of some of
the larger supertankers (the ones in excess of 1000' LBP) but they are
nowhere close to drawing that much water. As a general rule, the
*depth* (and for you land lubbers, depth is the height from the keel to
the top edge of the gunwhale) rarely exceeds 10% of the overall length.
For the larger supertankers, the biggest change over standard tankers is
the fact that they are so beamy. Drawing too much water severely
restricts where a ship can go and which ports it can visit, which is
ultimately limiting your potential profit.

Marc
Message no. 11
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:09:00 +0100
In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.960528092400.20244B-100000@******.engin.umich.
edu>, Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu> writes
>On Mon, 27 May 1996, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> 1956 study for a submersible aircraft carrier: 40,000 tons, nulcear
>> propulsion, submerged speed five knots (had to be optimised for surface
>> handling and stability), aircraft complement six STOL fighters.
>> (Submarine Design and Development, Norman Friedman)
>>
>> Submarines are far too tightly volume limited to be useful aircraft
>> carriers.
>
> An interesting study. Actually, if you scrap the idea of making
>long-distance "power-projection" (which is what the aircraft carrier is
>good at) and load the thing with a whole mess of small attack
>helicopters (Apache, Pave-Low, Longbow, etc.), you could make a sub
>carrier that packed a tremendous wallop over ground and was sneaky to
>boot. Arguably, however, you could do the same thing by gutting an Ohio
>class of its ballistic capabilities and packing it full of vertically
>launched, long-range cruise missiles.

The problem remains that you're stuck on the surface for long enough to
land, fold and strike down your force of helicopters, and you're close
enough to shore for them to reach their targets and return... and they
are still *bulky* items. The missiles give you less flexibility, but
more reach and more safety.

>> Doesn't matter: this is why you embark a helicopter or two. When you're
>> moving that fast you're blind, and by closing to attack over-the-side
>> you expose yourself to attack: better to put your weapon on a platform
>> the submarine cannot attack, together with sensors to localise and
>> classify vague contacts.
>
> Actually, the Soviets (when they still *were* Soviets)
>experimented with a pretty rude weapon. It was a modified man-pack SA-7
>Grail launcher mounted onto the periscope mast. The object of the unit
>was to be able to spot, acquire, and launch a small SAM at offending ASW
>choppers. They didn't have a whole lot of success with it, but that was
>mainly due to the fact that the thing was based off a Grail system (lame)
>and was basically jury-rigged together and held on with gum and baling
>wire. If this concept were seriously studied, it's entirely possible
>that subs could be death to aerial search platforms.

We prototyped SLAM (Sub Launch Antiaircraft Missile) on HMS Aeneas in
1972, as well. For what it did, it worked well: but...

The problem is that slow at periscope depth is exactly where you don't
want to be with a helo after you. The problem remains that a missile
small enough to go on a mast, or be shot out of a tube with associated
sensor gear, is (a) outranged by the helicopter's weapons, and (b)
likely to be fairly easily spoofed, especially if you opt for the
"launch and leave" option the US and France looked at off and on: the
helo's defences are usually better than the throwaway search-and-
classify system needed to tell the missile where to go.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 12
From: mbroadwa@*******.glenayre.com (Mike Broadwater)
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 12:11:26 -0500
>Except he's still alive, which breaks another convention :) And Truman
>was never a Navy man.

What about Arlie Burke (I think that's the correct spelling) He has a class
of frigates named after him, and he's still alive.

Mike Broadwater
"An object at rest cannot be stopped! Yeah, baby, yeah!" - The Evil
Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon
Message no. 13
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 18:57:23 +0100
>>Except he's still alive, which breaks another convention :) And Truman
>>was never a Navy man.

>What about Arlie Burke (I think that's the correct spelling) He has a class
>of frigates named after him, and he's still alive.

Admiral Arleigh "31-Knot" Burke had the DDG-51 class of destroyers named
for him, but it was considered a little unusual that he was still alive
when the nameship launched.

He died earlier this year, sadly.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 14
From: Russ Myrick <rm91612@****.net>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 15:42:30 -0700
Adam Getchell wrote:
> After thinking about it more: given the messes in Indonesia,
> Antarctica, Japan, Korea, and China, by 2057 the Aussies may have a
> pretty decent fleet with sizable capabilities. They sure taught the
> U.S. Seventh fleet something about effective use of stealth in Team
> Gold exercises.

Now lets be honest here. During the entire time I was on active duty,
the 7th fleas never got into an engagement in which their carriers did
not bite it in the first 4 hours. Usually from an unfriendly boat, at
PD, less than 1500m away (make that 800m amidships). Maybe by 2057 they
will have figured out that it is easier to locate a boat using passive
sonar instead of active.
Message no. 15
From: "James R. Angove" <jim621@********.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 14:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
As an aside regarding the idea of placing SAMs on subs: The USN also
briefly played /w this idea, using stingers. In point of fact, such a
system was in the first run design for the Seawolf class prior to being
scrubed as more trouble than it was worth, presumably for the same reason
as the brits.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" -- Statement found in
the Win95 source code; believed to be the secret motto of Microsoft.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Message no. 16
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 23:07:17 +0100
In message <v02140b0aadcfe9a2c6e7@[128.120.253.162]>, Adam Getchell
<acgetchell@*******.edu> writes
>I'd say the strike cruiser concept was reborn in the "Surface Action Group"
>and recommissioning of BB's. Having enough Aegis cruisers for decent air
>defense helps. The semi-submersible design I've seen for the arsenal ship
>is not bad: faced with incoming SSMs, just submerge under them. That forces
>development of heavy, expensive, Soviet SS-N-20 Shipwreck type missiles
>with Torpedoes for warheads. And forces increase of size/weight/expense or
>reduction of warhead/range/capability.

The problem is a torpedo warhead places its explosive far more
effectively, under the keel instead of in the superstructure. And the
semi-submersible aspects of the arsenal ship appear to have been
jettisoned in favour of what is basically a tanker hull with lots of VLS
farms.

>>Apart from Seawolf, every US SSN/SSBN built in the last twenty years has
>>been a city, personality or state. "Fish don't vote", as Rickover put
>>it. The 637s and other older boats are being decommissioned at the
>>moment.
>
>Well, that's because we've been building 688 Los Angeles class SSNs and
>Ohio class SSBNs. And Seawolf allows the U.S. Navy to replace older designs
>and try to maintain the margine of superiority over the Akula class Russian
>boats.

The problem is Seawolf is a three-boat class, and at 9,000 tons it's
rather large for most of the likely operational areas. NSSN... well,
that's an interesting one, given that it looks more expensive for less
boat.

>>The arsenal ship revives Jackie Fisher's battleship concept: eggshells
>>armed with hammers. By the time you put in the defensive systems, you no
>>longer have a cheap, simple hull with a crew of twenty: leave them out,
>>and your ship is a floating target stuffed with explosives.
>
>Defensive system is simple: dive underneath incoming. Plus a few
>anti-torpedo countermeasures. Current ASW weapons limited to ranges < 20
>nautical miles. If you've got aircover (and the U.S. fleets tend to operate
>on that assumption) you can leave the guidance/tracking/targetting to
>someone else. You only need one expensive SPY-1 Aegis type radar on your
>AAW capital ship: the fleet is datalinked.

More than a few aspects of this make me jittery. The Raduga 85-RU /SS-N-
14 Silex, for instance, carries a E53 homing torpedo as well as a 350kg
warhead: it's a longer-range Ikara or ASROC, except it also has an
antiship IR seeker and a warhead. Against this ship, you'd use the
torpedo instead. The Russians have done it for years, they can do it
again, especially since this ship has no defences to speak of: CIWS
don't take kindly to submersion.

As for "one SPY-1", that's what some of the large and nasty ARMs are
designed to deal with. Datalinks can be jammed. This ship, in most
studies, doesn't even have a sonar (with a 20-man crew who'd operate
it?) and would be a sitting duck to submarine attack.

It basically lacks any flexibility and costs way too much. Wouldn't a
towed barge of VLS cells behind a CG-47 or DDG-51 be more use? And, at
the moment, is there a shortage of missile cells, given that most
Spruances have 64 cells and not overmuch to put in there.

>>1956 study for a submersible aircraft carrier: 40,000 tons, nulcear
>>propulsion, submerged speed five knots (had to be optimised for surface
>>handling and stability), aircraft complement six STOL fighters.
>>(Submarine Design and Development, Norman Friedman)
>
>Now, that's really dated. 1990's study for submersible aircraft carrier
>from _Proceedings_: 40,000 tons, nuclear powered, composite hull, submerged
>speed 40+ knots, aircraft complement one squadron attack aircraft, one
>squadron patrol aircraft, one squadron multimission transport. Defensive
>weaponry with exoatmospheric (anti-Thor) intercept capability, multipurpose
>torpedo/missile tubes, and reinforced company of Marines for landings. G.
>Harry Stine develops these ideas in his novel _First Action_.

I'd submit there's some difference between an OpNav study and a novel.
How many aircraft of what type per squadron, how much ordnance embarked,
cycle times for launch and recovery, speed and operating depths, how
much room for maintenance, how the hell do you launch the damn things,
what do you use for sensors for anti-Thor weappons, and where do the
Marines, their equipment, their supplies, and the vehicles by which they
and their supplies move from sub to shore live?

This does smack a little of exuberance. Was the writer acquainted with
Harold Hutchison at all?

>>Submarines are far too tightly volume limited to be useful aircraft
>>carriers.
>
>Not anymore. There are civilian designs for submarine supertankers: with
>their under-the-pole crossing capability, they may be able to traverse some
>routes in much less time (and be less vulnerable).

How many are in service, under construction, or even serious
consideration? There's a design for a two-mile-long LTA craft in this
month's "Engineering", but nobody's rushing to build it.

>>Doesn't matter: this is why you embark a helicopter or two. When you're
>>moving that fast you're blind, and by closing to attack over-the-side
>>you expose yourself to attack: better to put your weapon on a platform
>>the submarine cannot attack, together with sensors to localise and
>>classify vague contacts.
>
>Actually, I was thinking of the burst speed for avoidance and pursuit
>reasons. As you point out, sonobuoys and tilt-rotor aircraft ensure that
>you're not blind.

Depends what you're trying to do. Avoidance I buy, pursuit I'm not so
sure about. Standoff vs. submarines is the way to go in a ship: the
submarine wins the knife fight because he has three dimensions to your
two. And there are major design problems with SWATH or SES for major
warships that at present remain unresolved.

>And it's no longer true that submarines cannot attack aircraft. Akulas have
>a mast mounted SA-7 system (equivalent of a Stinger, but plenty enough for
>a prosecuting helicopter) and the Seawolf will probably incorporate a
>submerged fire SAM weapon. Sure, you can't stick around and slug it out
>(submarines need to HIDE) but it's useful for picking off that really
>annoying helo laying sonobuoys and dropping fish on you.

The similar SLAM trialled on HMS Aeneas in 1972. The problem is that (a)
the missile is outranged by the helicopter's torpedoes, (b) naval helos
have grown pretty impressive self-defence suites, (c) slow at periscope
depth with a mast up is *exactly* where you do not want to be with an
enemy helicopter or MPA in the area.

>Having a surface ship able to sprint near to where an aircraft is
>prosecuting a sub contact ups the effectiveness of the ship-aircraft team.

Surface ship ASW weapons are outranged by submarines' ASuW weapons, and
that isn't likely to change. Surface ship sensors are less effective
than submarine sonars, and ditto. The ship's advantage is that a towed
array lets it launch a helo to prosecute a contact while neither ship
nor sub can hurt the other, yet the helo can make a kill. Start making
high-speed sprints and you are noisy and blind: a sitting duck.

>>Also, for burst speed for submarines, check the Russian "Shkval" weapon:
>>a 200-250 knot torpedo, unguided and rocket propelled, intended as a
>>reaction-fire weapon. Adapt the technology used there to submarines, to
>>give them a burst of "blind and noisy but fast" speed for evasion.
>
>Read about the Russian "underwater missile". But, large hulls cannot
>withstand the stresses of such high speeds. That's why the Soviet Alfa
>class, with a Titanium hull, still tops out around 40 knots.

Supercavitation (as in Shkval) cuts the forces seen by the hull quite a
lot, though whether it's feasable on such a large scale I don't know.

>And of course, when you're nosing a Mark 48 fish up to the target on wire
>guidance, you don't have it attack from the same quarter that you're in for
>just this reason.

Sorry, Adam, the swashplate engine on a Mark 48 is one of the loudest
underwater noises in Creation, and unless your enemy is Helen Keller
they'll hear it from startup. Hence, Shkval. "Doglegging" torpedoes is a
useful RN tactic with battery-powered Tigerfish, but only Tom Clancy
believes it's worthwhile for a Mark 48. The ADCAP with its higher power
output is even worse.

>Yes. Corporate naval vessels would be akin to what the Coast Guard is
>today: sufficient weaponry for dealing with most threats, but not up to the
>level of a professional navy. A corporate force lacks a fleet, coordination
>with significant land and aerospace-based resources, and cannot afford the
>expense of truly state of the art weaponry. An Ares frigate probably have
>some good theatre defense SAMs, and perhaps even a decent defensive laser
>array and some sort range SSM, but would not mount be able to coordinate
>with a well-constructed, purpose-built fleet designed for seapower
>projection.

Spot on AFAIK. I should have thought of the US Coast Guard as an
example, thanks, Adam. Good ships for their role, well-crewed and
capable for the job they're designed for: not "true" warships, but cost-
effective vessels.

>After thinking about it more: given the messes in Indonesia, Antarctica,
>Japan, Korea, and China, by 2057 the Aussies may have a pretty decent fleet
>with sizable capabilities. They sure taught the U.S. Seventh fleet
>something about effective use of stealth in Team Gold exercises.

They'd need it, looking at the geography and the chaos SE Asia dropped
into, the Australian Navy would *need* to be good. They're no slouches
today, from what I hear.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 17
From: Stephen Delear <shadow@***.com>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 23:35:04 -0500 (CDT)
On Tue, 28 May 1996, Marc A Renouf wrote:

>
> Actually, the Soviets (when they still *were* Soviets)
> experimented with a pretty rude weapon. It was a modified man-pack SA-7
> Grail launcher mounted onto the periscope mast. The object of the unit
> was to be able to spot, acquire, and launch a small SAM at offending ASW
> choppers. They didn't have a whole lot of success with it, but that was
> mainly due to the fact that the thing was based off a Grail system (lame)
> and was basically jury-rigged together and held on with gum and baling
> wire. If this concept were seriously studied, it's entirely possible
> that subs could be death to aerial search platforms.
>
> Marc
>
Would a P-3 be able to make an attack from out side of SAM range (as in
the actuall range of the torp the aircraft is carrying).

Stephen
Message no. 18
From: Russ Myrick <rm91612@****.net>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 16:50:28 -0700
Adam Getchell wrote:
> The range on your Mark 56 torpedo is a bit short. You state a rigger
> can control it by wire guidance out to 1000 meters. The Mark 48 can be
> controlled out to about 26 nautical miles on wire guidance.

Still short. If this were a cribbage score you'd be skunked.
>
> Probably, the torpedo room would be fully automated for speed of
> loading and automated datalinks to the weapons. If you have manual
> loaders, you have a break between the data from the fire solution and
> the weapon computer.

Not any more so than they are now. Most of the loading is automated on
fast attacks. Those portions which are not automated are the safeguards
-- Who the hell needs a hot run on 48 with "no look back" disabled?
Besides the final solution does not even go to the weapon until it exits
the tube (check fin switch). Currently the launch solution passes from
sonar/main FCC to torpedo room FCC to weapon. Once the fish is clear it
links directly to sonar/main FCC for guidance.
>
> By 2057, there would doubtless be no difference between the "standard"
> torpedo and an underwater rocket. Unguided munitions don't fare as
> well.

Lots of difference. Those rockets are damned noisy. Lately the
direction of torpedo development has been for a stealth vs. speed
compromise. We already have units (variants of the 48) that exceed
60 knots (The Russians have one we tried to ID in '84 that exceeds
100 knots and is not a rocket).

<snip>

> Mines nowadays tend to be of the CAPTOR type (encapsulated torpedo).
> I'd say it would just be "lie silent-autonomous mode" for a Mark 58
> torpedo.

No, there'd still be the other types of mines in use. The variance in
mines now allows for mission specific uses and combinations. In the case
of CAPTOR it has proven to be very useful as an ASW weapon for securing
channels and port entrys, but is virtually useless in open water and for
controlling canals, rivers, etc. My personal fav is the lamprey type (it
detonates on remote signal or when removed from the attached target's
magnetic signiature -- say 5 inches -- and is nuclear capable).
Message no. 19
From: Russ Myrick <rm91612@****.net>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 18:38:06 -0700
Marc A Renouf wrote:
>
> I'm with you on the rest of your post, but this one leaves me
> cold. I've seen the designs (being a naval architect and all) of some
> of the larger supertankers (the ones in excess of 1000' LBP) but they
> are nowhere close to drawing that much water. As a general rule, the
> *depth* (and for you land lubbers, depth is the height from the keel to
> the top edge of the gunwhale) rarely exceeds 10% of the overall length.
> For the larger supertankers, the biggest change over standard tankers
> is the fact that they are so beamy. Drawing too much water severely
> restricts where a ship can go and which ports it can visit, which is
> ultimately limiting your potential profit.

I speak from several years of hiding underneath these things in the Med
and East Atlantic -- we normally stayed 30-40 ft below keel in soft seas.
This is close, the one time we didn't go deeper in a squal we lost our #2
scope (left it in the hull of the Kuwaiti tanker). Most of the tankers
coming out of the Mid East are severely over loaded these days, even the
bilges are filled with crude.
Message no. 20
From: acgetchell@*******.edu (Adam Getchell)
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 04:11:09 -0700
>Russ Myrick wrote:

>Now lets be honest here. During the entire time I was on active duty,
>the 7th fleas never got into an engagement in which their carriers did
>not bite it in the first 4 hours. Usually from an unfriendly boat, at
>PD, less than 1500m away (make that 800m amidships). Maybe by 2057 they
>will have figured out that it is easier to locate a boat using passive
>sonar instead of active.

Well, after all, as far as submariners are concerned (that's submareeener,
not sub-mariner) there's only two kinds of ships: submarines and targets.

And that's also why 688 SSNs usually sail with a carrier task force.
Relatively recent tactics. The most dangerous ASW weapon the
frigate/destroyers carry are the helos, though I believe in a few exercises
the Spruances can occasionally make an ASROC kill.

Actually, though, I was referring to an exercise in which a group of Aussie
_frigates_ got to within visual (!) range of a carrier using disciplined
EMCON and plain sneakiness.

=================================================================
Adam Getchell
acgetchell@*******.edu
http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~acgetche/
=================================================================

"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent."
-- Sun Tzu
Message no. 21
From: acgetchell@*******.edu (Adam Getchell)
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 04:11:41 -0700
>The problem is a torpedo warhead places its explosive far more
>effectively, under the keel instead of in the superstructure. And the
>semi-submersible aspects of the arsenal ship appear to have been
>jettisoned in favour of what is basically a tanker hull with lots of VLS
>farms.

Torpedoes are great except that compared to missiles they lack range and
speed. Torpedoes can also be spoofed, run afoul, and so forth. A missile
that delivers a torpedo for a warhead is going to be 1)heavier 2)shorter
ranged or 3)slower than one that has a conventional warhead.

I don't think the arsenal ship without submergence capability is a good
idea ... and I'm speculating on that concept re: Shadowrun. Submarines are
stealthier, more manueverable, and in the future, 50 meters of ocean makes
for decent armor against orbital weaponry.

Perhaps the best idea (though, of course, not as cheap) would be an SSGN
such as Soviet Charlies: say, a Trident-class with VLS farms.

>More than a few aspects of this make me jittery. The Raduga 85-RU /SS-N-
>14 Silex, for instance, carries a E53 homing torpedo as well as a 350kg
>warhead: it's a longer-range Ikara or ASROC, except it also has an
>antiship IR seeker and a warhead. Against this ship, you'd use the
>torpedo instead. The Russians have done it for years, they can do it
>again, especially since this ship has no defences to speak of: CIWS
>don't take kindly to submersion.

Silex still has less range than Shipwreck, and the Over-the-horizon
targetting problem becomes trickier. Generally, best range on a sonar is
3rd Convergence zone at ~90 nautical miles (unless they're dumb or unlucky
enough to get in a nice thermal inversion channel): that is a sight less
than the 250+ nautical mile range of SS-N-20s or the even longer range of
AS-6's off Backfire bombers.

Sea Sparrow doesn't seem to have much problem with submerged firing: that
would be a decent, stopgap antiair weapon. Not to mention there's still the
Aegis cruiser/DDGs nearby.

>As for "one SPY-1", that's what some of the large and nasty ARMs are
>designed to deal with. Datalinks can be jammed. This ship, in most
>studies, doesn't even have a sonar (with a 20-man crew who'd operate
>it?) and would be a sitting duck to submarine attack.

The ARM still needs to penetrate the Aegis SAM basket.

>It basically lacks any flexibility and costs way too much. Wouldn't a
>towed barge of VLS cells behind a CG-47 or DDG-51 be more use? And, at
>the moment, is there a shortage of missile cells, given that most
>Spruances have 64 cells and not overmuch to put in there.

Spruances should be getting Sea Lance, a replacement for ASROC mounting the
Mk 50 Barracuda. They can also carry Harpoons and SM-1s to add to the Aegis
system.
>
>I'd submit there's some difference between an OpNav study and a novel.
>How many aircraft of what type per squadron, how much ordnance embarked,
>cycle times for launch and recovery, speed and operating depths, how
>much room for maintenance, how the hell do you launch the damn things,
>what do you use for sensors for anti-Thor weappons, and where do the
>Marines, their equipment, their supplies, and the vehicles by which they
>and their supplies move from sub to shore live?

The basis was a design that appeared in _Proceedings_. And if you want
specifics, the future design specifies a squadron of 12 VTOL
fighter/attack, 10-12 S-3 type patrol aircraft, and a squadron of tiltrotor
transport craft. Several hundred tons of ordinance embarked (the figure 500
seems to crop up) The projected time for launch from surfacing is 5
minutes. Landing is in hover mode, so ~30 seconds. Speed is 48 knots
maximum at an operational depth of 400 meters with a max depth of 600
meters. Launch is via electromagnetic catapult for heavily laden aircraft.
A multipurpose phased array radar and ladar system provides ranging, for
among other things, anti-Thor weaponry. There are 13 officers + 72 marines
embarked, with supplies, and they are deployed by the Transport squadron.

This design, yes, is conjectural, assuming, amongst other things, fusion
power reactors (in Stine's version). It also seems to be reasonably
achievable by 2057, and given the current usefulness of airpower, seems a
reasonable extrapolation of future naval technology. The patrol squadron
alone makes this vessel better at killing other submarines, given time to
launch (just as with conventional aircraft carriers).

>How many are in service, under construction, or even serious
>consideration? There's a design for a two-mile-long LTA craft in this
>month's "Engineering", but nobody's rushing to build it.

Once again, by 2057 they seem reasonably likely.

>Depends what you're trying to do. Avoidance I buy, pursuit I'm not so
>sure about. Standoff vs. submarines is the way to go in a ship: the
>submarine wins the knife fight because he has three dimensions to your
>two. And there are major design problems with SWATH or SES for major
>warships that at present remain unresolved.

I should clarify that I was considering "future naval design" as
extrapolated from current thinking.

>The similar SLAM trialled on HMS Aeneas in 1972. The problem is that (a)
>the missile is outranged by the helicopter's torpedoes, (b) naval helos
>have grown pretty impressive self-defence suites, (c) slow at periscope
>depth with a mast up is *exactly* where you do not want to be with an
>enemy helicopter or MPA in the area.

This may not be true in the future, especially if the missile does not have
to be launched at periscope depth. Among other things, minidrones (such as
in James' Megaladon design) would be rather useful for spotting those
annoying choppers without endangering the mother submarine.

>Surface ship ASW weapons are outranged by submarines' ASuW weapons, and
>that isn't likely to change. Surface ship sensors are less effective
>than submarine sonars, and ditto. The ship's advantage is that a towed
>array lets it launch a helo to prosecute a contact while neither ship
>nor sub can hurt the other, yet the helo can make a kill. Start making
>high-speed sprints and you are noisy and blind: a sitting duck.

If, as you point out, Silex type weapons are developed in response to
submersible ordinance ships, this would no longer be true. Hovercraft boats
launched from an ASW would have some advantages over helos: greater
ordinance load, invulnerability to torpedos and SAMs, and decent speeds. A
teamwork between a quiet ASW ship, a pair of hovercraft ASW skiffs, and a
few tiltrotors may make a nasty submarine threat, especially if all three
are capable of launching weapons.

And subs are less likely to make kills with SSMs than with torpedos: a
submarine doesn't launch enough of them to saturate most surface ships air
defenses (though it may be enough to get an ASW frigate with only point
defense AAW suites).

>Supercavitation (as in Shkval) cuts the forces seen by the hull quite a
>lot, though whether it's feasable on such a large scale I don't know.

Somehow I doubt it. Back of the envelope calculations say a large hull
(like a sub) still tears itself up. Comments, Marc?

>Sorry, Adam, the swashplate engine on a Mark 48 is one of the loudest
>underwater noises in Creation, and unless your enemy is Helen Keller
>they'll hear it from startup. Hence, Shkval. "Doglegging" torpedoes is a
>useful RN tactic with battery-powered Tigerfish, but only Tom Clancy
>believes it's worthwhile for a Mark 48. The ADCAP with its higher power
>output is even worse.

Mk 48 has two modes: fast and noisy and quiet and slow. Somehow, since US
nuclear subs seem to be at the top of the game as far as stealth goes (not
counting modern diesel-electrics) I don't think they left this out of
consideration. I buy that Mk 48 makes lots of noise in fast mode, I expect
that slow mode is much quieter.

'Sides, I have no trouble putting out 4 or more Mk48s against Soviet boats
in Harpoon ;-) (Though Mr. Bond does know something about naval warfare).
The dogleg trick works pretty well. Helos do make life rough though.

Yes, U.S. SSNs lust after Tigerfish torpedoes the way sailors lust after
... liberty.

>They'd need it, looking at the geography and the chaos SE Asia dropped
>into, the Australian Navy would *need* to be good. They're no slouches
>today, from what I hear.

Now if you Brits would just get back into the carrier business. From what I
understand most Commonwealth nations have professional fleets in the grand
tradition of the Royal Navy.

>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

=================================================================
Adam Getchell
acgetchell@*******.edu
http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~acgetche/
=================================================================

"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent."
-- Sun Tzu
Message no. 22
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 17:34:16 +0100
In message <v02140b10add1cbf3186c@[128.120.253.162]>, Adam Getchell
<acgetchell@*******.edu> writes
>Torpedoes are great except that compared to missiles they lack range and
>speed. Torpedoes can also be spoofed, run afoul, and so forth. A missile
>that delivers a torpedo for a warhead is going to be 1)heavier 2)shorter
>ranged or 3)slower than one that has a conventional warhead.

It's a lot harder to spoof a torpedo than a missile, and there's no
effective hard-kill countermeasure. Also, you drop the torpedo outside
CIWS range, and you need a smaller salvo size: and you can also use
fewer missiles since each has a higher Pglug, to use the current s.m.n.
term for a catastrophic kill :) Thus, though your missiles are heavier,
you need fewer.

>Perhaps the best idea (though, of course, not as cheap) would be an SSGN
>such as Soviet Charlies: say, a Trident-class with VLS farms.

Useful for some roles, severely limited in others: the fundamental flaw
of the Arsenal Ship is that it is a floating missile battery with very
little flexibility: can't do NGFS, drug interdiction, picket duty, ASW,
or most of the other roles that warships actually carry out. The war
scenarios where an arsenal ship would be useful don't come up very
often.

<I said...>
>>More than a few aspects of this make me jittery. The Raduga 85-RU /SS-N-
>>14 Silex, for instance, carries a E53 homing torpedo as well as a 350kg
>>warhead: it's a longer-range Ikara or ASROC, except it also has an
>>antiship IR seeker and a warhead. Against this ship, you'd use the
>>torpedo instead. The Russians have done it for years, they can do it
>>again, especially since this ship has no defences to speak of: CIWS
>>don't take kindly to submersion.
>
>Silex still has less range than Shipwreck, and the Over-the-horizon
>targetting problem becomes trickier. Generally, best range on a sonar is
>3rd Convergence zone at ~90 nautical miles (unless they're dumb or unlucky
>enough to get in a nice thermal inversion channel): that is a sight less
>than the 250+ nautical mile range of SS-N-20s or the even longer range of
>AS-6's off Backfire bombers.

SS-N-20 is the ICBM on the Typhoon - you mean SS-N-19 Shipwreck? The
difference, of course, is that a submarine has a much better chance of
reaching firing range, compared to Backfires or surface ships trying to
get into missile range under a Hawkeye's radar coverage.

>Sea Sparrow doesn't seem to have much problem with submerged firing: that
>would be a decent, stopgap antiair weapon. Not to mention there's still the
>Aegis cruiser/DDGs nearby.

Where is a Sea Sparrow fired submerged? I hadn't heard of this before.
Also, you have to raise a search radar and a CW illuminator to guide the
missile, so you'd have quite a lot of clutter above the surface.

>>As for "one SPY-1", that's what some of the large and nasty ARMs are
>>designed to deal with. Datalinks can be jammed. This ship, in most
>>studies, doesn't even have a sonar (with a 20-man crew who'd operate
>>it?) and would be a sitting duck to submarine attack.
>
>The ARM still needs to penetrate the Aegis SAM basket.

True, but it complicates your targeting.

>>It basically lacks any flexibility and costs way too much. Wouldn't a
>>towed barge of VLS cells behind a CG-47 or DDG-51 be more use? And, at
>>the moment, is there a shortage of missile cells, given that most
>>Spruances have 64 cells and not overmuch to put in there.
>
>Spruances should be getting Sea Lance, a replacement for ASROC mounting the
>Mk 50 Barracuda. They can also carry Harpoons and SM-1s to add to the Aegis
>system.

Harpoon doesn't go in VLS, Sea Lance was canned in 1991, VL Asroc is
almost frozen, Mark 50 production shut down in 1993 with only 224 units
built, Aegis can't guide SM-1s.

Whew. :) You can, though, put SM-2s in the VLS and fire them using CEC.

>>I'd submit there's some difference between an OpNav study and a novel.
>>How many aircraft of what type per squadron, how much ordnance embarked,
>>cycle times for launch and recovery, speed and operating depths, how
>>much room for maintenance, how the hell do you launch the damn things,
>>what do you use for sensors for anti-Thor weappons, and where do the
>>Marines, their equipment, their supplies, and the vehicles by which they
>>and their supplies move from sub to shore live?
>
>The basis was a design that appeared in _Proceedings_. And if you want
>specifics, the future design specifies a squadron of 12 VTOL
>fighter/attack, 10-12 S-3 type patrol aircraft, and a squadron of tiltrotor
>transport craft. Several hundred tons of ordinance embarked (the figure 500
>seems to crop up) The projected time for launch from surfacing is 5
>minutes. Landing is in hover mode, so ~30 seconds. Speed is 48 knots
>maximum at an operational depth of 400 meters with a max depth of 600
>meters. Launch is via electromagnetic catapult for heavily laden aircraft.
>A multipurpose phased array radar and ladar system provides ranging, for
>among other things, anti-Thor weaponry. There are 13 officers + 72 marines
>embarked, with supplies, and they are deployed by the Transport squadron.

>This design, yes, is conjectural, assuming, amongst other things, fusion
>power reactors (in Stine's version). It also seems to be reasonably
>achievable by 2057, and given the current usefulness of airpower, seems a
>reasonable extrapolation of future naval technology. The patrol squadron
>alone makes this vessel better at killing other submarines, given time to
>launch (just as with conventional aircraft carriers).
>
>>How many are in service, under construction, or even serious
>>consideration? There's a design for a two-mile-long LTA craft in this
>>month's "Engineering", but nobody's rushing to build it.
>
>Once again, by 2057 they seem reasonably likely.
>
>If, as you point out, Silex type weapons are developed in response to
>submersible ordinance ships, this would no longer be true. Hovercraft boats
>launched from an ASW would have some advantages over helos: greater
>ordinance load, invulnerability to torpedos and SAMs, and decent speeds. A
>teamwork between a quiet ASW ship, a pair of hovercraft ASW skiffs, and a
>few tiltrotors may make a nasty submarine threat, especially if all three
>are capable of launching weapons.

Good points. One problem may be operating the "skiffs" - nice term - in
high sea states.

>Mk 48 has two modes: fast and noisy and quiet and slow. Somehow, since US
>nuclear subs seem to be at the top of the game as far as stealth goes (not
>counting modern diesel-electrics) I don't think they left this out of
>consideration. I buy that Mk 48 makes lots of noise in fast mode, I expect
>that slow mode is much quieter.

The Official Secrets Act says we have to agree to differ here, since I
can't tell you any more without possibly breaching it. Let's leave it as
repeating that "fast" and "slow" modes are correct, though it never
gets
particularly quiet compared to Spearfish or Tigerfish. There were plans
to switch to a (quieter) turbine powerplant for Mark 48, but the US
submarine community seem reasonably content with the swashplate, noisy
or not.

>>They'd need it, looking at the geography and the chaos SE Asia dropped
>>into, the Australian Navy would *need* to be good. They're no slouches
>>today, from what I hear.
>
>Now if you Brits would just get back into the carrier business. From what I
>understand most Commonwealth nations have professional fleets in the grand
>tradition of the Royal Navy.

The CVS replacements are under consdieration for a 2010 ISD. One option
is a return to full-deck CTOL carriers. If so, I vote for Furious, Eagle
and - if there are three rather than two - Glorious as the names :)

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 23
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 17:58:12 +0100
In message <Pine.3.89.9605282335.A17429-0100000@****.bga.com>, Stephen
Delear <shadow@***.com> writes
>Would a P-3 be able to make an attack from out side of SAM range (as in
>the actuall range of the torp the aircraft is carrying).

Yes, quite easily if the SAM is a Stinger/SA-14/Javelin class weapon
(small enough to go on a mast).

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 24
From: Russ Myrick <rm91612@****.net>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 14:47:46 -0700
Stephen Delear wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 May 1996, Marc A Renouf wrote:
> Would a P-3 be able to make an attack from out side of SAM range (as in
> the actuall range of the torp the aircraft is carrying).

The could, but the accuracy stinks. They generally make their drop
within 2 km of the target barely enough for the fish to safely arm,
locate, and lock on to the target before passing it -- 1200m is the
minimum.
Message no. 25
From: Russ Myrick <rm91612@****.net>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:22:21 -0700
Adam Getchell wrote:
<snip>
> And that's also why 688 SSNs usually sail with a carrier task force.
> Relatively recent tactics. The most dangerous ASW weapon the
> frigate/destroyers carry are the helos, though I believe in a few
> exercises the Spruances can occasionally make an ASROC kill.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
What's this??? ^ ^ With a ROC? Since the
one's we can carry have a 7 nm sure kill radius I find occasionally hard
to believe ... were they practice warheads maybe -- you know the 5 kg
poppers?
>
> Actually, though, I was referring to an exercise in which a group of Aussie_frigates_
got to within visual (!) range of a carrier using
> disciplined EMCON and plain sneakiness.

Brooms a flyin'?
Message no. 26
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 22:44:01 +0100
In message <31ACC602.1AA8@****.net>, Russ Myrick <rm91612@****.net>
writes
>Stephen Delear wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 May 1996, Marc A Renouf wrote:
>> Would a P-3 be able to make an attack from out side of SAM range (as in
>> the actuall range of the torp the aircraft is carrying).
>
>The could, but the accuracy stinks. They generally make their drop
>within 2 km of the target barely enough for the fish to safely arm,
>locate, and lock on to the target before passing it -- 1200m is the
>minimum.

Cheap American torpedoes :) Ours are better :) :)

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 27
From: acgetchell@*******.edu (Adam Getchell)
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 02:25:49 -0700
>It's a lot harder to spoof a torpedo than a missile, and there's no
>effective hard-kill countermeasure. Also, you drop the torpedo outside
>CIWS range, and you need a smaller salvo size: and you can also use
>fewer missiles since each has a higher Pglug, to use the current s.m.n.
>term for a catastrophic kill :) Thus, though your missiles are heavier,
>you need fewer.

I suppose that laser systems and improved torpedoes will make this
interesting. Underwater rocket systems may be a decent hard-kill option,
and there's always better versions of Prairie Masker. But the crystal ball
is murky in terms of what will work out.

>Useful for some roles, severely limited in others: the fundamental flaw
>of the Arsenal Ship is that it is a floating missile battery with very
>little flexibility: can't do NGFS, drug interdiction, picket duty, ASW,
>or most of the other roles that warships actually carry out. The war
>scenarios where an arsenal ship would be useful don't come up very
>often.

Still, I always thought an O.H. Perry class frigate lengthened enough for a
61 cell VLS system (3 cells are occupied by the crane) to be a decent
cheap, yet still useful ship.

>SS-N-20 is the ICBM on the Typhoon - you mean SS-N-19 Shipwreck? The
>difference, of course, is that a submarine has a much better chance of
>reaching firing range, compared to Backfires or surface ships trying to
>get into missile range under a Hawkeye's radar coverage.

Yup. But in the future, those nice acoustic noise sensors are going to make
this a bit trickier. It's in Scientific American: it is basically a sonar
(requiring hundreds to thousands of sensors for decent resolution) that
works off ambient ocean sound similiar to our eyes working off ambient
light. They've managed a couple thousand sensors already, and at ~1 million
the resolution becomes pretty darn sharp: enough to see reflections off
spherical surfaces, note textures, and all those tricks we've been noticing
dolphins and whales can do. Make the equivalent of a Hawkeye platform with
a big sonar dish and you have some decent warning capability.

>Where is a Sea Sparrow fired submerged? I hadn't heard of this before.
>Also, you have to raise a search radar and a CW illuminator to guide the
>missile, so you'd have quite a lot of clutter above the surface.

Conducted tests to prove VL Sea Sparrow, then submerged-launch. I may have
misremembered this, although I had thought this was in conjunction with
Seawolf. Using a drone for the search radar and illuminator wouldn't be too
bad, and would eliminate the "at periscope depth" jitters.

>True, but it complicates your targeting.

Just have the future Aegis upgrade its threat factor and ensure that it is
taken out (if this capability doesn't already exist).

>Harpoon doesn't go in VLS, Sea Lance was canned in 1991, VL Asroc is
>almost frozen, Mark 50 production shut down in 1993 with only 224 units
>built, Aegis can't guide SM-1s.
>
>Whew. :) You can, though, put SM-2s in the VLS and fire them using CEC.

Sigh. I'm behind the times, thanks. Need to renew _Proceedings_.

Hmm. I'm reasonably certain I've seen Harpoon in VLS; definitely seen
Tomahawk. Too bad about Sea Lance, A-12, and all those other programs. I
guess the USN will just have to buy Tigerfish. ;-) (Does Ikara launch
Tigerfish? ;-)

>Good points. One problem may be operating the "skiffs" - nice term - in
>high sea states.

True. With hovercraft, though, the larger the platform the more clearance.
I was thinking in the 100-ton range with a sensor suite, CIWS, spoofing
gear, and torpedoes. Definitely include sonobuoys, and if it's cheap
enough, a towed-array. Thoughts?

>The Official Secrets Act says we have to agree to differ here, since I
>can't tell you any more without possibly breaching it. Let's leave it as
>repeating that "fast" and "slow" modes are correct, though it
never gets
>particularly quiet compared to Spearfish or Tigerfish. There were plans
>to switch to a (quieter) turbine powerplant for Mark 48, but the US
>submarine community seem reasonably content with the swashplate, noisy
>or not.

Another reason to buy Tigerfish, then. ;-)

>The CVS replacements are under consdieration for a 2010 ISD. One option
>is a return to full-deck CTOL carriers. If so, I vote for Furious, Eagle
>and - if there are three rather than two - Glorious as the names :)

Now that is _good_ news. I'd figure, though, that Ark Royal and Invincible
would be used out of tradition. (Ark Royal helped sink the Bismark, if I
remember my history correctly). Would these be full-sized in the Nimitz
range, or something more like the French or Soviet concept (before it was
scrapped)?

I'm also sure the renewed IJN would _not_ name their carriers Sokaku,
Zuihu, Ashikaga, etc. ;-)

>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

=================================================================
Adam Getchell
acgetchell@*******.edu
http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~acgetche/
=================================================================

"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent."
-- Sun Tzu
Message no. 28
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 12:47:58 +0100
In message <v02140b01add3b5a13edf@[128.120.253.225]>, Adam Getchell
<acgetchell@*******.edu> writes
>I suppose that laser systems and improved torpedoes will make this
>interesting. Underwater rocket systems may be a decent hard-kill option,
>and there's always better versions of Prairie Masker. But the crystal ball
>is murky in terms of what will work out.

Yes, always the problem. I tend to stick fairly close to what I know for
this kind of stuff and not push the tech forward too far, others may
prefer to work differently.

>Still, I always thought an O.H. Perry class frigate lengthened enough for a
>61 cell VLS system (3 cells are occupied by the crane) to be a decent
>cheap, yet still useful ship.

It's up to 64 now, the crane's been deleted on the Burkes: since only
SM-2 can be struck down into the cells, and the process takes over an
hour per missile and can only be done in reasonable calm, the extra six
cells are considered more useful, it seems. Otherwise, yes, replacing
the Mark 13 with a VLS makes the Perrys more rounded vessels: the Mark
41 is a wonderful invention for that.

>>SS-N-20 is the ICBM on the Typhoon - you mean SS-N-19 Shipwreck? The
>>difference, of course, is that a submarine has a much better chance of
>>reaching firing range, compared to Backfires or surface ships trying to
>>get into missile range under a Hawkeye's radar coverage.
>
>Yup. But in the future, those nice acoustic noise sensors are going to make
>this a bit trickier. It's in Scientific American: it is basically a sonar
>(requiring hundreds to thousands of sensors for decent resolution) that
>works off ambient ocean sound similiar to our eyes working off ambient
>light. They've managed a couple thousand sensors already, and at ~1 million
>the resolution becomes pretty darn sharp: enough to see reflections off
>spherical surfaces, note textures, and all those tricks we've been noticing
>dolphins and whales can do. Make the equivalent of a Hawkeye platform with
>a big sonar dish and you have some decent warning capability.

How well does this work moving at 20-30 knots, and what's the detection
range?

>>Where is a Sea Sparrow fired submerged? I hadn't heard of this before.
>>Also, you have to raise a search radar and a CW illuminator to guide the
>>missile, so you'd have quite a lot of clutter above the surface.
>
>Conducted tests to prove VL Sea Sparrow, then submerged-launch. I may have
>misremembered this, although I had thought this was in conjunction with
>Seawolf. Using a drone for the search radar and illuminator wouldn't be too
>bad, and would eliminate the "at periscope depth" jitters.

Hmmm... still lots of things to go wrong at the moment, but feasable.

>>Harpoon doesn't go in VLS, Sea Lance was canned in 1991, VL Asroc is
>>almost frozen, Mark 50 production shut down in 1993 with only 224 units
>>built, Aegis can't guide SM-1s.
>>
>>Whew. :) You can, though, put SM-2s in the VLS and fire them using CEC.
>
>Sigh. I'm behind the times, thanks. Need to renew _Proceedings_.

Don't feel bad, this is my job :)

>Hmm. I'm reasonably certain I've seen Harpoon in VLS; definitely seen
>Tomahawk. Too bad about Sea Lance, A-12, and all those other programs. I
>guess the USN will just have to buy Tigerfish. ;-) (Does Ikara launch
>Tigerfish? ;-)

Nope, Sting Ray, and only Brazil now uses Ikara: too big, too expensive,
too short-ranged compared to a helicopter.

>>Good points. One problem may be operating the "skiffs" - nice term - in
>>high sea states.
>
>True. With hovercraft, though, the larger the platform the more clearance.
>I was thinking in the 100-ton range with a sensor suite, CIWS, spoofing
>gear, and torpedoes. Definitely include sonobuoys, and if it's cheap
>enough, a towed-array. Thoughts?

Won't get a tail on the hovercraft, but this is a localisation/attack
platform replacing a helicopter. The problem is you lose the helo's
ability to do jumping-jack surface searches, for instance, and the
hovercraft is a lot more vulnerable to fast-attack craft than a helo.
Tradeoffs, tradeoffs... Interesting idea, though. Makes a LPH an
effective ASW 'carrier' instead of an amphibious transport.

>>The CVS replacements are under consdieration for a 2010 ISD. One option
>>is a return to full-deck CTOL carriers. If so, I vote for Furious, Eagle
>>and - if there are three rather than two - Glorious as the names :)
>
>Now that is _good_ news. I'd figure, though, that Ark Royal and Invincible
>would be used out of tradition. (Ark Royal helped sink the Bismark, if I
>remember my history correctly). Would these be full-sized in the Nimitz
>range, or something more like the French or Soviet concept (before it was
>scrapped)?

More in the 35-45kton range. The problem with Ark Royal is that she'll
be the last to retire, so the replacements will risk overlapping a name.
Furious is a honourable carrier name (she was one of the RN's first, a
conversion of one of Fisher's Follies) as are Glorious and Eagle. More
Charles de Gaulle than Nimitz, though conventionally powered.

>I'm also sure the renewed IJN would _not_ name their carriers Sokaku,
>Zuihu, Ashikaga, etc. ;-)

Oh, I don't know, they brought back _Kongo_... :)

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!