| 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 |
<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
