Surface Warfare Thread

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by DennisDaMenace

Somewhere around 15 years ago I remember the USN and Turkey navys running some joint exercise together. The USN shot off a Sea-sparrow missle and it flew right into the bridge of a Turkish Cruiser killing the Admiral of the Turkish fleet, very big embarressment for US.. I looked but couldnt find a link for it.
However if you could get one of the long range surface to air missels to work, without killing your own allies it would be a big advantage if you could also use it for surface to surface. First blood on the battle field is always good for morale.

Dennis I found a link about that accident on Global security.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...pe/tu-navy.htm

One of the destroyers, the Muavenet , was hit by two Sea Sparrow surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs) launched accidentally by a United States warship during exercises in 1992. The Turkish captain and four other personnel were killed and a number injured. The destroyer subsequently was scrapped. In 1993 and 1994, eight newer Knox-class frigates were transferred to Turkey by the United States.

Dennis is so right. This was an embarrasment for the USN. But no such other incidents have occuried.

Dennis you need to read the full account of Operation Praying Mantis

http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhono...ngmantis.shtml

[adeptitus]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

A prime example of peacetime ops is anti drug running patrols such as those carried out by the USN, USCG, and the RN and RFA in the caribbean. Some have criticised the use of a large, complex and expensive warship such as a type 22 frigate or an Arleigh Burke class DDG on relatively low tech missions like this, but Navies have to be very flexible and ready to meet any threat, large or small.

The US has a pretty large coast guard fleet, with approx. 1,400 boats and over 200 aircraft. The boats range from small fiber glass harbor patrol boats to the 3,250 tonne "high endurance" cutters, armed with 76mm cannon, 20mm CIWS gun, and helicopter deck.

Let's look at the largest US Coast Guard "gunships":

12 x Secretary class high endurance cutter
3,250 tonnes, 76mm cannon, 20mm CIWS, helicopter deck

13 x Famous class medium endurance cutter
1,800 tonnes, 76 mm cannon, 2 x 12.7mm machinegun, helicopter deck

14 x Reliance class medium endurance cutter
1,127 tonnes, 25mm autocannon, 2 x 12.7mm machinegun, helicopter deck

Since these ships are for the coast guard, they're all gun boats without missiles. But if they were actually built (or refit) as military ships, they'd be a fleet of 12 frigates and 27 light frigates. That's a larger surface fleet than most navies today.

There's really no reason for the USN to send out destroyers for anti-drug operations. The US Coast Guard has plenty of ships and aircraft.

[bd popeye]

adeptius, The USN sends out it's FFG's on drug enforcement deployments with USCG detatchments on board. The USCG has powers to arrest on the high seas. The USN does not. This link will give you some idea of USN drug bust.

http://138.145.200.36/search?access=...o.x=9&filter=0

Some months ago I found a link about how the USCG was repacing all it's ships beyond a certian age. I could not find that link. It is a multi-billion dollar program.

[IDonT]

Thread Resurrected...

In purely surface vs surface capability. Who do you think had the most powerful surface fleet at the outbreak of WWII (1940-1941)?

My guess is IJN. Why...superior training and night fighting ability. Plus the long lance torpedoes.

The Long Lance torpedo had a maximum range of 40,000 meters with a 1,080 lb (490 kg) warhead. In comparison the 16 inch /L45 guns mounted on the then-current US Colorado-class battleships fired a 2,110 lb (957 kg) shell to an absolute maximum range of 39,600 yards (36,210 m). Practical ranges for both weapons were much shorter, but still fairly comparable overall.

In early battles, Japanese destroyers and cruisers were able to launch their torpedoes from over 20,000 metres out at unsuspecting Allied ships that were attempting to close to gun range, expecting torpedoes to be fired at less than 10,000 metres, the typical range of that era. The losses sustained in such engagements led to a belief among the Allies that the torpedoes were being fired from submarines operating in concert with the surface ships but at much closer ranges. On rare occasions, the very long range of the torpedo caused it to strike a ship that was far behind the intended target. The Type 93's capabilities were not recognized by the Allies until one was captured intact in 1943.

See how the deadly the long lance was used in the Battle of Savo Island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island

[IDonT]

Trying to bring this back to life.

Of the recent new construction of top of the line surface ships, European ships tend to be less heavily armed than their asian counter parts.

Current European surface ships under construction
1.) Horizon Frigate (48 Sylver VLS cells)
2.) Type 45 (48 Sylver VLS cells)
3.) F100 (Spain - Alvaro de Basan, RAAN - Hobart Class; Norweigian - Nansen Class) (32-48 Mk 41 VLS cells depending on country)
4.) F-124 Frigate Sachen Class (32 Mk 41 VLS cells)
5.) Den Zeven Class (48 VLS Cells)


Current Asian Ships under construction
1.) KDX III (128 VLS cells)
2.) Atago Destroyer (96)
3.) 052 C (48 Cells)

IS there a reason?

Jeff head has the spreadsheet

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvessels...giscompare.jpg

The Asian ships are more heavily armed.

[Pointblank]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Trying to bring this back to life.

Of the recent new construction of top of the line surface ships, European ships tend to be less heavily armed than their asian counter parts.

Current European surface ships under construction
1.) Horizon Frigate (48 Sylver VLS cells)
2.) Type 45 (48 Sylver VLS cells)
3.) F100 (Spain - Alvaro de Basan, RAAN - Hobart Class; Norweigian - Nansen Class) (32-48 Mk 41 VLS cells depending on country)
4.) F-124 Frigate Sachen Class (32 Mk 41 VLS cells)
5.) Den Zeven Class (48 VLS Cells)


Current Asian Ships under construction
1.) KDX III (128 VLS cells)
2.) Atago Destroyer (96)
3.) 052 C (48 Cells)

IS there a reason?

Jeff head has the spreadsheet

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvessels...giscompare.jpg

The Asian ships are more heavily armed.

The Asian ships are often a lot bigger. Also, European ships typically operate under the cover of their own respective air forces or carrier based aviation, which can negate some of the requirements for a heavy SAM battery.

[IDonT]

Originally Posted by Pointblank

The Asian ships are often a lot bigger. Also, European ships typically operate under the cover of their own respective air forces or carrier based aviation, which can negate some of the requirements for a heavy SAM battery.

JMSDF, South Korea Navy, and the PLAN also operate within the cover of their own air forces.

[Tasman]

The European navies seem to think that 32-48 VLS cells are sufficient for any conflicts they are likely to be involved in. In Asia the chances of massed air and missile attack may be perceived to be greater, therefore requiring more SAM's.

In Australia's case the choice of a European design was largely to do with cost and manpower requirements. The RAN was keen on a larger number of VLS cells. It favoured an evolved version of the Arleigh Burke with 64 VLS cells as standard and the capacity for another 16 as an option but was over ruled by the government on the advice of the Defence Department.

Tas

[crobato]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Trying to bring this back to life.

Of the recent new construction of top of the line surface ships, European ships tend to be less heavily armed than their asian counter parts.

Current European surface ships under construction
1.) Horizon Frigate (48 Sylver VLS cells)
2.) Type 45 (48 Sylver VLS cells)
3.) F100 (Spain - Alvaro de Basan, RAAN - Hobart Class; Norweigian - Nansen Class) (32-48 Mk 41 VLS cells depending on country)
4.) F-124 Frigate Sachen Class (32 Mk 41 VLS cells)
5.) Den Zeven Class (48 VLS Cells)

Because these ships are considered frigates, or oversized frigates?

Current Asian Ships under construction
1.) KDX III (128 VLS cells)
2.) Atago Destroyer (96)
3.) 052 C (48 Cells)

Because these ships are fairly big destroyers, 'cept for the 052C, which is kind of compact for a ship with such systems. However the SAMs on the 052C is rather big, an HQ-9 is roughly similar to an S-300.

[IDonT]

Originally Posted by crobato

Because these ships are considered frigates, or oversized frigates?

The term Frigate in European navies are more political. Germany named the F-124 as frigates because "it sounds less aggressive than destroyers".

In France, all their surface combatants are now named as frigates that are further classed as Frigate first class, Frigate second class, etc (like the old sailing warship days)

In Australia's case the choice of a European design was largely to do with cost and manpower requirements. The RAN was keen on a larger number of VLS cells. It favoured an evolved version of the Arleigh Burke with 64 VLS cells as standard and the capacity for another 16 as an option but was over ruled by the government on the advice of the Defence Department.

Nice comparison between the Burke derivative and F100. The Burke design is actuall less manning intensive than the F-100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart_class

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-31477,00.html

It also helped to see what the finish product would look like in your harbor.

[Tasman]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Nice comparison between the Burke derivative and F100. The Burke design is actuall less manning intensive than the F-100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart_class

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-31477,00.html

It also helped to see what the finish product would look like in your harbor.

http://http://upload.wikimedia.org/w..._in_Sydney.jpg

Until the visit of the Spanish ship to Australia the F100 design was given no chance of winning the competition against the G&C Evolved Design (Burke derivative). G&C was clearly the preferred design by the navy. The RAN would actually have liked the baseline Arleigh Burke but wanted a drastic reduction in crew numbers. The F100 was included because government policy requires an off the shelf alternative to be considered in any major defence contract. Navantia did really well to convince the Australian Government that it offered the best value for money. It is believed that the deal will enable a fourth ship to be acquired which will offset the reduced number of VLS cells off the F100 when compared with the Evolved Design. The F100 was also available for delivery several years earlier than its rival.

Tas

[crobato]

Originally Posted by IDonT

The term Frigate in European navies are more political. Germany named the F-124 as frigates because "it sounds less aggressive than destroyers".

In France, all their surface combatants are now named as frigates that are further classed as Frigate first class, Frigate second class, etc (like the old sailing warship days)

Of course, quite the opposite of Japan where everything is a destroyer, even smaller ships that would be considered frigates.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Originally Posted by crobato

Of course, quite the opposite of Japan where everything is a destroyer, even smaller ships that would be considered frigates.

At least the RN has a logical system for differentiating between Destroyers and Frigates, Destroyers are ocean going escorts that are capable of carrying area defence missiles for task group protection whilst Frigates are ocean going escorts that are primarily for ASW with only point defence AA missile systems.

[IDonT]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

At least the RN has a logical system for differentiating between Destroyers and Frigates, Destroyers are ocean going escorts that are capable of carrying area defence missiles for task group protection whilst Frigates are ocean going escorts that are primarily for ASW with only point defence AA missile systems.

The only problem wiht the RN's classification system is that you will have instances where Frigates may be larger than Destroyers.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Originally Posted by IDonT

The only problem wiht the RN's classification system is that you will have instances where Frigates may be larger than Destroyers.

The Type 22s are already bigger than the Type 42s, as I said, the basis for differentiation isn't size but role, which is more important than simple tonnage comparisons. A task force commander needs to know what the ships available to him can do rather than how big they are. The type 42s were however designed around the same time that the last Leander class were in production and the type 21s were on the drawing board. The type 22s should have been contemporary with the type 44 'double ender' Sea Dart armed destroyers, which would have maintained the size distinction at least but they were cancelled. The type 45s restore the size differential for the present.