Surface Warfare Thread

[IDonT]

I thought I would open a thread concerning the tactics and strategies of modern surface warfare. Aircraft carriers and submarines need not apply (we are talking with the "real" navy here)

Please describe AAW, ASW, and ASuW tactics employed by modern surface combatants.

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by IDonT

I thought I would open a thread concerning the tactics and strategies of modern surface warfare. Aircraft carriers and submarines need not apply (we are talking with the "real" navy here)

Please describe AAW, ASW, and ASuW tactics employed by modern surface combatants.

You know IDonT without an aircraft carrier & submarines your navy is just a Coast Guard.

The surface navy is very important to over all sea fighting ablity of any naval force.

The USN has a page devoted to this subject;

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...n76future.html

[Obi Wan Russell]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

You know IDonT without an aircraft carrier & submarines your navy is just a Coast Guard.

The surface navy is very important to over all sea fighting ablity of any naval force.

The USN has a page devoted to this subject;

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...n76future.html

Whilst I am fully in agreement with popeye, it should be recognised that there many situations where surface escorts (destroyers and frigates) operate detached from the main fleet (carrier strike group) both in war and peace time, so the thread has a valid premise.
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.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Here's a type 22 Frigate involved in a drugs bust...

[DennisDaMenace]

Obi Wan is right.
Even though he is the most disscustfull bloke. No bettter duty for a navy then to patrol its own borders and stop illegal activities. The USA has the US Coast Guard to guard its borders- but will call in the USN when ever it feels it will need assistance.
In response to (Idont) that would all depend on the Harpoon 2. I give the East and Soviets the lead on surface to surface missels. I'm not that clear on the Harpoon 2. AS far as (AAW) the West is way ahead with its Helos - over twice the distance as far as surface contact.)
You may have the better missels, but you need to target them. So I give East missels and west targeting.

[Finn McCool]

Basically your talking about SAG (Surface Action Group) warfare here. Something you could expect to see in a China-Japan confrontation or China-Taiwan confrontation. I think that basically it would depend on who had superior radars/stealth and SAM systems. Fire first and kill more of the enemy's missles than they kill of yours and you win. A battle like this would probably be quite short.

The USN has a big advantage in this area because they have both light, survivable supersonic ASMs (the SM-2) and heavy hitting slower missles (the Harpoon). So they can fire the SM-2 and Harpoons at the same time, SM-2s hit the ship massively messing with the radar and SAM systems, disabling them to deal with the Harpoons which kill the ship.

[Roger604]

The SM-2 is extremely short ranged and using it against ships is really just an ad hoc, improvised solution. Without its air cover, USN ships are no better than your typical modernized navy (like Japan and China's new ships).

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by Roger604

The SM-2 is extremely short ranged and using it against ships is really just an ad hoc, improvised solution. Without its air cover, USN ships are no better than your typical modernized navy (like Japan and China's new ships).

The newer block SM-2 missiles have a range of 75-115 nautical miles. That ain't bad.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/sm-specs.htm

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...&tid=1200&ct=2

As for the USN being like other navies if it did not have air cover..well that's just not gonna happen against any major force or threat. That's not how they operate. The USN is not a coast guard you know.

[Sea Dog]

Originally Posted by Roger604

The SM-2 is extremely short ranged and using it against ships is really just an ad hoc, improvised solution. Without its air cover, USN ships are no better than your typical modernized navy (like Japan and China's new ships).

Actually, the SM-2 is extremely reliable in this role. And it does cover the area where most ship-to-ship type warfare is likely to take place. The USN in this area totally dominates from a defensive and offensive perspective. While USN aircover is the decisive factor, to date not one navy has fielded anything like USN's Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke AEGIS ships. Well, the UK, Spain, and Japan has Aegis ships, but even they don't have the amount of brute force built into USN Aegis. But China has nothing like them, other than a crude offshoot. PAR and missiles that launch vertically is not what makes an Aegis ship.

[Roger604]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

The newer block SM-2 missiles have a range of 75-115 nautical miles. That ain't bad.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/sm-specs.htm

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...&tid=1200&ct=2

As for the USN being like other navies if it did not have air cover..well that's just not gonna happen against any major force or threat. That's not how they operate. The USN is not a coast guard you know.

You're absolutely right. USN would never fight without its air cover, and that gives it a massive decisive advantage over any opponent, provided that it is not fighting in a coastal area where an opponent can use land bases to launch aircraft. Therefore, it dominates the high seas. And training-wise, China is badly behind.

[bd popeye]

You're absolutely right. USN would never fight without its air cover, and that gives it a massive decisive advantage over any opponent, provided that it is not fighting in a coastal area where an opponent can use land bases to launch aircraft. Therefore, it dominates the high seas. And training-wise, China is badly behind.

In the future China will catch up. I have no doubt. Perhaps China will improve it's training. This can be simply done by sending ships to sea more often than they presently do.

As for costal warfare..I think the USN is at an disadvantage there. And will be until the first block of LCS (Littoral Combat Ships) comes into service. And of course the USN has no SSK's.

[IDonT]

The last time the USN was in a surface fight was in 1988 against Iran in operation Praying Mantis.

The Iranian Ship Joshan was destroyed by 6 Standards and 1 Harpoon. It did fire a Harpoon at the US ship, which was successfully spoofed.

The Sahand was destroyed by Harpoons and laser guided skipper bombs from both an A-6 and USS Joseph Strauss.

The Sabalan was mobility killed by an A-6 who dropped a bomb on its smoke stack.

Other post world war II missile surface engagements were:
Battle of Lataika between Israeli Navy and Syrian Navy
Indian Navy attack on Karachi and the defending Pakistani Navy

[adeptitus]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Other post world war II missile surface engagements were:
Battle of Lataika between Israeli Navy and Syrian Navy
Indian Navy attack on Karachi and the defending Pakistani Navy

There's also the Six-day war, in which an Egyptian ship (Komar class) fired 4 x SS-N-2 Styx missiles on the INS Eilat (ex-UK Z-class destroyer) and sunked it:
http://eilat48.tripod.com/

[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 imbarressment 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.

[IDonT]

Does anyone know how the Russians would employ a Kirov centric SAG with the Slava cruisers?

I'm guessing a third party targeting platform from Bear aircraft. Once target info is found, all missiles are fired. Then go home to reload. Hence the battle of first salvo doctrine