1362 replies to this topic

[Jazzie Spurs]

Can ECA have Blackwater support?

[DerKrieger]

The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier battle group launches an attack against the closing Russian battle group.

-An RGM-64D Harpoon is launched from one of the Ford's destroyer escorts.

-F/A-18F fighters from the USS Gerald R. Ford prepare to take off to engage the enemy fleet and aircraft.

Several of the anti-ship missiles are intercepted by Kaštan point defense systems, but many find their mark and severely damage or sink their targets.


The missile strike is also followed by cannon fire to any Russian vessels that happen to get within range of the 5 inch guns.

[Jazzie Spurs]

Woooho look what I bought!
I shall call it The Kiddo-Mobile!

(Special thanks to centric, and www.JuniorGeneral.org)

[V.Metalic]

Sergeant Major J. Kid, on 28 Sep 2008, 18:43, said:

Woooho look what I bought!
I shall call it The Kiddo-Mobile!

(Special thanks to centric, and www.JuniorGeneral.org)

i also want something like that

[CommanderJB]

*Chuckles* You Americans think you're so good at naval missile warfare, do you? How sad. How mistaken. Only one nation has perfected this particular art of war.
*The recently-modified Kirov-class battlecruiser Pyotyr Veliky ripple-fires a swarm of 3M54 Klub anti-ship missiles from its vertical launch tubes, which arc up, survey the battlespace, then descent to sea level and perform a supersonic sprint to target, destroyers and cruisers across the fleet fire the old faithful P-270 Moskit supersonic AShM and the more accurate Kh-35 Uran subsonic weapon, submarines launch a mixture of P-800 Yakhont and P-770 Granit missiles, and bombers based in southern Finland launch cruise missiles.*





*PAK FA fighters from the carriers begin a fierce aerial dogfight with the F/A-18Es, but their stealth and TVC soon begins to show. SM-2, ESSM and other missiles from the American group take their toll, but the balance sheet remains equal as the navalised S-400 systems on the Pyotyr Veliky and its escorts do the same. The state-of-the-art AESA fire control radars on the carriers successfully direct Kashtan and AK-630 fire against incoming missiles directed against them, but as a group of American destroyers close, the number of ESSM and Harpoon missiles breaks through to the rest of the group. The Pyotyr Veliky is heavily hit, and one missile breaches the forward missile decks, tearing her apart. The older Admiral Kuznetsov is holed on the waterline and begins to list, while several of the escorts have deck fires. However, the Russian missile swarm, numbering over 200 weapons, most of them travelling over Mach 2, begins to descend...*

[DerKrieger]

Remember, there are also F-35C fighters dogfighting too.

The AN/SPY radars on the US fleet detect the incoming missile swarm. Immediately missiles are launched to intercept the slower targets, while more advanced point defense lasers on the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Zumwalt-class and newer Arleigh Burke-class destroyers target the supersonic missiles. This combined with jamming/ECM and Phalanx CIWS protects the fleet from most of the missiles.



For the missile to hit the carrier it would have to traverse several belts of defence from ships in the outer screen right down to the carrier's CIWS. Let alone try to get past one of the AEGIS cruisers lurking in the inner screen. CBG's during the Cold War trained to defend against attacks of over 100+ Soviet heavy antiship missiles. Still, several of the missiles manage to evade being shot down and strike their targets, doing heavy damage to several of the ships in the battle group. Fortunately, the repair crews manage to keep the ships afloat.


Meanwhile, Russian bomber bases are attacked by cruise missiles launched from US submarines in a massive, coordinated strike, and US bomber squadrons from Diego Garcia and Guam bombard Russian industrial centers and infrastructure in the Ural mountains and Siberia.

[CommanderJB]

With a CVBG consisting of six to ten destroyers at the most, you have at best a 2:1 (3:1 if really pushing it) ratio of missiles to interceptors. This also assumes you can fire all your missiles in time, which you can't. Even VLS are only designed to shoot so fast. Not only that but Most of the missiles are travelling on sea-skimming trajectories above mach 2, meaning that by the time they become visible over the horizon (irrespective of radar range) you have less than thirty seconds to react. The upshot is that out of a swarm of over two hundred missiles (which is entirely reasonable given three cruisers with c.20 each, 10-odd support ships with at least 8, sometimes up to 16 ready to go and a half-squadron of bombers firing 16 cruise missiles each and SSGNs on top of that, allowing for malfunctions, time delay in firing and differences in armament), I'd estimate at least two dozen, and probably more, would get through a defence network. With warheads of up to three hundred kilograms each, and with each missile proven of being capable of sinking a frigate, I honestly don't think it's realistic or fair for you to assume that you wouldn't lose a single ship from such a salvo.
Can we get over this idea of CVBG invulnerability please? The U.S. Navy recently failed to respond to a Congress inquiry into how they were going to defend against the SS-N-27 because they effectively can't. SEA-RAM is effectively the only system adapted for such a threat as interceptor missiles perform poorly against targets at low altitude, and by the time the missiles enter Phalanx range you have only bare seconds in which to destroy targets. Even given PDLs which outperform them both, lasers take time to melt through a missile's hull, or else need to recharge after firing if they're high-powered chemical models, giving you a scarely better kill speed (plus there are only three Zumwalt-class ships scheduled to enter service. Even allowing for mod unrealism it's not likely such a ridiculously expensive class would make it far into double figures). Plus the navalised S-400s have much better interception ability than any Standard missile modification. Russian ships are also equipped with much heavier point defence systems than their Western equivalents; the Kirov-class, for example have four Kashtans (which combine eight missiles and two guns) and eight AK-630 gatling weapons.
I'm not saying I want your fleet at the bottom, what I'm saying is that IMO you've consistently failed to give a realistic assessment of the damage our attacks would genuinely do to your forces while giving reasonable approximations of the effectiveness of your attacks to our assets.

Edited by CommanderJB, 29 September 2008 - 03:49.

[DerKrieger]

Russian systems have a tendency to look great on a brochure or on a CIA intel estimate, but the fact of the matter is that in the field they tend to perform poorly due to lack of flexibility and substandard parts and construction. If a ship did get close enough to fire at a CBG chances are it would be detected and destroyed in a matter of moments. Also, fighter aircraft are capable of shooting down cruise missiles as well. Not to mention that there are laser anti-missile systems on some of these ships.

In 1987 there was a missile exercise off the coast of Puerto Rico. A German destroyer (Rommel) shot a number of Exocet missiles (sans warheads) at a target sled which was being towed about 1.5 nm away from the US formation of ships.

All US ships (Perry FFG, Ticonderoga CG, Spruance DD, and Belknap CG) detected the missile(s) via radar and ESM well in advance. Each ship took turns shooting at the various Exocets. The oldest ship in the formation (USS Josephus Daniels) obtained a "skin-to-skin" hit with an obsolescent fire control system and SM-1 missiles.

The MM-40 and AM-40 will have a much harder time against US fleet assets when systems like the SPY-3 radar and ESSM missile are introduced.

Anyways, I do agree that maybe I got let off lightly...I'll reassess the damage.

The Gerald R. Ford CBG lost two frigates and the battle group's Ticonderoga cruiser, in addition to several combat aircraft shot down by Russian fighters. Several other ships took varying degrees of damage but are still operable.

[CommanderJB]

Thankyou, I appreciate it (though in response to your examples I'd still point out that an Exocet missile is both solidly subsonic and has half the warhead weight of most of the missiles I outlined. The massive decrease in the interception time available and difficulty caused by an increase in speed from c. Mach 0.8 to Mach 2.2 is an extremely important factor, plus the later type missiles are designed to undertake evasive manoeuvres which no CIWS system save SEA-RAM is realistically equipped to deal with).

I'd also like to add that I have no doubts than in any genuine Cold War naval confrontation Soviet forces would have been walloped hard. NATO's Forward Maritime Strategy would have been virtually impossible to counter (but I don't want to tell you the key part of that or you'll try and use it in this thread against me!). However for this thread, and assuming continuation of the rough technological and systems parity which Russia has achieved in recent years (it's worth pointing out, for example, that the 64N6E1 'Big Bird' radar currently deployed with S-400 units actually surpasses the range, power and detection capabilities of the SPY-1A, but with the added benefit of being on a truck and being able to set up or break down within five minutes) confrontations would be on a slightly more even keel.

Edited by CommanderJB, 30 September 2008 - 00:44.

[Jazzie Spurs]

Centric, on 29 Sep 2008, 1:19, said:

Sergeant Major J. Kid, on 29 Sep 2008, 3:43, said:

Woooho look what I bought!
I shall call it The Kiddo-Mobile!

(Special thanks to centric, and www.JuniorGeneral.org)

why don't you use the vehicles I made D:

Because, it's more funny to ride a Cougar while shootin' 40mm 'nados to your men, than in a Leopard.

[V.Metalic]

JB: Didnt you think that you are doing from fly to elephant from Russia?

Centric: Could you do for me a "special black-yellow Leopard"? With commander which looks throught binoculars on battlefield, also in black-yellow uniform and officer cap? And flag with yellow tiger head which roar

Edited by Volen Metalic, 29 September 2008 - 17:42.

[CommanderJB]

Volen Metalic, on 30 Sep 2008, 3:39, said:

JB: Didnt you think that you are doing from fly to elephant from Russia?

I haven't a single clue what on Earth you're on about to be honest.

[V.Metalic]

CommanderJB, on 29 Sep 2008, 23:25, said:

Volen Metalic, on 30 Sep 2008, 3:39, said:

JB: Didnt you think that you are doing from fly to elephant from Russia?

I haven't a single clue what on Earth you're on about to be honest.

It is verbal comparison. I dont know how traslate it, but in general you are doing Russia bigger and stronger then it really is.

[CommanderJB]

No.
I could go further but I honestly can't be bothered. It's all fiction anyway.

[V.Metalic]

CommanderJB, on 30 Sep 2008, 5:51, said:

No.
I could go further but I honestly can't be bothered. It's all fiction anyway.

Yes, this is fiction, so dont cry that there isnt something real.

[CommanderJB]

So you're saying you'd be happy to see the progress and performance of weapons in this thread bear absolutely no semblance of reality at all?
Of course, how foolish of me. So long as it's in the ECA's favour it must be right.

[V.Metalic]

CommanderJB, on 30 Sep 2008, 15:13, said:

So you're saying you'd be happy to see the progress and performance of weapons in this thread bear absolutely no semblance of reality at all?
Of course, how foolish of me. So long as it's in the ECA's favour it must be right.

And it will be better when it will be in Russia's favour?

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 29 Sep 2008, 6:53, said:

Thankyou, I appreciate it (though in response to your examples I'd still point out that an Exocet missile is both solidly subsonic and has half the warhead weight of most of the missiles I outlined. The massive decrease in the interception time available and difficulty caused by an increase in speed from c. Mach 0.8 to Mach 2.2 is an extremely important factor, plus the later type missiles are designed to undertake evasive manoeuvres which no CIWS system save SEA-RAM is realistically equipped to deal with).

I'd also like to add that I have no doubts than in any genuine Cold War naval confrontation Soviet forces would have been walloped hard. NATO's Forward Maritime Strategy would have been virtually impossible to counter (but I don't want to tell you the key part of that or you'll try and use it in this thread against me!). However for this thread, and assuming continuation of the rough technological and systems parity which Russia has achieved in recent years (it's worth pointing out, for example, that the 64N6E1 'Big Bird' radar currently deployed with S-400 units actually surpasses the range, power and detection capabilities of the SPY-1A, but with the added benefit of being on a truck and being able to set up or break down within five minutes) confrontations would be on a slightly more even keel.

*Goes to local library to get Battle of the Fjords*

[CommanderJB]

Damn, how did you know about that book?

*Feverishly thinks up a strategy to counter it*

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 1 Oct 2008, 0:42, said:

Damn, how did you know about that book?

*Feverishly thinks up a strategy to counter it*

You'll have plenty of time, I probably won't go until this weekend.

[CommanderJB]

Your troops have Iglas, don't they?
Then use them! And make sure you put those Conscripts in buildings if you can find any for maximum effect. I'll dispatch a group of Mi-28s to your location ASAP, and their Igla pods should prove useful, but until they arrive use whatever you have. Don't forget your TOS-1s if they start copying the garrison tactics.
Edit, oops, wrong missile type.

Edited by CommanderJB, 01 October 2008 - 04:26.

[V.Metalic]

Centric, on 1 Oct 2008, 4:33, said:

Sir ECA helicopters inbound !

These transport helicopters looking good, but if I am right they had white paint job. look on Tiger. But this is only my opinion.