32 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

tskasa1, on 13 Nov 2008, 6:03, said:

Yes, but when I say morale-degrading weapons, it is a given that I'm talking about countries and not terrorists, and most countries won't use chem/bio/nuclear weapons against the US or any other country with nukes, especially us since if we fall we can choose to fuck the whole world before we go out.... sorry but its just MAD; we go down in a blaze, the world goes down too... Also, I see your point about MOABs and such, but I have to disagree, its like our fear of the dark, through our culture and history we have been almost trained to fear guns. On top of that, I would like to say that although you CAN make MOABs, its not the same as constant fire support going on for hours/days as that would easily make a country run broke in a few days.

Want to bet? Asymmetrical warfare, which is what any conflict with the US against any other power than China or Russia (and soon India) will boil down to, is exactly the environment in which chemical, biological and nuclear agents are at their most attractive. If you have nothing else to lose - your homes are being invaded by an enemy many times your power and size which you most often can't even see - then why wouldn't you resort to NBC? You know that world opinion will savage your enemy if he replies in kind.

tskasa1, on 13 Nov 2008, 6:03, said:

Like I said, I'm starting to see your point about Carriers, so make a Kiev-class-kind carrier. The ability to both attack+ defend as well as launch aircraft... although losing some the aircraft of a full-sized carrier can cause problems, in long term battles where planes are not needed, it will be more effective. After all, don't forget that the military also takes cost effectiveness into weapons manufacturing... in fact that is probably one of the biggest factors.

As I said eariler, the Kiev-class were something of a miserable failure thanks to their poor sea-keeping and compromise in the weapons loadout (and also the fairly useless Yak-38 'Forgers' they embarked). About the limit I think you can take weapons on a carrier is the Project 1143.5 Brezhnev 'Admiral Kuznetsov' (and her sister ship Varyag, though she was never completed and sold to China, and no-one's quite sure what's happening to her these days); she mounts an absolute plethora of CIWS guns and twenty P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 'Shipwreck') missiles in VLS silos under the flight deck. Any other weapons systems will take up space on the deck and reduce the number of aircraft carried, reduce the space there is to maintain and support the aircraft, and have a generally detrimental impact on combat effectiveness.

tskasa1, on 13 Nov 2008, 6:03, said:

As for having to see the target, I say not necessarily. They can use a combination of radar and and "live feed" satellite imaging to find and hit a target. True, individual targets won't stand out and tanks and such may be hard to see. The areas that you need to see, however, are usually either a building (which are easy to see), large masses of soldiers (for shock and awe and also they are VERY easy to see) and, of course, defensive installations. On top of that don't forget that their working on smart shells for tanks and they could be applied to naval guns for only a fraction of the cost of a missile with the same effectiveness.

I don't believe I ever claimed line-of-sight as an issue. Shells are ballistic after all. Although I would point out radar (with the exception of OTH-B installations, not that these are relevant to naval combat) is also strictly line-of-sight. Even though it is longer ranged than normal optical tracking modes, it still can't find targets behind a hill. The best way to do that is with... reconnaissance aircraft. Satellites have severe limitations, even today. They're supremely useful for strategic intelligence, but not so much for tactical information gathering. For taking out targets behind cover, a missile is arguably much more useful than a shell. For one thing the missile can itself be used as a quasi-reconnaissance platform, actively seeking out its target instead of having another unit doing that job for it. Once more I do not and never will argue the cost-effectiveness of using cruise missiles for land attack (each one is in effect a miniature aircraft after all, and they cost millions per round to make and deploy) but when the alternative is putting people in harm's way and the force concerned has this money to spare (and then some) it is, has been (the Gulf Wars provide all the proof you need) and will remain a viable method of shore bombardment.

tskasa1, on 13 Nov 2008, 6:03, said:

Also, another adv. vs. disadvantage: Shells: usually have more brute force on impact with targets, meaning more structural damage in a smaller area. Missiles: not as much brute force (for the most part) but more explosive, making much bigger AoE and making a bigger hole to let more water in, although it probably won't penetrate as deep unless its a delayed explosion (not sure how else to say it) model which will wait a little bit before exploding, allowing it to go in deeper.

Land usage: Tomahawk disagrees. Naval usage: an anti-ship missile is far, far more effective against a naval target than a shell. Single AShMs have sunk targets without their warheads even going off. Can the same be said for a shell? I think not.

For shore bombardment in support of a landing, as is the Marines' primary concern, I will reiterate once again that the battleship, and therefore the heavy naval gun, retains its usefulness as the best weapon for the job. But a carrier has a fundamentally different mission role, design requirement and tactical and strategic application which cannot be reconciled with that of naval guns.

Edited by CommanderJB, 13 November 2008 - 01:34.

[Zero]

Okay, I see your point. I concede. Thank you for your time and to all, have a nice day!

[BeefJeRKy]

The accuracy and precision of those tomahawks is scary. Well worth the million dollar investment I'd say. If you want a specific target taken out, the tomahawk is the way to go for sure until they make a replacement.

[Ilves]

Hmm..? Sorry, lost the topic, but really, some aircraft carriers DO have heavy armament. For example, the "Kuznetsov":



Just take a look at this stats:

• 8 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
• 8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 16 3K87 Kortik SAM)
• 12 × P-700 Granit SSM
• 18 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
• RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket

Quite a damn lot of missiles, I should say!
Plus, many carriers dating to the 20's and 30's had heavy cannons onboard.

[FrontlineChaos]

You know... All this talk about making a supercarrier with guns, and aircraft only means one thing


A bigger target. Nothing else.

[CommanderJB]

AL_Hassan, on 14 Nov 2008, 2:48, said:

Hmm..? Sorry, lost the topic, but really, some aircraft carriers DO have heavy armament. For example, the "Kuznetsov":



Just take a look at this stats:

• 8 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
• 8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 16 3K87 Kortik SAM)
• 12 × P-700 Granit SSM
• 18 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
• RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket

Quite a damn lot of missiles, I should say!
Plus, many carriers dating to the 20's and 30's had heavy cannons onboard.

As I said, Admiral Kuznetsov does represent the upper peak in practical carrier armament. The other important thing to realise however is that all this armament save the Granit missiles is purely defensive. Even the Granits are perhaps sub-optimally placed; the silos are directly under the foot of the ski-jump in the middle of the flight deck! Quite why I'm not sure. You certainly wouldn't want to try and conduct aircraft operations when you were launching those monsters...
It's just not the same as a heavy-calibre gun. Nor will it be. The VLS silos don't impinge on available flight-deck space for one, though they do restrict below-deck space.

FrontlineChaos, on 17 Nov 2008, 1:04, said:

You know... All this talk about making a supercarrier with guns, and aircraft only means one thing


A bigger target. Nothing else.

What for? I can't imagine a more difficult target on Earth than a carrier vessel battlegroup.

Edited by CommanderJB, 17 November 2008 - 00:58.

[FrontlineChaos]

Well, it's still a bigger target, a supercarrier with the guns, missiles and planes is bound to be pretty big, and if you ever get that far you're gonna go: "heck, it's so heavily defended, might as well slap a couple of nukes on it too." It just makes it all the more inviting, and a sub in deep sea, unmoving, if an AC Battlegroup happens to stumble upon one in war, well too bad, especially if it's armed with those rocket powered torps, maybe one packing a 2000 pound warhead?
Cuz' actually AC battlegroups aren't the hardest things to attack, subs are... You can't even find them. (But the Submarine AC isn't coming off the drawing board for a very long time)

[CommanderJB]

If a submarine is ever found, that submarine faces almost instant destruction, as almost anything with a large sonar also carries large torpedoes, from MPAs to ASW helicopters to frigates to other submarines and back again. If a CVBG is of sufficient size then you can be assured that a submarine captain simply cannot face a more daunting target. The sheer breadth and diversity of firepower arrayed against him is simply massive. It's true that perhaps a submarine could lie in wait for a CVBG; but even a motionless submarine can be found by FLIR or MAD sensors (not to mention modern active sonars have sufficient resolution to pick him out from the seabed anyway even if he is emitting absolutely no noise himself). He will face literally dozens of targets, and all of these (save perhaps the mission-critical one, that is, the aircraft carrier) will be able to find him in one way or another. Submarines are still the wolves of the deep, but by no means are they a given solution to a CVBG. NATO exercises continue to confirm that properly organised ASW can protect vital assets from even a large number of attacking submarines.
CVBGs are also not vulnerable to nuclear weapons; at least no more so than any other target, and less than almost all. To take a projected US battlegroup for example, the formation will include two or more AEGIS-equipped cruisers (more likely up to half a dozen) equipped with silos full of SM-3 Standard anti-ballistic missiles, and you can be assured that they will not be frugal with their use against any perceived threat. About the only effective solution to the CVBG problem is a stand-off barrage of literally hundreds of cruise missiles, preferably sea-skimming supersonic ones (in fact modern anti-missile systems make any other variety almost redundant, if not quite), enough to super-saturate the battlegroup's defence ring. Even then I would estimate that against a modern US group the number would need to be great than two hundred, and possibly even three hundred, in order to stand a chance of getting through in sufficient quantities to do appreciable damage to the group's operation capability. That or a small fleet of submarines.
If you mean give the battlegroup nuclear capability itself, they already have it in the form of bombs stored aboard the carrier with which to arm its planes. In the case of the US (the only nation currently capable of generating a 'true' CVBG) this is currently the B-83 weapon if I remember correctly. The ships themselves won't carry nuclear armament as they simply don't need it. Any other nuclear needs can be fulfilled in half an hour by SSBNs waiting half a world away.
I will admit a submarine remains an exceptionally difficult target. But not an impossible one. Certainly not against a competent modern ASW picket force.

Edited by CommanderJB, 17 November 2008 - 09:57.