US Navy News and updates

[justsomeaussie]

I seem to remember reading about the LCS-2 class being lengthened to increase bunker capacity. Not sure if there were other considerations or what.

LCS are only rated to 1+ so between a patrol boat and a warship.

 

[Resolute]

I know. I was pointing out that at present, the 'threat' presented by a DF-21D saturation attack is a theoretical one, and that there are some real questions as to whether technical issues which would need to be resolved before an ASBM attack would be a viable threat.

Some commentators on defence matters tend to look at new/upcoming weapon systems and treat them like 'silver bullet' systems, while ignoring the supporting systems which either support the new weapon system, or would be used to oppose it.

In this case, the ballistic missile which the DF-21D was based off of has a CEP of ~50 m IIRC. That is against a stationary target. Using the same or a very similar sort of ballistic missile against a maneuvering vessel at sea adds in several additional variables which would be inclined to reduce the chances of a hit, beyond what a CEP of 50 m already does.

To ignore the need for the incoming ballistic missile/warhead to be able to maneuver to adjust for changes in the position of the target, and particularly the difficulties in being able to have something on a ballistic trajectory maneuver, is to overstate the threat.

At the same time, the PRC has not demonstrated the sort of broad area maritime surveillance capabilities which would allow mid- to long-ranged warshots at a CBG.

All of this is without the US devoting resources to making it more difficult to target USN vessels. I fully expect that the US is carefully watching Chinese ISR developments, along with ballistic missile technology, to see if the capability is or becomes real.

-Cheers

On a similar note instead of spending resources for extemely fast ASBM's like
DF-21 China should also seriously invest resources into Land based High powered Lasers.I am saying this because no missile ever built is or will be faster than light

 

[Belesari]

LCS are only rated to 1+ so between a patrol boat and a warship.

I meant the Independence class has been extended to give greater range. I use LCS-2 because its easier than typing Independence class or Variant.

 

[Belesari]

On a similar note instead of spending resources for extemely fast ASBM's like
DF-21 China should also seriously invest resources into Land based High powered Lasers.I am saying this because no missile ever built is or will be faster than light

The problem with those large ground based lasers then becomes not having them destroyed. If it can't move targeting is relatively simple.

 

[Resolute]

The problem with those large ground based lasers then becomes not having them destroyed. If it can't move targeting is relatively simple.

Eventhough the laser is stationary it can be heavily protected in multiple layers using other lasers themselves if need be or SAM's or aircraft or in many ways.
The reasons they need to be landbased is that they can be well in the interior so that the enemy has to strike deep.By being landbased they can be built large enough to provide the generation capacity for high powered beams.Lastly there is nothing in my opinion that can stop a high powered beam such as co2 ,infact a good enough beam can literally cut through metal of any thickness.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm not getting you - are you wanting to use these lasers against ships at sea from deep in the interior of the continent ?

Last I checked, the Earth was still round.

 

[Resolute]

I'm not getting you - are you wanting to use these lasers against ships at sea from deep in the interior of the continent ?

Last I checked, the Earth was still round.

not in the interior.just a littlle inward from shore to force the enemy to use longer range missiles and also for protection.

 

[Bonza]

Eventhough the laser is stationary it can be heavily protected in multiple layers using other lasers themselves if need be or SAM's or aircraft or in many ways.
The reasons they need to be landbased is that they can be well in the interior so that the enemy has to strike deep.By being landbased they can be built large enough to provide the generation capacity for high powered beams.Lastly there is nothing in my opinion that can stop a high powered beam such as co2 ,infact a good enough beam can literally cut through metal of any thickness.

And it would need to cut through metal of what thickness exactly? Are you seriously talking about using a laser as an anti-ship weapon?

 

[rawcs]

not in the interior.just a littlle inward from shore to force the enemy to use longer range missiles and also for protection.

I suggest you google something like "what is the distance to the horizon from sea level" and then take into account lasers are line of sight weapons.

 

[StobieWan]

not in the interior.just a littlle inward from shore to force the enemy to use longer range missiles and also for protection.

You're contradicting your earlier statement

"The reasons they need to be landbased is that they can be well in the interior so that the enemy has to strike deep"


Either way, as I've pointed out, earth, round. laser straight.

Distance to horizon at sea level is something 20 + nautical miles. I'm sure someone can give you an exact number quite easily.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

You're contradicting your earlier statement

"The reasons they need to be landbased is that they can be well in the interior so that the enemy has to strike deep"


Either way, as I've pointed out, earth, round. laser straight.

Distance to horizon at sea level is something 20 + nautical miles. I'm sure someone can give you an exact number quite easily.

See post #640 on this thread:
One foot above sea level the horizon is 1.169 NM
36 feet above sea level the horizon is 7.014 NM

Of course, this does not also account for the height of a target beyond your horizon perspective.

And, a useful link:
Distance to horizion calculator-
Distance to the Horizon Calculator

And a useful chart:

 

[StobieWan]

Blimey, I knew I was being generous for the sake of argument but didn't realise I was being *that* generous.

Cheers for the pointer at the calculator

 

[alexsa]

I seem to remember reading about the LCS-2 class being lengthened to increase bunker capacity. Not sure if there were other considerations or what.

127m, same as the commecial hull. How much they changed the internal tankages is a different issue. That 4000nm at 18 knots is going to reduce in bigger seaway and is going to disappear where the vessels spint (nothing that was the reason for all the speed).

 

[Belesari]

127m, same as the commecial hull. How much they changed the internal tankages is a different issue. That 4000nm at 18 knots is going to reduce in bigger seaway and is going to disappear where the vessels spint (nothing that was the reason for all the speed).

OK it must have been the internal then. If what I remember reading was true. Thanks. Yea sprinting is going to be nasty. Going that fast in rough weather on a ship like the LCS is going to knock some things lose.

 

[Belesari]

Eventhough the laser is stationary it can be heavily protected in multiple layers using other lasers themselves if need be or SAM's or aircraft or in many ways.
The reasons they need to be landbased is that they can be well in the interior so that the enemy has to strike deep.By being landbased they can be built large enough to provide the generation capacity for high powered beams.Lastly there is nothing in my opinion that can stop a high powered beam such as co2 ,infact a good enough beam can literally cut through metal of any thickness.

Yea if given time and the right circumstances yes. However the US is currently leading the World atm in DE weapons and the ability to get a laser that powerful is a ways off yet. And cruise missiles will just fly in at ground level and hit the target before it can take them out.

Lasers or DE weapons just aren't to the point yet where they are that powerful. And for every bit deeper you have to dig the price goes up. So the question then becomes would it be simpler to have them mobile.

Truthfully I think the Rail gun makes a much better weapon for ABM defense than DE weapons in atmosphere. At least for the time being.

 

[Resolute]

And it would need to cut through metal of what thickness exactly? Are you seriously talking about using a laser as an anti-ship weapon?

I am looking at a laser that is powerful enough to disable the carrier. I am not visualizing the laser cutting the carrier in half.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Don't feed the troll.

 

[Resolute]

Yea if given time and the right circumstances yes. However the US is currently leading the World atm in DE weapons and the ability to get a laser that powerful is a ways off yet. And cruise missiles will just fly in at ground level and hit the target before it can take them out.

Lasers or DE weapons just aren't to the point yet where they are that powerful. And for every bit deeper you have to dig the price goes up. So the question then becomes would it be simpler to have them mobile.

Truthfully I think the Rail gun makes a much better weapon for ABM defense than DE weapons in atmosphere. At least for the time being.

What I am really suggesting is a well protected Ground based version of DARPA's High energy tactical laser (maybe bigger) I am no expert just giving an innovative alternative viewpoint to very fast missiles like DF-21

 

[FormerDirtDart]

If lasers are line of sight weapons then how come china repeatedly uses lasers to blind US satellites.

You do realize, that you apparent inability to grasp the term "line of sight" will cause every forum reader to have tremendous difficulty in taking any post you make seriously.

 

[Belesari]

What I am really suggesting is a well protected Ground based version of DARPA's High energy tactical laser (maybe bigger) I am no expert just giving an innovative alternative viewpoint to very fast missiles like DF-21

The problem is no line of sight weapon would be worth it. The Enemy would just sit out of range and hit the target. Hell the Iowa's would be able to sink it. To add to that most ships like the Burke's, Tico's and Definitely carriers like the Nimitz and such are made to take damage and keep functioning. Currently they just don't have the strength.

Even with power in the multiple mega wattage it would still be a line of sight weapon only and useless for anything but BMD (which is what I originally thought you meant it for).

One thing However they have been used for is blinding satellites. This has worked well apparently. With a high powered satellite they could take out multiple US or allied spy sats. However the US would probably adapt to this quickly in some way.

I would say Rail guns could do what you suggest but that requires them to design, build, and test a Rail gun. And you would need guided rounds meaning getting around the 60,000+g's that any guidance chip would be put through. Which atm I believe most arty shells are rated for around 15,000. It would also have to be able to guide itself interally as the projectile will be surrounded with a cone of super heated atmospheric gases.

I'm not sure the US can do that in 10-15 years let alone the Chinese and We are the ones developing it all.