A Ruskie vs US Scenario

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I would put the RIM-162 ESSM in the place of the SM-1 in a Mk-41 VLS (you can put a quad-pack per cell).

The ESSM has about a 50 kM range versus 7.5 kM for the RIM-116 RAM.

Thats what the RAN has done with our OHP's (but we kept the Mk 13, we are going to intergrate SM2), theres 36 ESSM's in a Mk 41 VLS forward of the Mk 13. It virtually doubled the number of SAM's the Adelaides carry.

Was it really nessisary to take the Mk 13's off the USN's OHP's? SM1 may have been retired but you loose your primary surface weapon, the Harpoon. Leaving the laucher on for that capability alone should be worth it.

 

[Salty Dog]

Thats what the RAN has done with our OHP's (but we kept the Mk 13, we are going to intergrate SM2), theres 36 ESSM's in a Mk 41 VLS forward of the Mk 13. It virtually doubled the number of SAM's the Adelaides carry.

Was it really nessisary to take the Mk 13's off the USN's OHP's? SM1 may have been retired but you loose your primary surface weapon, the Harpoon. Leaving the laucher on for that capability alone should be worth it.

From what I know the only item removed was the Mk-13 launcher itself. The magazine and below deck machinery is still all in place. The Mk-13s were removed and put into storage to support SM-1 FMS customers.

 

[AegisFC]

From what I know the only item removed was the Mk-13 launcher itself. The magazine and below deck machinery is still all in place. The Mk-13s were removed and put into storage to support SM-1 FMS customers.

You are correct, only the launcher was removed everything else was put into layup and no longer maintained but still on board.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

From what I know the only item removed was the Mk-13 launcher itself. The magazine and below deck machinery is still all in place. The Mk-13s were removed and put into storage to support SM-1 FMS customers.

Stripping your primary frigate (fleet wide) of a perfectly good SSM capability to support FMS customers seems excessive IMO.

 

[Sea Toby]

The SM-1 missile line had already closed when the last batch of missiles were built. The only spares available were the missiles the US Navy had in its inventory. So the US Navy pulled their missiles and used them to support future FMS sales. The British sold all of their inventory of Sea Slug missiles to Chile when they sold their last County class destroyers for much the same reason.

As I recall Italy, France, and the Netherlands had used this missile with their own designed ships, and other navies had acquired new and used OH Perrys. The US at that time was developing ESSM missiles which would replace the SM-1, along with SM-3 and RAM.

Since the Cold War with the Soviet Union was over, and many of their submarines decommissioned, the need for medium range area air defense cover wasn't needed as much anymore. The US Navy went to RAM for self defense, and switched to ESSM with its destroyers. And the development of the SM-3 continued. A two cell or 8 cell Harpoon tubes could be added to the OH Perrys if there was a need.

Frankly, the OH Perrys are just as useful as the last of the Knox class at this point.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The SM-1 missile line had already closed when the last batch of missiles were built. The only spares available were the missiles the US Navy had in its inventory. There was maybe one chance that the line would reopen, and that would be when all of the navies decided to build more missiles at the same time. Unfortunately, none of the navies could decide when to buy more, thus the line could never be opened again.

So the US Navy pulled their missiles and used them to support future FMS sales. The British sold all of their inventory of Sea Slug missiles to Chile when they sold their last County class destroyers for much the same reason.

Sure but i was refereing to the harpoon capability. They could have pulled SM1 without pulling the Mk 13, it would not have left them with without a credible anti ship missile.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sure but i was refereing to the harpoon capability. They could have pulled SM1 without pulling the Mk 13, it would not have left them with without a credible anti ship missile.

RickUSN might be better able to confirm, but I was under the impression that hail mary SS tests had been successfully performed with SM1

 

[Salty Dog]

Sure but i was refereing to the harpoon capability. They could have pulled SM1 without pulling the Mk 13, it would not have left them with without a credible anti ship missile.

I believe this was a fleetwide USN decision to deactivate all trainable launchers, specifically the Mk 13 and Mk 26. However, the Mk 29 (NSSMS) still survives.

The Mk 13/22 and Mk 26 were all maintenance intensive and I'm sure they just wore out and were superceded in reliability and maintenance savings with the Mk 41 VLS. The evolution for loading/offloading a Mk-13/22 or Mk 26 missile magazine was very manpower and time intensive in contrast to the Mk 41.

The Mk 26 was on the earlier CG-47 which have all decommissioned and the DDG-993 sold to Taiwan. The Mk 13 was on the DDG-2 and CGN-35, also all decommissioned. So once the Mk-13 launcher was deactivated on the USN OHP, I'm sure all the missile gunner's mates (GMM) cheered.

So the USN also sacrificed keeping a Harpoon capability on the OHP for savings in maintenance for the Mk 13 launcher.

 

[Salty Dog]

RickUSN might be better able to confirm, but I was under the impression that hail mary SS tests had been successfully performed with SM1

If you are commenting on the SM-1 in "surface mode", they were successfully employed by USS Simpson, FFG-56 during Operation Praying Mantis. USS Simpson participated in destroying the Iranian FAC Joshan with (4) SM-1.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you are commenting on the SM-1 in "surface mode", they were successfully employed by USS Simpson, FFG-56 during Operation Praying Mantis. USS Simpson participated in destroying the Iranian FAC Joshan with (4) SM-1.

Thanks for the assist. I couldn't recall the actual event as well as the trial info and did not want to commit myself without source.

 

[AegisFC]

The Mk 13/22 and Mk 26 were all maintenance intensive and I'm sure they just wore out and were superceded in reliability and maintenance savings with the Mk 41 VLS. The evolution for loading/offloading a Mk-13/22 or Mk 26 missile magazine was very manpower and time intensive in contrast to the Mk 41.

For the last couple years of their lives the early Tico's rarely had working launchers, which was ok since most of them were out of Pascagula and did nothing but drug ops.
I've done PHS&T numerous times for loading and unloading MK-41 canisters, and yes it is fairly easy but a full onload does take quite a bit of time.

So the USN also sacrificed keeping a Harpoon capability on the OHP for savings in maintenance for the Mk 13 launcher.

If they needed harpoon it wouldn't be that hard to wire up a standard harpoon launcher where the Mk-13 was. However the SH-60's carried by the OHP's can launch Penguin missiles so it isn't like they lost all anti-ship capibility.

 

[stewart]

Lets go nuclear...

To expand on the scenario, how would a carrier strike with nukes on the russian group?

Harpoons aren't nuclear capable, AFAIK. Sounds suicidal for a F-18 to have to -try- drop a B-61 at close range.

I think it is well known how the Russian surface attack missiles are nuke capable. The question is if the US group would have a similarly credible capability, and it doesn't appear so.

 

[contedicavour]

To expand on the scenario, how would a carrier strike with nukes on the russian group?

Harpoons aren't nuclear capable, AFAIK. Sounds suicidal for a F-18 to have to -try- drop a B-61 at close range.

I think it is well known how the Russian surface attack missiles are nuke capable. The question is if the US group would have a similarly credible capability, and it doesn't appear so.

The TLAMs can still be fitted with nuclear warheads if needed ?
I remember there were hundreds of them during the Cold War.

cheers

 

[Salty Dog]

To expand on the scenario, how would a carrier strike with nukes on the russian group?

Harpoons aren't nuclear capable, AFAIK. Sounds suicidal for a F-18 to have to -try- drop a B-61 at close range.

I think it is well known how the Russian surface attack missiles are nuke capable. The question is if the US group would have a similarly credible capability, and it doesn't appear so.

In a real world situation, the nuke would most likely be dropped by a B-1 or B-2.

 

[aricho87]

USA all the way

From what the original scenerio played out there was the US with 17 ships and subs and the russians with 15 ships and subs. The scenerio creator has now brought into the mix facts such as russians having satalite, knowing the range and bearing of the opposition(1000kms).

Basing my scenerio on the fact that both fleets start exactly 1000kms away from each other on a line and know the general direction each other is coming from then i would:

1. Have my 5 subs head at 18knots in the direction of the russkies (due north) in a net formation seperated by 15kms.
2. Have my carrier along with 1 frigate head in south western direction slight away from the action at 18 knots.
3. Have my carrier launch both E2's to a direction of north east and north west, without lighting up their raders until notified.
4. Have my carrier and frigate launch their designated Anti-sub aircraft to lay out a anti-sub screen 360 degrees around my carrier to a distance of 35kms.
5. The remaining surface ships i would split evenly into two SAG's and head them in a direction north east and north west (no radar atm) at 25 knots.
6. Have my E2's continue further north to positions 625kms North east and west of their original starting position.

(having allowed for my assets to pre-position themselves i would imagine the russians would have gone full steam south directly towards my position bringing them closer to my E2's and within radar range once lighten up)

7. Have all attack planes (consisting of about 50 planes i would imagine made up of F/A- 18, F-14 and EA-8B) and electronic which can carry Harpoon anti-shipping missiles launch and head directly north flying underneath radar level say 300 meters off the ground, allow for inflight refuelling to take account.

8. Once the Attack planes have been completly refuelled and are at the 575km from the original starting line i would have the E2's light up their radars.

9. Assuming the russians had gone directly south towards the US fleet they would be in radar range of the E2's and the E2's could now start allacating targets for each plane.

10. When in firing range and still under russian radar height the attack planes would let their misslies go all at the same time, to create as much stress as possible on the russian sam batteries (of the 50 planes your probably looking at close to 100 missiles to deal with).

11. Have the EA-8B's come into range to try and interferre with their electronic jamming of the russian radars as to effect to accuracy of their sam's.

12. Have all strike aircraft return to aircraft carrier to re-arm and re-fuel. While the E2's keep an eye on the Russian fleet and evaluate any damage.

13. Have all the strike aircraft return for round 2 and continue. Fleets after the 3rd air strike should be getting closer enough to use there SSM's, so have the E2's give co-ordinates to ships and assign targets for each of the 2 SAG's.

14. Having had close to 300 missiles launched at the russians i would imagine even with todays accuracy that 1 or 2 missiles at least would have made it through, given that the missiles were realised within 100km radius of the fleet and the response times at best would find it hard to destroy 100 missile vollies.

( My tactic in this scenerio was to maximise space and time for the US, by allowing their air wing to saturate the targets with as many missiles as possible. This would decrease the SAM advantage that the russians had before hostilities started. I think they had close to 60-70 missile advantage on the US fleet.)

15. Meanwhile my anti-sub aircraft or subs would have located their subs which are tradionally noise when running at full speed (the only way they could get within missile range). And i could allocate either helicopter or anti-sub aircraft to destroy them.

16. When the my SAG's get into range i would have them fire on their designated targets. Now that the SAM advantage lays with the US i would assume that the US would be able to out last the Russians in any gun fight with missiles + the US has a SSM advantage and could go on the offensive.

17. If the russians hadn't been bleed white after that i don't know what would.

 

[Salty Dog]

@ aricho87

You might want to read all the posts in this thread again then re-configure your solution.

A few tidbits:

1) Your solution is offense in nature, so what steps are taken to defend against the longer range and faster Russian anti-ship missiles? Seems like you've left your carrier a sitting duck with one FFG to defend.

2) The F-14 was retired from service.

3) No mention of tactical Tomahawk ASM.

4) What about TAS use?

5) You should re-think a coordinated Tomahawk/Harpoon attack, especially with ASMs arriving from multiple vectors at the same time.

6) What are the SSN roles.

 

[aricho87]

US vs Russia

1) Your solution is offense in nature, so what steps are taken to defend against the longer range and faster Russian anti-ship missiles? Seems like you've left your carrier a sitting duck with one FFG to defend.

2) The F-14 was retired from service.

3) No mention of tactical Tomahawk ASM.

4) What about TAS use? 

5) You should re-think a coordinated Tomahawk/Harpoon attack, especially with ASMs arriving from multiple vectors at the same time.

6) What are the SSN roles.

1) As i mentioned from the start, All my forces would conduct with out their radars on, hence not giving away there position. 2nd i'd say that 1000kms would i say be classed as over the horizan and no russian or US ship for that matter would be able to get a fix or accurate bearing on any ship at that range.

By holding my carrier back, the chances of it being located from surface radar by russian forces would be none, hence protecting my carrier and the most important asset, the frigate is a procautionary need for any subs or stray long range missiles that may elude the SAG's.

2) Completly sorry about the F14 wasn't too sure if it had actually been retired yet.

3) Not completly sure of the Tomahawks ability over water, i thought due to its guidence system it was only used for land based sationary targets. But if it can be used for Naval engagements i would duely include that in any offensive stratagy.

4) Sorry TAS?

5) Why don't you think this would work? Given the targets would have close to exhausted there stocks of SAM's i thought by spreading the direction of the attacks this would hinder there ability in some circumstances to defend vs the incoming missiles. (while i realise that some of the Russian fleets have the VLS's, some also have twin -launch missile launchers and by spreading which direction they come from this would decrease the efficency of the re-load and firing positions)

6) SSN's take up there roles as hunter killer subs of the other russian subs and act like a net for the surface ships. they also provide missile attack platforms in the later stages of the attack.

Would love to here anyone's else's problems that i may have!

 

[Salty Dog]

1) As i mentioned from the start, All my forces would conduct with out their radars on, hence not giving away there position. 2nd i'd say that 1000kms would i say be classed as over the horizan and no russian or US ship for that matter would be able to get a fix or accurate bearing on any ship at that range.

By holding my carrier back, the chances of it being located from surface radar by russian forces would be none, hence protecting my carrier and the most important asset, the frigate is a procautionary need for any subs or stray long range missiles that may elude the SAG's.

2) Completly sorry about the F14 wasn't too sure if it had actually been retired yet.

3) Not completly sure of the Tomahawks ability over water, i thought due to its guidence system it was only used for land based sationary targets. But if it can be used for Naval engagements i would duely include that in any offensive stratagy.

4) Sorry TAS?

5) Why don't you think this would work? Given the targets would have close to exhausted there stocks of SAM's i thought by spreading the direction of the attacks this would hinder there ability in some circumstances to defend vs the incoming missiles. (while i realise that some of the Russian fleets have the VLS's, some also have twin -launch missile launchers and by spreading which direction they come from this would decrease the efficency of the re-load and firing positions)

6) SSN's take up there roles as hunter killer subs of the other russian subs and act like a net for the surface ships. they also provide missile attack platforms in the later stages of the attack.

Would love to here anyone's else's problems that i may have![/quote]

With all the SIGINT, ELINT, COMINT assets at sea, air, and land (space too), it is quite difficult to hide such a large naval force. You light off your radars, they will know where you are.

Your CVN has more AAW missile capability than your FFG (which has none).

Read up on all the Tomahawk variants.

TAS - towed array sonar, specifically the AN/SQR-19

Your planning and thinking is two-dimensional, you need to think in 3-D.

Still plenty of room for refinement.

So what do you see the Russians doing? (read the previous posts)

 

[aricho87]

US vs Russa

With all the SIGINT, ELINT, COMINT assets at sea, air, and land (space too), it is quite difficult to hide such a large naval force. You light off your radars, they will know where you are.

Your CVN has more AAW missile capability than your FFG (which has none).

Read up on all the Tomahawk variants.

TAS - towed array sonar, specifically the AN/SQR-19

Your planning and thinking is two-dimensional, you need to think in 3-D.

Still plenty of room for refinement.

So what do you see the Russians doing? (read the previous posts)

1) Within the paramitors which were given to this scenrio, as i've mentioned nothing was said about satalites. I realise they are there in real life, however they were not in the rules.

2) you mention SIGINT, ELINT, COMINT assets at sea, air, and land but as i understand it there was only russian naval forces with their embarked helicopters which don't have the range nor the radar to track or find a naval force over 1000kms. you mention land, i know russian doctrine has land based aircraft as a pre-requisit for engaging the enemy but not in this scenerio.

3) i realise the FFG has a very limited AAW but its prodominant role would be ASUW. And at the range of 1000kms plus its unlikely a missile is going to float that additonal range to hit the carrier.

4) i will read up on tomahawk's:coffee

5) my forces wouldn't come in range of the russian subs but both ships and the subs would use their passive sonar, hence not giving their position away but being able to here the noisier russian subs (if they of course are speeding closer to get in range they will be heard)

I'm pretty sure i've accounted for most area's and would argue that the paramiters of the scenario limit the reality of the situation.