Iran, China Intent on Countering Navies

[goldenpanda]

It can take surprisingly little to effect stability. Too much weight too high and a boat will become unstable and perhaps capsize with catastrophic results. This has always been a major problem for naval designers.

Cheers

That seems reasonable. But if a 6500 ton ship is sensitive to say, 8 tons of extra missiles, couldn't they put the missiles inside side firing ports to lower the CG? Seems the missiles are not much volume, compared to crew sleeping space, for instance.

It seems the superstructures weight in the hundreds of tons, but those are not flattened to increased stability.

Similarly why aren't there more point defense systems on a ship? WWII ships were littered with them. Do modern systems interfere with each other if there are too many?

 

[Tasman]

That seems reasonable. But if a 6500 ton ship is sensitive to say, 8 tons of extra missiles, couldn't they put the missiles inside side firing ports to lower the CG? Seems the missiles are not much volume, compared to crew sleeping space, for instance.

It seems the superstructures weight in the hundreds of tons, but those are not flattened to increased stability.

Vertical launch systems provide this sort of capability but they require depth and if mounted too high above the waterline they would still affect stability. I expect there could be a problem with side launching systems as these may require a ship to have to turn one side towards the source of a threat, a maneuver that might perhaps be dangerous in some combat situations.

Similarly why aren't there more point defense systems on a ship? WWII ships were littered with them. Do modern systems interfere with each other if there are too many

It's true that WW2 ships tended to carry as many AA weapons as they could fit into available space. With more guns than they were originally designed for, together with additional radar, sonar, fire control systems and additional crew for damage control, etc, a lot of WW2 warships were, however, dangerously overweight and three US destroyers were lost in a typhoon in 1944. After the war many vessels had their AA armament drastically reduced, partly to save running costs (reduced crew for example) but largely to improve stability. As well as the guns there is weight and space taken up by ammunition, fire control systems and crew requirements.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq102-4b.htm

Modern point defence systems also require space for ammunition, crew (admittedly far less these days), sensors and fire control systems. Cost may also have a bearing as to how many CIWS systems are mounted. Ships also carry 'soft kill' systems like the Nulka hovering decoy, which again take up space and weight. Systems would certainly need to compliment each other so all systems, other than perhaps manually operated MGs would need to be integrated into the ships fire control system to provide a properly layered response to any threat.

Cheers

 

[goldenpanda]

Hey that typhoon might have been the "divine wind" Japanese hoped would save them. I guess in the end it was overcome with "divine production".

 

[Tasman]

Hey that typhoon might have been the "divine wind" Japanese hoped would save them. I guess in the end it was overcome with "divine production".

Good one goldenpanda!

Tas

 

[Firehorse]

Su-24MK is the export variant of the Su-24M which was developed for friendly Arabian nations. There are almost no differences between the Su-24MK and the original Su-24M. Reportedly 20 aircraft were exported to Syria, 15 to Libya, and 24 (some say 25) to Iraq. During 1990 Russia delivered 12 Su-24MK Fencers to the the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF). The IRIAF has modified these aircraft to use Western weapons, such as the C-802 Noor anti-ship cruise missile. After Operation Desert Storm began, Saddam sent 24 Iraqi Su-24MKs to Iran. These have since been integrated in the IRIAF Su-24 fleet. In 2002 all Iranian Su-24s were modified with inflight refuelling probes to receive fuel from the IRIAF KC-707 tankers.
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-24/su-24.htm

IMHO, those planes are bad news for any Navy they face.
There is also new Su-24M2 version now being delivered.

 

[contedicavour]

IMHO, those planes are bad news for any Navy they face.
There is also new Su-24M2 version now being delivered.

Well yes especially if they leverage the mountains along the Persian Gulf to try to hide from naval radars. However AWACS and the total air superiority enjoyed by the USN in the area would probably make any SU24 attack a suicide one with weak chances of hitting any military ship (may be they could blow up some civilian tankers with the imaginable economic consequences).

By the way, the article you were quoting says C802 is a "Western" missile, LOL it's Chinese...

cheers

 

[Chrom]

Well yes especially if they leverage the mountains along the Persian Gulf to try to hide from naval radars. However AWACS and the total air superiority enjoyed by the USN in the area would probably make any SU24 attack a suicide one with weak chances of hitting any military ship (may be they could blow up some civilian tankers with the imaginable economic consequences).

By the way, the article you were quoting says C802 is a "Western" missile, LOL it's Chinese...

cheers

Anyone who thinks what SU-24 or whatever Iranian aircraft pose any threat to USAF/USN - well, he thinks wrong. To put it mildly.

 

[KGB]

Remember the Forrestal incident, where a misfired rocket started a debilitating fire on the deck? Even a small amount of incindiaries on a small ucav might cause serious problems, the flight deck being crammed with fuel laden aircraft, and vulnerable flight crew. You won't sink the ship but the nuisance and interference with operations would be well worth the price of a "toys r us" gadget.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Remember the Forrestal incident, where a misfired rocket started a debilitating fire on the deck? Even a small amount of incindiaries on a small ucav might cause serious problems, the flight deck being crammed with fuel laden aircraft, and vulnerable flight crew. You won't sink the ship but the nuisance and interference with operations would be well worth the price of a "toys r us" gadget.

sure, but dont expect it to significantly alter the naval balance, if at all.

 

[Awang se]

Remember the Forrestal incident, where a misfired rocket started a debilitating fire on the deck? Even a small amount of incindiaries on a small ucav might cause serious problems, the flight deck being crammed with fuel laden aircraft, and vulnerable flight crew. You won't sink the ship but the nuisance and interference with operations would be well worth the price of a "toys r us" gadget.

Carriers face this kind of risk every day of their operational life, in fact there's quite a few incidents involving fuel and ordnance fire on the flight deck and below in a hangar. But as they say, the carrier carry enough firefighting capability for a small city.

 

[Gollevainen]

That seems reasonable. But if a 6500 ton ship is sensitive to say, 8 tons of extra missiles, couldn't they put the missiles inside side firing ports to lower the CG? Seems the missiles are not much volume, compared to crew sleeping space, for instance.

It seems the superstructures weight in the hundreds of tons, but those are not flattened to increased stability.

Similarly why aren't there more point defense systems on a ship? WWII ships were littered with them. Do modern systems interfere with each other if there are too many?

Shipdesigning, and to some extent all engineer-designing is a sum of compromizes. You have x number of variables which you need to take account and most important of those are cruisal to have your design working. Often these variables "eats from each others" eg. to focus too much on something leaves the design faulty and weak in another direction. To have complete and workable endresult, you need to balance the design. Ofcourse the design requirements usually calls to the design to be emphased on some particular quality and thus its automaticly means that the design is limited in some other counter qualities.

In shipdesign area the main idea naturally is to make a ships that floats and can perform the given task in given operational requirements. In warships the requirements are often far demanding and onscure than with normal civil ships but to make a succesfull warship, the basic shipdesign requirements have to be priority.
Different warships have different missions and requirements and are thus uniquely desingned and/or fitted. One major default with many youngsters is that they are blind to these roles and missions and tends to look blindly the ships purely from some very narrow angle.
To prevent this reply going too deeply to the various missions and roles of warships and their corresponding designfeatures, lets use one of your own questions as illustrative points of what I'm after.

You wondered the small ammount of missiles per tonnage. To awnser this and to understand the awnser needs the understandment of the roles and functions of different type of warships. Lets start with the roles. Why does a 6500 ton DDG often carry only 8 SSMs? There are several reasons. Mostly it is the space-issue and system disperension. Destroyer size ships are mented to operate far in the ocean and away from the bases long periods of times. This means that they need to be fitted not only with extensive and massive systems to fullfill various roles but a huge deal of support. It needs space for stores and crews (good habitability=good morale=good fighting capability) and large engine and powertransition spaces. It usually means that most of the ships interior space is already fullfilled when you come up with the system fits. Often you are forced to put most of the "rest of the stuff" atop the maindeck level. Most of the space is taken by superstructures, funnels, mast and radars (and other sensors) Then there's the weaponry....
Not to anyway dismissing the role and importance of the weaponry, yet in the whole shipdesign point of view it is only one part of the whole concept. Sadly it often gets the main focus and people tends to look only it and not the ship as whole. It leads to wrong assumptions and false ideas of some single ships capabilities. Unfortunelty there is cases when even the shipdesigners are fallen to the same trap.
But back to the space-issues. One important point which is often the issue with many warships is the Top-weight. If a ship is a topweight, it means that too much weight is fitted too high. In warships the topweight is a constant plague and often a neccerical "bad". This is due the fact that most of the warships armament is often fitted atop of the maindeck, sometimes very high. The weight doesen't need to be huge compared to the ships overalltonnage, its the moment of the force that is the tricky one. Top-weight adds instability and that defects the ships ability to perform its given roles. Taken account of all these factors, there is the main reason why ships aren't armed to the thooth even if the size is big. For example the very same Israeli corvette Hanit is one of the best (worse) examples of how to ruin a ship by stuffing it full of weapons and too high. The whole class suffers from top-weight and was forced to cut down the number of missiles carried and subsiding the 76mm gun with Phalanx.

But if you are interested of learning more and getting into some amatour shipdesignin, I suggest that you download a program called Springsharp. Its a free "armchair-admirals" shipdesign tool which allows you to design warships of 1900-1950 era. Altough its useless to design modern ships, it gives a good insights of what factors you need to take account and what affects on what.

Chears
Golly

 

[eaf-f16]

Does anyone know what type of ECM's the Iranian Su-24's have?

 

[Firehorse]

Well, I hope someone does. I doubt they have the same old gear the Iraqis had; most probably some ECM was adopted from other fighters, some imported, and some locally produced.

Initial 'Fencers' had sparse ECM equipment, with many 'Fencer-A' and 'Fencer-B' limited to the old Sirena radar-warning receiver with no integral jamming system. Later-production Su-24s had more comprehensive radar warning, missile-launch warning, and active ECM equipment, with triangular antennae on the sides of the intakes and the tip of the vertical fin. This earned the NATO designation 'Fencer-C,' although again it did not have a separate Soviet designation. Some 'Fencer-C' and later Su-24M 'Fencer-D' have large wing fence/pylons on the wing glove portion with integral chaff/flare dispensers; others have such launchers scabbed onto either side of the tailfin.
The Su-24 has often been compared to the American F-111, but despite being close to the F-111 in size, it never matched the USAF aircraft's range or load-carrying ability. Its true capabilities are closer to those of the smaller Panavia Tornado, although its less-efficient engines make the 'Fencer's' range somewhat shorter. http://www.indopedia.org/Sukhoi_Su-24.html

BTW, the UK

..GR1B was a maritime strike aircraft brought into service to replace the Blackburn Buccaneer and deliver the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile. http://www.indopedia.org/Panavia_Tornado.html

For the background, see The Sukhoi Su-24 "Fencer"

For added ECM, they can also work together with F-14s, which -

..were most often used as airborne early warning platforms owing to the design's powerful radar, and were therefore deemed too valuable to risk in air-to-air combat. In this role, the planes were sometimes defended by F-4E and F-5E fighters. ..The US has estimated the number of operational Iranian F-14s at any given time at 15 to 20, and sometimes less than 10, due to the cannibalization of other planes to keep a few flying. Iran claims a much higher number, of course, and was indeed able to assemble 25 aircraft for a flyby over Teheran on 11 February 1985. By whatever means, Iran has been able to maintain a steady supply of spare parts for its F-14s, F-4s, and F-5s in spite of the embargo. Some of these parts may have been supplied through the arms-for-hostages deal that was revealed during the Iran-Contra scandal. Other sources claim that parts may have been smuggled through collusion with Israel. Some parts are also manufactured domestically by Iranian Aircraft Industries, and Iran has even gone so far as to claim that 100% of the parts required to keep the aircraft operational can be produced domestically. Nonetheless, US intelligence places that value closer to 70%, ..it is believed that Soviet and Russian expertise has allowed Iran to operate, maintain, and upgrade the F-14 fleet. The aircraft are reportedly being upgraded with a new Russian radar, engines, and a glass cockpit allowing them to serve until well into the 21st century. The Iranian press has further indicated that the surviving aircraft have been adapted for a heavy bombing roll, perhaps armed with air-to-surface anti-ship missiles. Some 50 to 55 are believed to remain in service, but only about 30 of these are considered airworthy at any one time.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml

Iran has an arsenal of SS-N-22 (“Sunburn”) and SSN-X-26 (“Yakhonts”) cruise missiles, to which the Fifth Fleet has no effective defence if these weapons are massively deployed. For example, both types of cruise missiles use stealth technology, the “Sunburn” moves at 1,500 miles an hour, and the “Yakhonts” (specially developed for use against carrier groups) is considered to be so extremely dangerous that the Pentagon’s weapons testing office earlier this year strove to halt production on further aircraft carriers until an effective defence against the “Yakhonts” was found.
There are reports that the White House suggested the Fifth Fleet produce a provocation anyway and then be decimated or destroyed so as to “legitimize” a nuclear counterstrike - since conventional action would cost too much . It is said that this is why the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly advised against such action, and why Admiral William Fallon, head of Centcom, threatened to resign a month ago.
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=4205&blz=1

 

[Grand Danois]

And do you think this has anything to do with reality? Just because you can find it on the net?

Try some research. Does Iran have Sunburns? Does Iran have Yakhonts? Is the USN defenceless against supersonic cruise missiles? Are they stealthy? Has the USN halted production of carriers?

NO!

The entire piece is a conglomerate of nutjob conspiracies, factual errors and erroneous conclusions in each and every line!!!

 

[Firehorse]

There are so many sources to use in a "research" that it's possible to form totally opposing ideas on any given subject. A prejudiced/biased position can be supported by plenty of raw data either way. But, if history of naval conflicts is of any relevance, the sinking of USS MAINE, IJN raid on Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were both used to start/escalate wars.

Tonkin Incident Might Not Have Occurred

Just because the next CVN is still being built, it does not mean everything is going to be fine with regards to the missiles that are meant to hit the ships which are already commissioned!

 

[Grand Danois]

There are so many sources to use in a "research" that it's possible to form totally opposing ideas on any given subject. A prejudiced/biased position can be supported by plenty of raw data either way. But, if history of naval conflicts is of any relevance, the sinking of USS MAINE, IJN raid on Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were both used to start/escalate wars.

Tonkin Incident Might Not Have Occurred

Just because the next CVN is still being built, it does not mean everything is going to be fine with regards to the missiles that are meant to hit the ships which are already commissioned!

This is a lateral displacement of discourse - you're dodging and diverting. What did you find on the subject you actually posted on?

 

[onslaught]

IMHO, those planes are bad news for any Navy they face.
There is also new Su-24M2 version now being delivered.

First of all, the Su-24 is pretty old technology including the upgraded Su-24M. Second of all, the Su-24MK's that Iran has are downgraded versions of the Su-24M. Su-24M2's were delivered only to Russia very very recently. You also have to think about the kind of munitions these old Su-24MK's can carry. Are they a match for the defensive systems on a US carrier and the rest of the carrier group (this is only on a technical, "on paper" standpoint) assuming this is what Iran is targeting. There are lots of factors that have to be taken into account for a successful airstrike, not just how good the plane is purported to be.

 

[Firehorse]

Well, I can use only open sources-

Iran also would like to buy supersonic Mosquito and Yakhont anti-ship missiles. The Yakhont missiles have a range of 300 kilometers. The Mosquito missiles, manufactured at the Progress plant in Arseniyev, Primorie region, near the border with China, have a range of 120 kilometers. The missiles fly at altitudes below 10 meters and their designers claim that Russia previously sold them to both China and Vietnam. The delivery of the Mosquito missile system to China was a part of larger, $800 million deal to build two Sovremenny-class destroyers for the Chinese navy. http://freemasonrywatch.org/comrades.html
Over the past several years, Iran has purchased Sunburn, C-801 and C-802 antiship cruise missiles , fast attack missile boats, diesel submarines, and naval mine warfare capabilities. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_cr/s970617h.htm

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome
Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

Even if they don't have them, there are perhaps 100s of other ballistic/anti-ship missiles to use!

And in he future, China may also target USN from space too!

Related article-
Sneak peek at a desert Armageddon

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, I can use only open sources-
The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome
Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

Even if they don't have them, there are perhaps 100s of other ballistic/anti-ship missiles to use!

And in he future, China may also target USN from space too!

Related article-
Sneak peek at a desert Armageddon

The amazing and legendary Rense.com article - the source of all Iranian Sunburn rumours on the net!

It pops up now and then. It is empty of fact, void of understanding of process.

 

[onslaught]

Yes possibly in the future but definitely not for a very long time. The article that you used seemed to make several speculations on the Shenlong. They even implied that the US doesn't have ASAT capability which is untrue. I don't know about the source but I'm pretty China does want some sort of "space strike" capability.