PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Finn McCool said:

Why? I'm very curious as to what advantages this will provide. I think I can see where you're going with this; with the introduction of "smart shells" guns that are more properly considered AAA are again relevant.

Click to expand...

CIWS were designed with sensors on-mount so that they could be fitted to warships RETROSPECTIVELY, with minimal cost. Also, the common argument that it's faster to process targets on-mount is BS, electricity travels at pretty much the speed of light(?) so 200m of cabling would make no difference - again it was because the warships they were being fitted to had older less capable central computer networks.

But if you are designing a ship from scratch, it makes more sense to have an integrated modular architecture with the CIWS a function of the overall air-combat system. That system needs to be robust and with redundancies (i.e. Radar and IIR/EO etc).


Guided shells are a lesser factor, you still need a fail-safe CIWS IMO, but 35mm with AHEAD shells is better than Type-730 IMO.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Totoro said:

Seriously? I've never seen an ESSM with a booster. Could you point me to some articles or, preferably, a picture? I'm imagening you're talking about additional unit attached to 3.66 meter long ESSM, not that the 3.66 meter unit is comprised of a booster and a shorther kill vehicle, right?

Click to expand...

Both actually. On the RIM-162, the main booster is much bigger than that of the RIM-7. Its not hard to imagine with the new booster, it can double the range.

Now for one thing, if a missile is launched vertically from a VLS, the range is going to be shorter than it is launched from a slanted box launcher. No need to tell you the reasons but some common sense with physics would do. That's because you expend part of the boost to tip over when you are in VLS, whereas from a box launcher, you just shoot off in an angle already. [Here is one problem I get off from missile range quotes, are they off from VLS or from angled launchers?]

Thus, same missile on angled box launcher will get the most range, compared to the same missile on VLS. To compensate, the VLSed missile must have an additional booster that once on the air, tips over the missile using thrust vector control. Then this booster is dropped once it is expended.

You may notice that some of the earlier SM-2 blocks don't have a booster when VLSed, but later blocks do, and that's the learned lesson from losing some range to the VLS. The ESSM on the box launcher should not have the additional booster, but the ESSM going off from the MK.41 should have it.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

I know ESSM has a small section at the end, with TVC, that is jettisoned after launch. But that is not a booster in itself. But it seems to me you're talking about the new, widened rocket motor section - something that comprises ESSM's length of 3.66 meters, not adds to it. Or did i misunderstand something? If i have, and there is an additional booster, please please provide a picture or a text about it - I'd really like to know about it as it changes some of my ideas about missiles and their ranges...

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Totoro said:

I know ESSM has a small section at the end, with TVC, that is jettisoned after launch. But that is not a booster in itself. But it seems to me you're talking about the new, widened rocket motor section - something that comprises ESSM's length of 3.66 meters, not adds to it. Or did i misunderstand something? If i have, and there is an additional booster, please please provide a picture or a text about it - I'd really like to know about it as it changes some of my ideas about missiles and their ranges...

Click to expand...

You are correct in your explanation. The ESSM is 3.66 meters long (some sources list it as 3.64 meters). Outside of that, there is no additional booster or other extension.

Her's a pic from a VLS launch of the ESSM from the HMAS Warramunga:



And here's another pic of the launch from an 8-cell box launcher:



Finally, here's a pic of one in a quad pac for the Mk-41 VLS launcher.



FYI, in May of last year (2007), the US Navy demonstrated (with a software upgrade from Raytheon) the ability for the ESSM to engage and destroy small, highly manueverable surface contacts. In that case it engaged a small, fast, rigid-hull inflatable.

Sorry to be off topic...but the PLAN (and any other Navy) would be well served to have such a missile available to their surface fleet. That is why so many international Navies are choosing the ESSM.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

This quad pac with VSL thing really amazes me. Because, a SM-2 missile's diameter is about 0.34m. For tomahawk, it is about 0.52m. So, it is really not that far fetched to place a tomahawk in a silo that normally holds an SM-2. But Put 4 ESSM together, that system would have at least >0.8 meter in diameter (assume each is about 200mm). How do they squeeze it inside? Did they designed the launcher to be a lot bigger in the first place or something? How big is the Mk-25 canister anyways?

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

optionsss said:

This quad pac with VSL thing really amazes me. Because, a SM-2 missile's diameter is about 0.34m. For tomahawk, it is about 0.52m. So, it is really not that far fetched to place a tomahawk in a silo that normally holds an SM-2. But Put 4 ESSM together, that system would have at least >0.8 meter in diameter (assume each is about 200mm). How do they squeeze it inside? Did they designed the launcher to be a lot bigger in the first place or something? How big is the Mk-25 canister anyways?

Click to expand...

ESSM is smaller through the use of new folding fins, which are smaller. The older RIM-7 doesn't have folding fins, and the fins are much wider.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

optionsss said:

This quad pac with VSL thing really amazes me. Because, a SM-2 missile's diameter is about 0.34m. For tomahawk, it is about 0.52m. So, it is really not that far fetched to place a tomahawk in a silo that normally holds an SM-2. But Put 4 ESSM together, that system would have at least >0.8 meter in diameter (assume each is about 200mm). How do they squeeze it inside? Did they designed the launcher to be a lot bigger in the first place or something? How big is the Mk-25 canister anyways?

Click to expand...

The ESSM's diameter is approx. 10" (0.254 meters).

If you look at the quad-pack pic that Jeff posted above, you can see the tight fit in the launch container.

It's a great way to increase firepower, but I wouldn't expect to see it on PLAN ships for a while. The PLAN had just gotten their first VLS systems not too long ago and it'd take some years to fully integrate them as is.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

ESSM is still SARH not active radar. VL-MICA and Aster are better

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

The ESSM's diameter is approx. 10" (0.254 meters).

If you look at the quad-pack pic that Jeff posted above, you can see the tight fit in the launch container.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's where I got confused.

First, I was thinking how big would a square be if you would place 4 circular objects, each with diameter about 0.254m. I assumed that each missile sits right next to each other. I calculate that the diagonal length of the square to be at least 0.718m. Put that in a circle again, as shown in the picture and then put the whole system in a canister. The cross section length would be over a meter.

I was not really sure what the circular thing was for, maybe it has nothing to do with the Mk-25 system.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

[/URL]

Another piece of fan art, so planeman doesn't get lonely here. Everything should be more or less self explanatory.

Goal was to create as small ship as possible, while retaining a decent punch. That is why the space reserved for the VLS is in the middle of the ship - where there's plenty of space and depth, and it would do least damage to ship's stability. I would think a conventional placement on the bow would allow for less VLS cells. Since the ship is relatively narrow, there isn't any space to put VLS cells between the helo hangars, like on Burkes.

Two radar masts are, i believe, of great importance, for added redundancy. While a strike strike that would render all the VLS cells inoperable is a risk - it is something the fleet could live with. But a single strike to blind the whole ship - that's just too much.

antiship missiles would be standardized for the VLS and fired from there. I believe PLAN doesn't require LACMs on its ships, at least not for another two or three decades.