Surface Warfare Thread

[bd popeye]

You're absolutely right. USN would never fight without its air cover, and that gives it a massive decisive advantage over any opponent, provided that it is not fighting in a coastal area where an opponent can use land bases to launch aircraft. Therefore, it dominates the high seas. And training-wise, China is badly behind.

In the future China will catch up. I have no doubt. Perhaps China will improve it's training. This can be simply done by sending ships to sea more often than they presently do.

As for costal warfare..I think the USN is at an disadvantage there. And will be until the first block of LCS (Littoral Combat Ships) comes into service. And of course the USN has no SSK's.

 

[IDonT]

The last time the USN was in a surface fight was in 1988 against Iran in operation Praying Mantis.

The Iranian Ship Joshan was destroyed by 6 Standards and 1 Harpoon. It did fire a Harpoon at the US ship, which was successfully spoofed.

The Sahand was destroyed by Harpoons and laser guided skipper bombs from both an A-6 and USS Joseph Strauss.

The Sabalan was mobility killed by an A-6 who dropped a bomb on its smoke stack.

Other post world war II missile surface engagements were:
Battle of Lataika between Israeli Navy and Syrian Navy
Indian Navy attack on Karachi and the defending Pakistani Navy

 

[adeptitus]

Other post world war II missile surface engagements were:
Battle of Lataika between Israeli Navy and Syrian Navy
Indian Navy attack on Karachi and the defending Pakistani Navy

There's also the Six-day war, in which an Egyptian ship (Komar class) fired 4 x SS-N-2 Styx missiles on the INS Eilat (ex-UK Z-class destroyer) and sunked it:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[DennisDaMenace]

Somewhere around 15 years ago I remember the USN and Turkey navys running some joint exercise together. The USN shot off a Sea-sparrow missle and it flew right into the bridge of a Turkish Cruiser killing the Admiral of the Turkish fleet, very big imbarressment for US.. I looked but couldnt find a link for it.
However if you could get one of the long range surface to air missels to work, without killing your own allies it would be a big advantage if you could also use it for surface to surface. First blood on the battle field is always good for morale.

 

[IDonT]

Does anyone know how the Russians would employ a Kirov centric SAG with the Slava cruisers?

I'm guessing a third party targeting platform from Bear aircraft. Once target info is found, all missiles are fired. Then go home to reload. Hence the battle of first salvo doctrine

 

[bd popeye]

Somewhere around 15 years ago I remember the USN and Turkey navys running some joint exercise together. The USN shot off a Sea-sparrow missle and it flew right into the bridge of a Turkish Cruiser killing the Admiral of the Turkish fleet, very big embarressment for US.. I looked but couldnt find a link for it.
However if you could get one of the long range surface to air missels to work, without killing your own allies it would be a big advantage if you could also use it for surface to surface. First blood on the battle field is always good for morale.

Dennis I found a link about that accident on Global security.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

One of the destroyers, the Muavenet , was hit by two Sea Sparrow surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs) launched accidentally by a United States warship during exercises in 1992. The Turkish captain and four other personnel were killed and a number injured. The destroyer subsequently was scrapped. In 1993 and 1994, eight newer Knox-class frigates were transferred to Turkey by the United States.

Dennis is so right. This was an embarrasment for the USN. But no such other incidents have occuried.

Dennis you need to read the full account of Operation Praying Mantis

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[adeptitus]

A prime example of peacetime ops is anti drug running patrols such as those carried out by the USN, USCG, and the RN and RFA in the caribbean. Some have criticised the use of a large, complex and expensive warship such as a type 22 frigate or an Arleigh Burke class DDG on relatively low tech missions like this, but Navies have to be very flexible and ready to meet any threat, large or small.

The US has a pretty large coast guard fleet, with approx. 1,400 boats and over 200 aircraft. The boats range from small fiber glass harbor patrol boats to the 3,250 tonne "high endurance" cutters, armed with 76mm cannon, 20mm CIWS gun, and helicopter deck.

Let's look at the largest US Coast Guard "gunships":

12 x Secretary class high endurance cutter
3,250 tonnes, 76mm cannon, 20mm CIWS, helicopter deck

13 x Famous class medium endurance cutter
1,800 tonnes, 76 mm cannon, 2 x 12.7mm machinegun, helicopter deck

14 x Reliance class medium endurance cutter
1,127 tonnes, 25mm autocannon, 2 x 12.7mm machinegun, helicopter deck

Since these ships are for the coast guard, they're all gun boats without missiles. But if they were actually built (or refit) as military ships, they'd be a fleet of 12 frigates and 27 light frigates. That's a larger surface fleet than most navies today.

There's really no reason for the USN to send out destroyers for anti-drug operations. The US Coast Guard has plenty of ships and aircraft.

 

[bd popeye]

adeptius, The USN sends out it's FFG's on drug enforcement deployments with USCG detatchments on board. The USCG has powers to arrest on the high seas. The USN does not. This link will give you some idea of USN drug bust.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Some months ago I found a link about how the USCG was repacing all it's ships beyond a certian age. I could not find that link. It is a multi-billion dollar program.

 

[IDonT]

Thread Resurrected...

In purely surface vs surface capability. Who do you think had the most powerful surface fleet at the outbreak of WWII (1940-1941)?

My guess is IJN. Why...superior training and night fighting ability. Plus the long lance torpedoes.

The Long Lance torpedo had a maximum range of 40,000 meters with a 1,080 lb (490 kg) warhead. In comparison the 16 inch /L45 guns mounted on the then-current US Colorado-class battleships fired a 2,110 lb (957 kg) shell to an absolute maximum range of 39,600 yards (36,210 m). Practical ranges for both weapons were much shorter, but still fairly comparable overall.

In early battles, Japanese destroyers and cruisers were able to launch their torpedoes from over 20,000 metres out at unsuspecting Allied ships that were attempting to close to gun range, expecting torpedoes to be fired at less than 10,000 metres, the typical range of that era. The losses sustained in such engagements led to a belief among the Allies that the torpedoes were being fired from submarines operating in concert with the surface ships but at much closer ranges. On rare occasions, the very long range of the torpedo caused it to strike a ship that was far behind the intended target. The Type 93's capabilities were not recognized by the Allies until one was captured intact in 1943.

See how the deadly the long lance was used in the Battle of Savo Island

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[IDonT]

Trying to bring this back to life.

Of the recent new construction of top of the line surface ships, European ships tend to be less heavily armed than their asian counter parts.

Current European surface ships under construction
1.) Horizon Frigate (48 Sylver VLS cells)
2.) Type 45 (48 Sylver VLS cells)
3.) F100 (Spain - Alvaro de Basan, RAAN - Hobart Class; Norweigian - Nansen Class) (32-48 Mk 41 VLS cells depending on country)
4.) F-124 Frigate Sachen Class (32 Mk 41 VLS cells)
5.) Den Zeven Class (48 VLS Cells)


Current Asian Ships under construction
1.) KDX III (128 VLS cells)
2.) Atago Destroyer (96)
3.) 052 C (48 Cells)

IS there a reason?

Jeff head has the spreadsheet

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Asian ships are more heavily armed.