The Ship Model Forum

This is true. I know the guy!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

oh ok, I think I've heard of hims also haha. Funny, a gunners mate who makes gunsa haha

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

What about the Mk22?

It is a lot smaller than the MK13 (only 16 missiles) but you might fit pair of them.

Check my math.

2 x Mk-13 = 80 missiles
or
2 x Mk-22 = 32 missiles
or
1 (maybe 2) x Mk-26 = 64 (maybe 128) missiles

In the words of an old GM, when it comes to weapons/firepower, more is better.
Don't know exactly where I heard that, though I have my suspicions, but it seems eminently reasonable.

I am on board with 2 Mk13s for the numbers reasons. The magazine on the Mk13 is reasonably small. Depending on the width of your super structure you may want to consider putting Mk110 57mm guns or the Mk75 super rapid-fire 76mm guns on her for small boat protection.

I am not counting on the Harpoon for any of my future time frame WIFs, because even though it's our only ship launched anti-ship missile, the Harpoon is on its way out by attrition. Inside the next 10 years there will be a far better ASM designed specifically for the Mk41 VLS anyway.

However, maybe you can pack all of the Navy's Harpoons into a couple of these CSGNs

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Good thought Busto, I didn't even know about this systemr. I love those little FFG they put them on, but to be honest, I always assumed that was the MK17.
However, the MK17 would only require a little more space (what like four more feet per side for a total of eight more feet of foot print) and being that i have the space i would rather go with the higher capacity.

I will have to keep that system in mind though, if i ever build a smaller ship. Thank you for the suggestion

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

Thank you for your suggestion russ, I considered the MK26, but there would only be room for one. It would have to be mounted centerline on my boat deck. That would give 64 slots for missles. Going with the MK17 port and starboard gives 80 slots, plus seperation of missles and redunancy.

I would like to see five SM-2's in each launchers for point defence, so that would be 70 harpoons. Almost TEN times what most ships carry now.

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

I will be building that thought into the MK17 harpoon system. If and when the new missle comes down the pipline, the MK17 systems will be built so they are easily removed and the sapce will be free for future development.

On a side note, I've always been dumbfounded as to why harpoon cant be launched from VLS. I talk to my old navy buddy about this and he says that the harpoon cant be launched vertically because of an issue with its gyro

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

The VL Harpoon was about to be finished in 1997, but the Harpoon Maintenance and Modernization (Harpoon 21) program was canceled, and the harpoon program began a 15+ year run of neglect. More and more Harpoons were stripped from the fleet because of no maintenance.

The gyro thing is the same issue any missile being fired form VLS confronts. It's a problem that is overcome with different levels of difficulty. Ones that have to tip over super fast like ESSM have huge problems. Ones that have to eventually tip over are adapted a lot easier. The Navy just decided to abandon the Harpoon ASM and allow them to slowly leave the fleet through absence of maintenance. You would be shocked how few operable Harpoons the USN has.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

ya know....it all seems a little goofy. If you had the choice as a commander to either fire a harpoon, with its 488 pound warhead or a TASM with its 1,000 pound warhead which would you choose. Of course with the way we fight wars these days, they probably dont even load TASM into the VLS. Probably all TLAM's. The tomahawk is a much better ASM in my opinion. But even that is nothing in compairison to the shipwreck. That thing is freaking scary....

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

Both Harpoon and Tomahawk are slow and unstealthy, putting them behind pretty much every other ASM in the world. It's shocking that there's nothing better in service already. Albeit, the new Tactical Tomahawk can probably survive longer since it doesn't use active radar to find its targets like the Harpoon, thus avoiding detection longer, but it's still slow.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

The TASM used the same guidance system as the Harpoon so they saw a TASM coming as quickly as a Harpoon. I am not sure if I misunderstood what you meant. Could you clarify, please?Unfortunately, TACTOM is not an anti-ship weapon. It's still used like the other TLAMs. It's called the TLAM-E, and that was the Navy's last big TLAM buy before we quit making tomahawks of any kind. The TLAM-Es have the same characteristics as the earlier tomahawks of all kinds. The special thing about the "E"s is that they can be reprogrammed in flight, and they have a different tail fin configuration.

We never converted any TASMs to be VLS fired. ASMs were all ABL missiles. I have spoken with the Tomahawk program manager at length about this issue, and according to him elements of the Navy were pushing for another ASM for years, and the easiest thing would be to retro fit a bunch of TLAMs into TASMs, but the Navy's supply of TLAMs is finite enough to where the Navy did not want to sacrifice enough to make a difference.

So, they've stuck with the dwindling numbers of Harpoons.

To my knowledge, the USS Iowa was the only ship to shoot down a TASM.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Not referring to TASM. Was thinking of using Tactical Tomahawk (I'm under the impression that it has onboard passive sensors - e.g. electro-optical/IR - that sends images back to the operator) in a bearing-only shoot - fire at an enemy vessel without using active radar. The passive mode allows it to get closer without the enemy knowing they're being radiated. Once in the area, the shooter can then target the enemy ship more precisely.

Basically, a bigger, less stealthy version of the Norwegian Kongsberg JSM.

Of course, that begs the question - why don't the USN just buy in to the JSM? Hmph.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

The only one that could home in on a ship was the TASM with its active radar seeker. The TLAM-E (TACTOM) does not have an EO or IR sight. The only camera onboard is one that looks directly down and reads the terrain to maintain course. It is the same kind of camera that the rest of the TLAMs carry. Here is a video showing the nose of the TLAM-E so you can see what it looks like as it emerges from the launch tube underwater:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41gxdgAdSEU

Here is a still showing the lip that goes across its face.



Basically, a bigger, less stealthy version of the Norwegian Kongsberg JSM.

Of course, that begs the question - why don't the USN just buy in to the JSM? Hmph.[/quote]Great question. It's the same question about foreign FFGs over LCS. Under Secretary Work said there is not an FFG on the market today that is built to the same survivability standards as US warships. (and standard US warships are built to a "Level 3" survivability). What he did not say is that LCS is not built to standard US warship survivability requirements. They're built to a Level 1 survivability, which is the same as a logistics and supply ship. I dare say that one of these MEKO FFGs is built stronger to higher survivability standards than a supply ship. Thus it's probably safe to bet that the MEKO FFGs have a better survivability rating than the LCS.

I think with both examples the US Navy (or someone in the US chain of decision making) does not want us to use something that high profile that is not home grown. Silly.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

According to Raytheon, it does carry a camera that "beam[s] a picture of its target to controllers": http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/pr ... 92066-5049
From the sounds of it, it seems to be much higher resolution than a simple terrain reader. It probably doesn't face forward like a traditional seeker, but there's no doubt that's for retargeting purposes when needed, giving your Tomahawk the ability to attack (slowly) moving targets.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Im thinking that the anti-ship capability of the USN has been handed over to the sub fleet. I mean our ASM's are almost laughable compaired with other navies. The shipwreck missle is probably the best Ive read of. Those things comunicate with each other....thats just scarry. Seems if the USN were serious about an ASM it would be designed like that, and that is what makes me think they count on subs for the anti-ship mission. That is a very good way to attack a surface ship after all. Anyway, thats my thoughts on the matter

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

They are pretty laughable, but foreign countries still buy new Harpoons from us all the time. They are not the fastest, but they still offer a pretty significant capability. I am based out in Yokosuka, Japan where the CVN-73 strike group is based, and we rack up as many Harpoons as we can on those launchers. We know we might get into a missile match, so we want to be able to shoot some back. Will they be able to penetrate the other guy's AAW system? Well, since the other guy for the most part does not have Aegis or anything like it...if we shoot a few Harpoons at them then most likely one will penetrate, yes.

Those are carrier killers. Yes, they are really, really mean, but they are super rare. Only two kinds of surface ships and one SSGN shoot them, and they're Russian: the Kirov-class cruiser, and Kuznetsov carrier, and the Oscar-class SSGNs. I hope we don't get into a missile match with the Russians, because we would have a lot of missile types on our plate. Aegis would get a work out, but since Russia is the only country that holds those (and who knows how many work), they are not of much consequence.

The ones of real consequence these days are the SS-N-22 and SS-N-25 missiles, and Russia is selling them to anyone who can pay. They're called Aegis killers, because they fly so fast and maneuver really well as the close on the target. Since they're so crazy on their terminal run we try to engage them as far away from the ship as possible. We have many different kinds of missiles and countermeasures to wage the fight (SM-2 BlockIV, SM-2 BlockIIIMU, ESSM, RAM, 3 types of CHAFF, and NULKA).

Since I am active duty Navy, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this. The US Navy is all about "just barely enough to get the job done." So they teach to shoot SM-2s at other ships...what a dumb idea. Sure, you will probably mess up the other ship's antennas, and if they're dumb enough to store their missiles in unarmored canister launchers above deck then they would be vulnerable to shrapnel damage, too. Their CIWS system would be out of alignment or destroyed with SM-2 hits. But really, SM-2s are only good for suppression fire so the Harpoons can show up and really mess the ship up badly. With this strategy, we could make Harpoon work pretty well within the anti-ship range of SM-2s.

SSNs are an excellent way to destroy surface ships, and I would hope in a shooting war we would send SSNs into the fight to bring the enemy surface ships down. We must keep in mind is that just like the surface fleet numbers, we don't have very man SSNs to go around anymore.

Surface ships should not rely on CVNs or SSNs to do the fighting, because CVNs and SSNs won't always be there. In actuality, they probably won't be there in time to contribute to the fight with another ship or group of ships, either.

A naval gun with a guided muntion, however, that would really solve a lot of problems (5" Dead-eye and 8" SALGP)!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

You may be interested to note that the NSSM was able to penetrate the hull of HMCS Huron, Iroquois-class destroyer, during her SINKEX in '07. The Sparrow was not equipped with a warhead, just a telemetrics package. Nonetheless, if an NSSM can penetrate the hull, then so can an SM. I imagine that even with the relatively small AA explosives that it contains, it can do a good amount of damage against the ship's structure. Luck will play, as usual, into how significant this damage is, of course.

(interesting to note as well that the NSSM could be used in an ASuW role...)

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

While the NSSM may have put a hole in the Iroquois, all of the SM-2s we have fired in SINKEXs have been live, and they detonate well away from the ship showering it with shrapnel. That's how they're supposed to work anyway you shoot them. They home in a radar reflection, they don't know if they're going for an ASCM or a ship so they're going to detonate the same way every time: stood off and away from the target.

I am not saying the SM-2 won't damage the target ship, but it's not a Harpoon by any means. Even with a 600+lb warhead Harpoons don't even sink ships.

Also, on the line of an NSSM actually being able to penetrate the hull of a "warship" is pretty bad. Sure, the Iroquois is not a US warship, so it's not a good example of the strength of US warships. What is...is the USS Cole. Something USN construction has to get away from is building our ships out of weak materials like mild ship building steel and aluminum. Even in the DDG-51s, they are built with "high strength steel", which is supposed to make it a more survivable hull, but as was shown by the attack on the USS Cole, when it's used in such thin plating (1/4 to 3/8"), it does not protect the ship from anything but water intrusion. The HY80 strake right above the hole in the hull was nearly undamaged, and the HSS was ripped away from the weld, the interior of the ship was destroyed requiring $900 million to repair.





Right there! You see?! Right there!!! The HY80 strake held very well, and the rest of the hull, even below the water line, constructed out of HSS, was severely damaged.


Even a Japanese tanker repelled a USS Cole style attack:

"So it turns out that it wasn’t a freak wave, an old mine or a collision with another ship or submarine but a terrorist attack...Residue from a home-made explosive was detected on the outer hull by Emirati authorities. Numerous implications come to mind."

If US war-ships are to be built with any kind of survivability, they need to be built out of better material. In these pictures, we see that all it takes is a strength member to resist the explosion. As we can see with the Japanese tanker, all it takes is an idea toward keeping out more than just water to greatly increase the survivability of the ship.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

No, I don't believe so. It is my impression that most tankers built since the 1980s have double and triple hulls to prevent collisions, groundings, and damage done due to regional conflicts (missile and mine strikes in particular) from breaching the interior and cargo spaces of the ship.

Well, I had been wondering that, too. Perhaps there would be a terribly black scorch mark on the side of the hull, but then I compared it to the Cole's damage. While there is a little discoloration on the Cole's haze grey hull, the color change was not all the significant. The hull of the tanker was black and red, so it's nearly impossible to see a similar mark on the black that only barely left a discoloration on the grey.

It seem that since the Japanese crewmen didn't even know the ship was damaged until someone told them, the only people to know where the suicide boat (or remote controlled boat, maybe?) blew up were those who did it. Seeing how terrorists love killing themselves, we probably can't be sure one way or the other.

The DDG-51 Flight IIIs designed in 1989 were to have a double hull whereas the Cole (and possibly all subsequent ships of the class) only have single hulls. Single hull being that there is water right on the other side of the outermost bulkhead...not a void with a bunch of framing reenforcing the strength of the hull.

A new class should finally address this concern. See the CGN-42 thread viewtopic.php?f=67&t=62172 and an expansion of the CGBL design from me soon.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance