USS Zumwalt vs Kirov-class battlecruiser. Who wins?
>>30161055
go away
zumwalts aren't for ship to ship combat.
Zumwalts simply lacks weapons to reach Kirov from a safe distance
>>30161055
If an 80's refit Iowa can get a double KO with a Kirov, a Zumwalt will be fine.
>>30161055
Are we talking as they are right now, or both loaded to their maximum level of firepower?
Cause until the Zumwalt gets its space magic upgrades, it probably shouldn't be included in hypothetical battles.
>>30161226
It's all about the rail guns isn't it?
>>30161180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N086JXfk0wM
>>30161226
with railguns
What will the Zumwalt's final form look like?
>>30161204
Does the Iowa have gliders?
>>30161263
Worthless against ships and other targets that can shoot them down.
>>30161307
>>30161325
Thank you for sharing your uninformed opinion.
>>30161055
>USS Zumwalt vs Kirov-class battlecruiser. Who wins?
That depends *entirely* on weapons loadout. With the new Long Range Land Attack Projectile (which is slated to gain the ability to engage mobile targets, just like the Excalibur is, in the next block upgrade,) the Zumwalt can fire 155mm shells up to 70 miles - so the same range as a Harpoon, roughly, except the shells are very fucking hard to intercept with current-gen point defenses.
If they went up against each other right now, though? The Kirov launches a shitfuckton of its terrifying huge Granits from long range, then sighs gustily as the Zumwalt slaps them all down like the Highlander palming arrows or some shit. Since the Zumwalt has nothing to shoot back with, they both stare at each other, growl, and go home.
>>30161253
HOW ABOUT THE FUCKING 155MM CANNONS THEY ARE ALREADY INSTALLING ON THEM
FUCK YOUR FUCKING RAILGUNS FUCK YOU
>>30161325
That describes every cruise missile in service, sub-and-supersonic.
>>30161512
>Since the Zumwalt has nothing to shoot back with
>>30161263
>>30161109
When they get their railguns they will be.
>>30161376
no railguns? not scary at all
>>30161535
Yeah, but....
... wait.
Wait just a second.
Okay, I'm firing up CMANO, lets see how this goes.
>>30161523
The ship has an absolutely stupid supply of electricity on board and the guns supposedly have a range of 100 miles.
Dude, they're getting rail guns.
>>30161541
Keep in mind the HVP developed for the railgun will be able to be fired from 155mm and 127mm guns.
>>30161055
Kirovs are fucking ancient man they were in Red Alert
>>30161204
I'm sorry, my memory on naval engagements is a little fuzzy. When did an Iowa go up against a Kirov?
>>30161666
THE DEVIL'S TRIPS
>>30161595
BUT THEY'RE GETTING THE FUCKING CANNONS FIRST. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THOSE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THAT'S IMPORTANT. IT MEANS THEY WILL HAVE GUNS TO SHOOT WITHIN A FEW YEARS. NOT MAGIC PIXIE DUST RAILGUNS THAT WILL TAKE A DECADE OR MORE. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Christ. Okay. Anyways. We got the Kirov set up 170 miles or so from a Zumwalt.
>>30161666
A CMANO thread a few days ago.
Changed the Zumwalt's loadout a bit to reflect it being used in a surface superiority role. Technically there's no fucking reason it can't carry SM-2s, it's just waiting on a software upgrade, but, hey, we're talking right now and we don't have a Kirov in the database that reflects the upgraded tech the Rooskies will cram onto it when they finish refurbing the one they've got, so fuck it.
Yes, it can carry that many Sea Sparrows because the ESSM can be quad-packed into the cells. So it can carry a hideous number of interceptors, and a shitload of Tomahawks. Since the inherent anti-ship ability of a bog standard tomahawk isn't modeled yet we'll have to use the new Multi-Mission missile being deployed this year, which has a proper radar seeker. Alas.
>>30161720
More info? I ran the Kirov vs. Iowa in CMANO and the Kirov fucking raped the Iowa's face. I'd love to know how they reversed that result.
>>30161720
>CMANO
Why does that Acronym sound familiar? I don't remember what the CM stands for but the ANO is Air Naval Operations, right?
I wish we did WH 40K level things like towing Casaba Howitzers behind our ships and being able to destroy things with a ton of tungsten traveling at 3% the speed of light.
>>30161744
Command: Air Naval Operations. Literally a modern Harpoon.
So the first lesson was that the Russkies are gonna have a hard time shooting at this ship at all. First I had to turn off the jamming just to give the Russian Tu-142 a chance to find the Zumwalt with its surface search radar. And THEN I had to use edit powers to move it into visual range, because the Zumwalt's low RCS made it impossible to narrow down its position closely enough to actually engage it with the SS-20 Shipwrecks.
But we're handwaving all of that bullshit for the sake of a more interesting fight, right?
>>30161775
Because I'm lazy and we're ignoring literally every real factor that'd go into an actual battle involving these ships just to weight their combat prowess against each other in a perfect theoretical vaccum where killchains are not a thing, and I am too lazy to set this shit up again if the Granits should win and kill the Zumwalt, I decide the Zummy gets warning of incoming Shipwrecks and realizes those dastardly Russians have started WWIII. Therefore the Zummy fires off its 56 Tomahawks because fuck'em, right?
>>30161842
dis gunbe gud
Naturally the supersonic Shipwrecks arrive first, so the Zummie starts ripple-firing ESSMs, doubling up on targets, because they are supersonic, after all. I could manually order it to triple up on targets, if I want - after all, in this perfect scenario it knows it's up against a Kirov and doesn't need to reserve missiles against any other threat, but... eh.
Just not fast enough to get through a fucking wall of ESSMs, sadly. Though they do better than you might think, since they've actually got DECM onboard, which most modern cruise missiles don't. Pretty impressive for a 70s era weapon.
CONTACT, LOTS OF CONTACT
Dear Vatnik, do not fuck with 'MERICA, apparently. Now let's see how the Kirov does.
>>30161055
The one with a better real battlegroup behind it. So, invariably the Zumwalt in a numerically equal engagement.
So the Kirov isn't an easy nut to crack.
>>30161935
It's slavshit, but it's big slavshit.
Well fuck me sideways, these new multi-mission Tomahawks have a modern DECM jammer on them. That's gonna make them far harder to engage.
>>30161945
Yes. Yes, it is!
>30%
Jesus fucking WEPT.
So I went ahead and added 48 SA-10bs to the ship (which are capable versus seaskimmers) because those are the modern version of the missile, not the 80s version, and they're what the Kirov would be packing once the Rooskies retrofit it.
Shit's gettin a bit intense. Finally used up the useless 80s missiles so now it'll start firing Grumbles that work.
Oh, wait, nevermind. The Tomahawks fly 20 feet too low for the new Grumbles to engage. Oh well. Too bad!
>>30162070
>that line of fuck and you are already getting hits
Its ogre. Prepare your ass for hurt, vatniks.
The guns try very hard.
>>30162093
>final Ph: 1%
>final Ph: 1%
>final Ph: 1%
lel
>>30162088
Yes. "Line of Fuck" is an apt way of describing it.
So, it's my own fault for not trying to upgrade the Kirov's armament to something that had a chance in fucking hell of working. Tried to compensate with a more modern version of the same missile, but that didn't cut it - I should've looked up what the Russians actually plan to refit the damn thing with.
But, hey, it still illustrated a few things:
1. It's a pointless conversation because the only Russian Kirov is a fucking rusting pile of shit and the Zumwalts are actually sailing around. Until the Russians actually upgrade the damn thing, it's not even a conversation.
2. It's even more pointless because the US superiority in ECM makes pinning down a Zumwalt well enough to target it a real whore. And even WITHOUT ECM, the low RCS of the Zumwalt makes it hard to target at all. You can't just fire a missile at a 10 square mile box of ocean and expect it to find its own way, esp. if its supersonic.
3. To paraphrase Admiral Fanta on the current Tomahawks: "Yeah, they're not new, they're not stealthy, they're not fast and they're not fancy - but I have FORTY-FIVE HUNDRED OF THE DAMN THINGS."
>>30161312
GOD DAMMIT
So I'd love to run this again and re-arm the Kirov with the S-400 system (SA-20+ or "Growler" as us real fuckin NATO guys call it) but the system has three different fucking missiles, and I'm not sure which one the Kirov would be likely to pack. Probably not the huge-ass 200nm ranged one - how about the 80nm range weapon?
>>30161512
>Zumwalt gets upgrade but Kirov doesn't
Why not include 80 Zircon-S hypersonic AShM and 96 48N6DM long range SAM with Surface attack capabilities. Not to mention its own gun upgrade for Artillery 'JDAM' fuze.
>>30162214
>S-400
SA-21, and they probably don't have it but it is supposed to be the "48N6DMK" with 130NM.
>>30162251
>96 48N6DM long range SAM
>>30162271
>SA-21, and they probably don't have it but it is supposed to be the "48N6DMK" with 130NM.
Thank you both, that's what I needed to know.
>>30162251
>Why not include 80 Zircon-S hypersonic AShM
Never heard of that one - I thought they were slated for the much newer P-800, but holy shit, that missile is actually in the database! Slated to begin production in 2018, huh? I'll add it.
You happen to know anything about more advanced Russian navy ships? Which Russian ship is the newest, with the most modern Russian ECM systems? I can look up that equipment and try to add it to the ship to represent upgrading the defensive ECM.
>>30162349
>Never heard of that one
Because it might as well be vaporware currently.
>>30162380
Sure, probably. But by 2018 the Zumwalt will have the SM-2, so fuck it, fair is fair.
Hokay, that's the 3S-14 8-cell VLS... incidentally that's the exact same setup the Kirov has for its SAMs; a ton of 8-cell VLSes. How the fuck do they expect to get 80 HUGE hypersonic missiles onto this thing, AND 96 long-range SAMs? Whatever, it's cool, we'll try it. They ARE big ships, after all.
>>30162427
Haven't SM-2's been replaced with SM-6? What advantages do old SM-2's have over ESSM?
>>30161312
DELETE THIS WE DON'T WANT GLIDERFAG IN HERE
Check this shit out, there's already a weapon mount record for the Kirov upgrades. Noice.
>>30162506
>Haven't SM-2's been replaced with SM-6? What advantages do old SM-2's have over ESSM?
SM-2s are much longer ranged, my friend - ESSMs are considered point-defense. But you're right, we could just load that bitch out with a fuckton of SM-6s.
There we go, even has a weapon record for 80 of the Zircon missiles ready to rock. Now lets go upgrade the SAMs.
>>30162515
I'd consider ESSMs more of an area-defense weapon - isn't their range 50km+?
They're semiactive, but integrated into a networked battle management system...
>>30162545
>I'd consider ESSMs more of an area-defense weapon - isn't their range 50km+?
The US Navy considers the ESSM to be a point-defense missile - even though the ESSM can actually reach a really good distance for a point-defense missile. It evolved from the old Sea Sparrow (RIM-7) which really was just a point-defense missile.
The SM-2 can reach 50-100nm depending on version; it's used for long-range fleet defense.
Okay, the Kirov is souped up with the latest greatest shit - what should the Zumwalt's missile loadout be?
>>30162632
Woah. That's useful. Saved.
For now I'm going with 30 Tomahawks, 40 ESSMs and 40 SM-6s.
Okay, we're shooting at each other. Interestingly these Zicrons use a high lofted profile, which means SM-6s can engage them at long range without a spotter.
>>30161512
>The Kirov launches a shitfuckton of its terrifying huge Granits from long range, then sighs gustily as the Zumwalt slaps them all down like the Highlander palming arrows or some shit
I'd give a testicle to see this irl, preferably from at least 1km above where the missiles are being intercepted.
Well, that's a lotta fukkin missiles.
>>30161055
>ctrl f
>"we do"
>no responses
Fugg
The Zumwalt runs out of SM-6s and has to use ESSMs, which are almost useless against these weapons, but even at point-blank range they knock a few down.
Somehow it STILL HASN'T BEEN HIT.
Finally sinks. Took about 50 missiles.
TIME FOR TELET-
Tomahawks. Time for tomahawks.
And... I can't get these fucking missiles to launch, even after adding the right fire control radars to the ship. Mother fucker.
So the Kirov dies because no matter what the fuck I do, this fucking program won't accept the actual fire control radars for that exact missile as valid, and they all refuse to launch because they have no illumination.
So the moral of the story is, magic vaporware missiles are punished by God, I guess. Fuck it.
nice posts, OP. I guess stealth ships are a good idea after all.
Well, fuck it. I added three of literally every fucking radar in the database to this fucking ship and re-ran things, so we'll see how it does against 30 Tomahawks.
AT LEAST ONE OF THESE MOTHERFUCKERS HAS TO BE THE RIGHT FUCKING ONE
So, they're not doing too bad actually.
Kirov manages to shoot them down with this many missiles remaining - out of 40 odd Gekos and 96 Gargoyles to begin with.
So, conclusions:
1. Kirovs are really fucking big.
2. You can kill anything if you fire 80 missiles at it.
3. Hypersonic magic missiles that are small enough to cram onto a ship in big numbers have to use a lofted profile, where SAMs can nail them at long range, which greatly reduces their utility versus something like a BrahMos.
>>30163173
A few more:
4. I can see why the Russians want to upgrade those ships so bad. Just counting the planned armaments, they have 176 "big" missiles aboard (Anti-ship missiles and anti-air missiles with long ranges.) A Slava-class cruiser (of which they have three) only has 82. So basically a single Kirov is worth two cruisers. Upgrading both gives them 4 more cruisers worth of effective firepower.
5. They can carry a shitfuckton of cruise missiles compared to anything Russia has now, so that'd drastically increase Russian ability to project power from the Med or other places inland, like they've done in Syria, without having to move in wholesale.
>>30163529
Don't forget the last point that they are by Western definition Battlecruisers, which looks great in the news. The damn thing is as big as a fucking WW1 era Battleship for goodness' sake.
Vatniks love their big dick weapon systems.
>>30162070
>>30162093
Rip in piss, rust-bucket.
What missiles does the Kirov have? Just Granit and Klub right? Ain't even that scary.
>>30164869
*anti ship missiles
Kirov would curbstomp it and anally rape it's ugly sinking corpse. But then so will any cruiser or light frigate.
Zumwalt has no torpedoes or anti-ship missiles. The only thing it can scare off with those 155m farts is another wooden Zumwalt. Let that sink in for a moment: the main armament of this 200m long, $7bln deformity is equivalent to 2 fixed Msta howitzers. It was supposed to be equipped with railguns or lasers but expectedly enough both of those gimmicks turned out to be boondoggles.
Zumwalt has has no adequate AA measures. All it has is a shitty ESSM with 50 range and a couple of 57mm guns along the chopper hangar that can't turn 90° because of that ugly ass pyramid on the stern. There's no SMs, Vulcans or Aegis probably because americans know none of this is worth shit against Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles anyway, and Zumwalt is expected to work jointly with actual naval squadrons and carrier groups that would intimidate opponent with the sheer amount of active duty LGBT activists gathered together at once.
So it's not designed for ship-to-ship combat. And it sucks hairy ass at fire support as well. You can use it as show of force against some seashore african tribals armed with nothing but AKs. You already won't risk sending it against Houthi sandpeople in Yemen because they have Iranian Noors and Chinese C-802.
>>30161263
Nice test, see you in 2021.
>>30162945
And this is why you should go here: >>>/v/
>>30163529
Anon can you do two of the highest tier upgraded Arleigh Burk's vs. highest upgraded Kirov?
>>30161775
You forgot a word.
Command: Modern Air Naval Operations
Does CMANO have hypothetical laser weapons included or can they be modded in? Maybe a CIWS type object that has its interception accuracy value turned up to 99%?
I just want to see what happens if you pit a Kirov against anything edited to have an AA laser battery. Yes, especially for the Iowa.
>>30165503
>Anon can you do two of the highest tier upgraded Arleigh Burk's vs. highest upgraded Kirov?
Yes, I can. I'll do that now!
>>30165761
>Does CMANO have hypothetical laser weapons included or can they be modded in? Maybe a CIWS type object that has its interception accuracy value turned up to 99%?
Yes, actually, it does!
>>30164517
>the damn thing is as big as a fucking WW1 era Battleship for goodness' sake.
Hell, the Zumwalt is almost as long as the USS Arizona. We won't get to see the full power of its weapon systems until we bring the mobile-targeting capable 155mm shells and the next-generation laser anti-missile defenses online, though.
Incidentally, these scenarios show why the US Navy is so keen on laser weapons (and later, railguns) for missile intercept - they can keep firing as long as you can generate power. You can't be out-missile'd.
Okay, I think I've figured out which radars the Kirov needs, so I don't have to add a shitfuckton to it. Meanwhile I'm using the database entry for Flight II Burkes that were retrofitted with SeaRAM missiles in 2017; I believe these are the 5th fleet ships slated to get upgraded with SeaRAM point-defense next year (two of their Flight I Burkes already got that upgrade last year, IIRC.) So not the newest, and not the oldest, either.
The CMANO FAQ gives us information on the "standard" anti-air loadout of a Burke, i.e. 72 SM-2MRs, 8 to 10 Tomahawks and some VLAs. I'll give one ship the anti-air loadout, and the other ship will keep the standard "land-attack" loadout with only 24 air-defense missiles and 56 Tomahawks.
>>30166328
Awesome. Incidentally, what power lasers does CMANO support? The latest LM promos claim 400kw, but combat effectiveness for crossing shots starts as early as 100kw and fiber only scales easily to 300kw.
>>30166364
Lessee.... Huh. It has three different variants for the COIL (the airborne laser in the 747 they tried for a while.) The Laser Weapon System mount just uses this COIL laser to represent the laser weapon; stats in the screenshot:
The "Damage Points" (DP) equal one DP per 1kg of TNT (warheads with other kinds of explosives are automatically converted to their TNT equivalent so every warhead's power is properly calculated.) As you can see above, there's a "COIL" that reaches 10nm and is meant for use on the 747 (it can target surface targets) and a COIL that can shoot a cool 300nm. So it looks like the laser in the database right now equates the one actually installed on USS Ponce; i.e. a lower-powered prototype. As far as I know the Navy is planning to deploy more powerful lasers that can kill missiles faster, at longer ranges.
>>30166245
>>>30165503
>>Anon can you do two of the highest tier upgraded Arleigh Burk's vs. highest upgraded Kirov?
>Yes, I can. I'll do that now!
Okay, the loadout for my destroyers is such:
Burke One: 8 Harpoon ICR, 11 RIM-116C (RAMs,) 36 SM-2MR IIIA, 36 SM-2MR Block IIIB, ten Tomahawk MMTs, and the last ten cells hold 40 ESSMs.
Burke Two: 69 Tomahawk MMTs, 8 Harpoon ICR, 11 RAMs, 24 ESSMs, 13 SM-6 to round out the cells.
These loadouts are higher than "standard" loadouts, because ships typically don't sortie with all their cells filled - there's not enough missiles. Well, technically there are, but missiles actually in a ship need to be maintained, and such. But we're in a theoretical shooting war, so every cell has been stuffed full. Splitting the SM-2s between older and newer seems to be standard practice as well.
Now I'll set both sides to be auto-detectable and let them whack away at each other.
>>30166428
Hmm. IIRC the Ponce is 30kw and the COIL was several megawatts. Pic related.
>>30166473
i wonder where ground targets and infantry place on that chart.. I want directed energy weapons damnit!
>>30161689
Tomahawk missiles have a range of 1350-900 miles depending on model.
A zumwalt has about 80 VLS cells and all of them can carry tomahawks but they can also carry ASROCs and Sea Sparrows so likely not all of them are loaded with cruise missiles. Assume that maybe 20 are ship killlers and at 170 miles the Zumwalt can still kill a Kirov
>>30166473
>Hmm. IIRC the Ponce is 30kw and the COIL was several megawatts. Pic related.
Hmm. Then that'd make the Laser Weapon System the opposite of what I thought; i.e. the fully-fielded version that the Ponce's weapon is prototyping/field testing. Currently the game doesn't have a damage model for aircraft or normal missiles; if it hits, it is killed, so every shot that connects is a kill, and the laser in the game can reach 10nm, so that seems to fit a more powerful weapon, yes.
>>30166495
Lasers are tricky. They aren't very efficient and suffer in bad weather with a very loose definition of bad weather. They've got terrific accuracy though so they make better point defense weapons than offensive armaments.
Righto, we're shooting now. The AI knows how to use off-axis attacks now, which is nice. Burke #1 also has the database's laser defense, just for shits and giggles.
>>30166504
The Ponce is a deliberately low-power weapon because the Navy didn't want to spend on beam-forming gear for a doctrinal test bed. It could just as easily been ~150kw, but the Navy wants a higher power final product than the Army, which is content with 100-150kw for countering mortars and UAVs.
>>30161263
I have a question.
Are these things meant to penetrate ship hulls and go out the otherside?
I was wondering why it didn't explode inside those cargo boxes.
>>30166528
yeah, i know. I just really REALLY want a handheld railgug or gauss rifle, but i know we have a long time to go before then.
The standard SM-2 only has a range of 50nm, but the handful of SM-6s can't engage those Zicron's either - their lofted profile actually takes them above the SM-6s max altitude, which is... interesting. Quite a scary missile, if it's actually being made.
>>30166541
>The Ponce is a deliberately low-power weapon because the Navy didn't want to spend on beam-forming gear for a doctrinal test bed.
Bingo. It's a field prototype, meant to work out all the boring issues of how to keep such a weapon functioning on a working warship encountering real-world problems such as sea spray and FNGs spilling coffee on the console.
>>30166546
Because there's no point blowing up a cargo ship for a demo.
In practice, it will use a delayed impact fuse to detonate inside.
>>30161376
The anti-PAK-FA crowd would say the Zumwalt is just a Burke with a body kit.
>>30166528
but i would like to see something like LAMS. a bank of multiple low-med power lasers that can indvidually target multiple missles at high speed. just pew pew pew, no ship kill for you~
>>30166546
Yeah, they just omitted the warhead so they didn't blow up the container ship providing the target.
CMANO models the Zircon as cruising at 130,000 feet and 4050 knots speed.
Hmm. The laser isn't a magical win button after all.
The Burke literally cannot fire SM-2s fast enough to engage the hypersonic Zircons in time, and finally goes down.
This is getting rather silly.
>>30166601
>laser
>miss
yeah, it's cool
light is only traveling with 300.000.000 m/s
jesus.
Both Burkes die to mystical Russkie space magics. Now we'll see how the Kirov does against 79 new Tomahawks.
>>30166619
>light is only traveling with 300.000.000 m/s
Optics need to be focused and stabilized. It's a god damned sea.
It kills the first ten or so no problem. This is the main strike, 60+ Tomahawks. They're subsonic, but since they skim the sea, they're only detected at relatively close range.
>>30166644
This; it's mainly a matter of fire-control, and they were targeting hypersonic weapons.
These Multi-Mission Tomahawks are fucking impressive for a sub-sonic antiship missile. The defensive jammers really help - even if it's only a 20% of success, that's enough to make every fifth interceptor miss, and the Kirov can only carry so many.
On the other hand, it does have several AK-630s, which are some of the best CIWS guns in existence.
And she will need them, because she just ran out of Gargoyles, and there's... 35 more Tomahawks to engage.
The Gecko is a pretty decent point-defense missile, but not the equal of the RAM, for sure. They have to double up on targets, and the jammers have a 25% chance against them because they're older.
As I type the Kirov is opening up with its AK-630s and its 100mm deck guns firing AA frag ammo. The database doesn't have any newer anti-air munitions for those guns, my apologies.
Apparently the new Tomahawk has redundant sensors; probably the standard IR imager backing up the anti-ship radar?
Yeah, a line of fuck is a line of fuck, no two ways about it.
>>30161055
the submariner
>>30166644
>Optics need to be focused
piss small change at these ranges, neglectable
>stabilized
not an issue with gyroscopes
> It's a god damned sea.
the update rate limit is the refresh rate of the FLIR or Radar, which is either in the GHz area or around 30Hz
how much is the ship moving in a 1/30 of a second or a millions part of it?
again, neglectable
>>30162349
>CMANO database sheet
>proof
well you tried
God bless America.
So, conclusions:
1. Supersonic is old and busted. Hypersonics are the next-gen hotness. I doubt the Russian's ability to actually make those missiles work before the heat death of the universe ("in production by 2018, sure brah, sure,) but Russians aren't fucking stupid; they know it's a hard counter to our current interceptor missiles, which is why they're pursuing them. A supersonic, low-altitude missile either has to be fucking huge (like the Granit/Shipwreck,) limiting how many you can carry, or has to fly high for fuel efficiency(making it easy to shoot down from a long ways away.) The Zircon climbs *very* high to get above our interceptor's ceiling, and combines that with a hypersonic approach to gain the benefits of high-speed closure *and* the limited engagement horizon of a sea-skimmer.
2. The USN isn't stupid either, which is why railguns and laser defenses are the new hotness to counter the above.
>>30166780
The stats for the weapon used show a chance-to-kill of 90% (same as many missiles) and the "target speed" line (which tells you what speed range of target the missile is optimized to engage) is empty; implying that it makes no difference to the laser (unlike a maneuvering missile.) Usually the game gives some feedback in the log regarding the to-hit calculations, but it didn't for the laser, so I don't know what the underlying logic is.
>>30166801
I work with what I got brah
>>30166497
Tomahawks are not viable against a ship with a radar and SAMs. There's a reason the TASM was dropped.
>>30166528
They also lose focus very rapidly. Definitely point-defence only.
>>30166815
>So, conclusions:
Here's one: >>>/v/
>>30166815
Paying debts tomorrow, you mad fuck?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3587
So it seems they did get room for 80 new cruise-missile capable VLS cells by replacing the Granit/Shipwreck launchers belowdecks. Which makes sense, because those missiles were fucking huge. Another few google hits claim the Russians have already test-fired Zircons, but the only sources are the Russian defense ministry itself, so it's probably bullshit. >>30166822
>Tomahawks are not viable against a ship with a radar and SAMs.
To paraphrase Rear Admiral Fanta, sure, they suck, but we have 4,500 of the fucking things. Defense saturation, and all. The new "multi-mission" Tomahawk they're fielding now can be made by modifying existing missiles with the anti-ship radar and defensive jammer (at a pretty penny per missile, sure, but a lot cheaper than a whole new one.) If the program would let me I'd fire bog-standard Tomahawks using the IR sensor and the datalink to hit the ships, just like that recent test did (so no jammer and no targeting bonus from the radar, etc.) The Tactical Tomahawk can track and engage moving targets, like cars, on land - there's no reason it can't engage a ship, strictly speaking. That's what that missile test proved. As Fanta said, the missile had no radar on it, and the F-18 overhead was just to make sure no fishing boat had a bad day; it wasn't providing spotting to remote-control the missile to impact via datalink.
But yeah, overall the Tomahawk is old; there's a reason the LRASM is based on the JASSM-ER; a high-subsonic missile flying straight, level and low just doesn't cut it against modern anti-aircraft missiles.
>>30166815
How likely is it that older equipment could shoot them down in the final phase, when they drop back down? Or would that be more a question of too many missiles to reliably intercept them all?
>>30166822
>Tomahawks are not viable against a ship with a radar and SAMs.
Gotta go fast is not the deciding factor of a missiles effectiveness.
>There's a reason the TASM was dropped.
Because there was no one to use them on to make it worth the money. The same reason Harpoons are only just now being replaced.
>>30166989
>How likely is it that older equipment could shoot them down in the final phase, when they drop back down?
Very likely. The missiles in the simulation did pretty good at that. The problem was that they could only start engaging at relatively closer ranges, and the attacking missiles were coming in very, very fast - the Burke literally couldn't launch interceptors fast enough before the incoming weapons were just all over it.
I just checked, and - according to the simulation - the max altitude of the SM-2ER (extended range) missile is 115,000 feet. The assumption is clearly that the Zircon is designed deliberately to fly just above that altitude. If the USN improves the SM-2ER just a bit (or if the SM-2ER can actually engage targets a bit higher than that,) that changes things immensely; you can start knocking down missiles at long range.
Naturally both these numbers are highly classified, so Russia and the US are probably making their best guesses as to enemy capabilities and designing/upgrading their own weapons to best the other, as best they can. We won't know for sure unless both sides actually shoot at each other.
>>30167021
>Gotta go fast is not the deciding factor of a missiles effectiveness.
Ayep. I just tried the Kirov battle, except this time with P-800 Oniks (oink oink oink pig gotta fly). Naturally the Burkes raped them. If they had AEW support to spot them coming at a distance, they could engage them over-the-horizon with SM-6s, but they didn't need too; they can shoot down supersonic sea-skimmers just fine. And the P-800 is what the BrahMos is based on.
It boils down to gottagofast versus slow and stealthy now. The USN is clearly going with sneaky subsonics, and the Russians with gottagofast - but the fact that they're trying to make something like the Zircon tells you that even they know "supersonic and sea-skimming" just don't cut the mustard anymore. Gottagofast can work, but you need to go hypersonic now.
Okay, a bit more research shows that the only Russian ships that can carry their Kalibir land-attack/anti-ship cruise missile is their newer frigates and corvettes - and they can only carry 8 each, except for the Admiral Gorshkov-class, which can carry 16. And only one of those ships has been completed to-date.
So, I added up all the Russian ships that can carry their land-attack cruise missiles (as evidenced by a quick browse of Wikipedia, at least,) and that equals one Admiral Gorshkov class completed, four Gepard-class ships, and five Buyan-class corvettes (the completed model 21631s) and it all equals... 80 cruise missile VLS tubes.
That's right. A single upgraded Kirov will be able to carry as many land-attack cruise missiles as THE ENTIRE EXISTING RUSSIAN FLEET. It can also carry one whole Burke worth of LACMs *and* one whole Burke's worth of air-defense missiles; almost three times the defenses of what any of their other ships can carry except for the Slava cruisers (which carry 2/3rds.)
Yeah. A single Kirov will literally increase Russia's naval power projection capability by 100%.
>>30167144
Holy shit
>>30167144
And they have 2 more ships that can be upgraded.
>>30167197
Nobody's quite sure about that; the two Kirovs in reserve are in apparently really shitty condition; there's no telling if they can be re-activated/modernized affordably. Sometimes it sounds like they're gonna scrap one, and sometimes they say they're gonna upgrade both. We'll have to wait and see.
>>30167227
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battlecruiser_Admiral_Lazarev
For instance, this says the ship is laid up and awaiting disposal, (with the other one in reserve being upgraded now) but again, who the fuck knows.
>>30161055
Zumwalt WITHOUT Railguns<Kirov
Zumwalt WITH Railguns>Kirov
Having the Zumwalt attack in its current state would be like trying to use the Iowas without their 16 inch guns.
>>30162070
what is Tin Man?
>>30167239
>Having the Zumwalt attack in its current state would be like trying to use the Iowas without their 16 inch guns.
Pretty much. You don't need the railguns, though; the Advanced Gun System will work just fine, once they get the guided shells that can target surface ships. Yes, they'll have to get within 70 nautical miles of the target, but given the much reduced RCS of the Zumwalts and US superiority in supporting assets (i.e. aircraft) and electronic warfare, that's not impossible.
The "kill chain" is the massive gamechanger I ignored with all those "muh scenarios" above; you can't kill what you can't find and you can't kill what you can find, but cannot narrow down the location of to within a few square miles at a minimum.
>>30167264
>what is Tin Man?
ELINT receiver; basically the Kirov picked up the incoming Tomahawks when they turned their radars on and lit up its radar warning receivers.
Should do some Chinese ships vs a Kirov for shits and giggles.
Or an American SAG vs Kirov and what escorts it would have.
>>30167376
yes
>>30167376
I was thinking about that. I could even make it a full scenario. The Admiral Kuznetsov (Russian carrier) escorted by a modernized Kirov and a few frigates versus an American SAG with some Arleigh-Burkes escorting the USS America (the aircraft-focused LHA) with 20 F-35s on board. Maybe a fast-attack submarine escort - or maybe two submarines as offensive pickets, to help locate the enemy for attack. It'd be an interesting showdown.
>>30161376
>look at that Zumwalt diagram
>can't even figure out where the fuck they hide the engines and generators because I was on a Nimitz and am accustomed to that stuff being fuckhuge
I really need to look into non-nuclear power systems more.
>>30167475
I don't know fuck-all about naval powerplants but it sounds to me like:
>Two drive turbines.
>Two generator turbines.
>CAAAAPACITOR BANKS
>>30167495
Oh right, gas turbines don't need much more height than that of the turbines themselves. Ours were right the fuck on top of gigantic condensers that more than doubled the height of the setup.
>>30167144
Kalibr is carried by 22350 and 11356 frigates, 20385, 21631, 22800 and 22160 corvettes, as well as 885, 636 and 677 submarines that you forgot for whatever reason.
>That's right. A single upgraded Kirov will be able to carry as many land-attack cruise missiles as THE ENTIRE EXISTING RUSSIAN FLEET
>Yeah. A single Kirov will literally increase Russia's naval power projection capability by 100%.
Only that Kalibr is not the only missile operated by Russian Navy, dumbass, so you feel free to stop memeing any time now.
>>30167144
Holy Battlecruiser Batman: It's sometimes angering to think that the Russian Navy has such a great potential that it has never managed to live up to in history.
>>30168030
>Only that Kalibr is not the only missile operated by Russian Navy, dumbass
I was talking specifically about land-attack cruise missiles, i.e. the kind of "power projection" the Russians have been attempting in Syria recently. Their air force did a lot more than the handful of land-attack cruise missiles they fired.
I did forget the submarines, but I also didn't count the Admiral Kuznetsov, who's aircraft can launch AS-20 Kayaks (Kh-35Us) which are dual-purpose anti-land, anti-ship. Like I said, I just glanced at Wikipedia real fast to get a rough idea. I still think the modernization of the Kirovs will be a very large improvement in Russian power projection.
But by all means if you know so much, go ahead and tell me about all the other land-attack missiles Russia fields. You sound like a Rooskie, so you probably know a lot more about them than I do. Maybe you can suggest ships to go along with this task force? So far I've got a modernized Kirov escorting the Admiral Kuznetsov; it's carrying 32 MiG-29Ks, 8 Ka-27PLs, 4 Ka-27Ms, and 4 KA-31s for surface search and Airborne Early Warning. I wanted to add the 12 Su-33s to the air wing (to represent a maximum effort) but do to a likely oversight they're not flagged as "carrier capable" so I can't put them on there till I contact the devs and get the database corrected.
I need escorts, now. Which frigates would you suggest? Maybe a Slava-class cruiser?
>>30168030
And remember that this was back-of-the-envelope ballparking; just counting tubes doesn't account for the big thing, which is operational cycles. You'd never be able to mass the *entire* Russian fleet in one place just to launch cruise missile attacks, after all. Ships are down for maintenance, ships are on the other side of the world on anti-piracy patrols, etc. Ships benefit heavily from economies of scale; it's a lot easier and cheaper to maintain a single Kirov than it is to maintain several frigates/destroyers/submarines with a total of 80 cruise-missile VLS tubes. Which means you're far more likely to be able to dispatch the full 80 tubes if they're on a Kirov, rather than dispersed across frigates and destroyers.
Also, Kirov's are nuclear-powered, which gives them great endurance in far-flung places on the globe, esp. for Russia, which is very limited in its oversea bases. Nothing can deliver 80 cruise missiles to any point on the globe better than a Kirov, not for the Russians, at any rate.
They're gonna be pretty bitchin assets IMO
>>30168163
Hells yea. It's just more nukes in the air when the reptilians finally come for us.
>>30168115
>who's
Whose.
>>30167057
So it went form gottagofast to gottagofaster?
>>30168235
IDK brah my money is on the ayyylamos being the ones who pop up over the horizon of the moon.
>>30168296
Bros right, but I figure there's a sub-orbital-airburst-everything-option.
>>30168255
>Whose.
One of these days I'mma look up the rules on how who's/whose works.
Wait. I can guess. "Who's" is for "who is." If "who is" doesn't work, like "who is aircraft can launch <missile,>" than you use "whose," right?
It took my best friend a few years to violently beat proper "then/than" usage into me. I'll get this eventually, too. Eventually.
>>30168263
Pretty much. Once upon a time, "be a low, small, flying thing" was enough to make you hard to hit. But nowadays, old-fashioned cruise missiles are dead meat for most modern SAMs; and the terminal maneuvers only help dodge point-defense missiles and guns (usually guns, because even PD missiles reach out further than the range at which they start their pop-up or zig-zag maneuver.) So slow missiles have to dodge better. And fast missiles now have to gottagoveryfaster. Warfare has always been a constant game of catch-up between offense and defense. Back in the day, missiles were very hard to shoot down but had shitty guidance so ECM/decoys were king. Then missile guidance overtook jamming (as in today) but now they're fairly easy to shoot down. We're due for another big leap; cruise missiles are going to get a lot harder to hit, and ECM is about to get a hell of a lot more effective. (The ECM on most modern ships are dated - it's a lot easier to upgrade a missile than to rip out the guts of a ship and replace with new. The US is working on a next-gen ECM suite.)
Also, serious question - anyone know any English-language forums that happen to be absolutely lousy with Russian military enthusiasts and/or Vatniks? I'd love to make a dream RUSSIA VS. US scenario out of this "Admiral Kuzentsov task force versus LHA America task force" thing, so I figure I should get vatnik russkiewank input to balance out my 'MERCIAwank. Make this a good proper ULTIMATE SHOWDOWN OF ULTIMATE DESTINY thing.
>>30168319
>Wait. I can guess.
I love it when people figure shit out themselves. Nice!
>>30168319
>Wait. I can guess. "Who's" is for "who is." If "who is" doesn't work, like "who is aircraft can launch <missile,>" than you use "whose," right?
Yes.
>>30168115
>I was talking specifically about land-attack cruise missiles
>"Okay, a bit more research shows that the only Russian ships that can carry their Kalibir land-attack/anti-ship cruise missile"
Nice backpedaling.
>i.e. the kind of "power projection" the Russians have been attempting in Syria recently
>"Yeah. A single Kirov will literally increase Russia's naval power projection capability by 100%."
Once again, nice backpedaling.
>go ahead and tell me about all the other land-attack missiles Russia fields
SS-N-21, but that's not the point. The point is that you keep insisting that "naval power projection" equals specifically land attack capability when talking about a navy that has decades long history of building up for the sole reason to fuck USN shit up, not to bomb sand people in Syrian desert from the Caspian Sea.
>I need escorts, now.
1145.5, 1144, 1164, 956, 1155 x2, 949A x2, 971 x3, 671RTMK x3. This order of battle will rape anything on the planet.
>>30161055
Why the fuck would a ship be engaging a giant blimp?
>>30168163
>You'd never be able to mass the *entire* Russian fleet in one place just to launch cruise missile attacks, after all.
You kinda don't really need to now as Caspian Flotilla proved to be capable of projecting power at the Mediterranean.
>>30168235
No anon, you are the reptilians now
If you need to launch a dozen missiles just to take down one ship with a crappy laser attached, how many hundreds would you need to fight a proper fleet where all ships are coordinating their defenses?
You would win without firing a single shot just by holding out and burning a giant hole in Russia's wallet.
>>30168570
The solution is nukes.
>>30168570
>laser
>>>/v/
>>30167021
>Gotta go fast is not the deciding factor of a missiles effectiveness.
Large, non-stealthy cruise missiles flying subsonic are not viable against a ship with a radar and SAMs. That is why TASM was dropped.
>The same reason Harpoons are only just now being replaced.
Being smaller, cheaper, and air-launched from fairly small aircraft, Harpoons were able to keep up with counter-missile defence through simultaneous-arrival massed strikes combined with terminal maneuvering. That does have its limits, hence a VLO replacement with onboard ECM is already in service on aerial platforms, and will be in service on ships and subs soon.
>>30166549
There's no reason why we can't have an infantry grade gauss rifle, there's just no good reason for it. Anything we make would probably be completely inferior to conventional fire arms.
If you still want one, try making one out of off the shelf parts. They aren't too complex and I bet someone already posted the plans online.
>>30166561
What, the guidance system?
>>30168452
>B-B-BACKPEDALING
I was wrong. You corrected me. Thank you.
>SS-N-21, but that's not the point. The point is that you keep insisting that "naval power projection" equals specifically land attack capability
It does. Without that, what's the point of a navy? You can control the sea, and you can deny it to your enemy, but you can't actually use it offensively against his assets on shore. Why do you think everyone and their mother is running out to buy amphibious assault transports these days - even South Korea?
>when talking about a navy that has decades long history of building up for the sole reason to fuck USN shit up,
And the USN spent the entire Cold War doing what, exactly? You think the Aegis system, the Arleigh-Burke, the Ticonderoga, the SM-1 and SM-2, the RIM-7 and the ESSM, the F-111 and the F-14 were all to bomb [<$terrain><$ethnicslur>]? I don't hold the Russians lack of land-attack cruise missiles on their older ships against them any more than I hold the lack of anti-ship capability on US escort ships against them; neither had any real reason to spend money on those things. Looking towards the future, however, both navies are going to need anti-sea AND anti-land power, and both sides are rapidly addressing shortcomings in their weapons balance.
>1145.5, 1144, 1164, 956, 1155 x2, 949A x2, 971 x3, 671RTMK x3. This order of battle will rape anything on the planet.
Works for me, I'll check it out.
>>30168533
>You kinda don't really need to now as Caspian Flotilla proved to be capable of projecting power at the Mediterranean.
Ahahahahaha... no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/07/these-are-the-cruise-missiles-russia-just-sent-into-syria/
>4 ships needed to fire 26 cruise missiles
Ignore the cruise missiles that crashed; they're new and still have a lot of bugs to work out. That's normal for anyone. Four ships to launch 26 cruise missiles? A single Arleigh-Burke usually patrols with *fifty-six*. Maybe 26 missiles is impressive by European standards, but Russia wants to play with the big boys.
Hence the significance of the Kirov upgrades; that definitely gives them a much bigger stick than they've got at the moment.
Oh yeah I forgot
>Lasers
The COIL laser had a Pk of about 60% against P-800s, which are only half the speed of the Zircons. That reminded me of why a laser would have a targeting issue like that: tracking.
Yeah, lasers move at the speed of light, but you gotta remember this is only a 30kw laser; not a multi-megawatt weapon. If you have enough energy in a laser, it hits a target like a goddamn bomb - but these lasers aren't that powerful yet. That means you have to keep tracking the target, and keep the beam on it for a certain amount of time for the beam to "melt through" and cause significant damage (either deform the airframe or detonate the warhead or fuel.) Obviously the faster a missile goes the harder that is - subsonic is easy, supersonic is harder, hypersonic is really hard.
>>30168716
>there's just no good reason for it
? It would be total shit
Efficiency and energy density way below that of a regular rifle
More fragile/complex too
And will probably give you cancer from the radiation
>>30168757
So that's a Slava class, a Kirov, two Udaloy-class destroyers, a Sovremenny-class destroyer, two Oscars, three Akulas, three Victor IIIs and... the only one I couldn't get an exact google result for was the 1145.5; but that should be the newest fast-attack hydrofoil, right?
Submarine-heavy force is interesting; definitely fits Russian naval doctrine. That'd be an interesting matchup, all right. I'm thinking two Burkes, a Ticonderoga, the LHA America and two Los Angeles or two Virginia class fast-attack subs. And either a third sub as close-escort for the carrier task force OR two LCS ships.
>>30168889
>Efficiency and energy density way below that of a regular rifle
>More fragile/complex too
Dude, that was literally his point. We CAN do it, the technology exists, but old fashioned gunpowder is just better.
>>30166549
check it bru https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWeJsaCiGQ0
>>30168627
Repeating yourself is not an argument against real life examples not agreeing with you.
>>30168973
>real life examples not agreeing with you
[citation required]
>>30168973
Okay, fuckass, I'm tired of your meme bullshit. Let's read that guy's post again:
>Being smaller, cheaper, and air-launched from fairly small aircraft, Harpoons were able to keep up with counter-missile defence through simultaneous-arrival massed strikes combined with terminal maneuvering.
This translates to "they're cheap as fuck and you can fire a shit-ton of them from carrier-borne F-18s, *and* they do a pop-up maneuver, so you could saturate the enemy's defenses with cheap-ass missile spam."
>That does have its limits, hence a VLO replacement with onboard ECM is already in service on aerial platforms, and will be in service on ships and subs soon.
This translates to "but that shit only gets you so far, which is why the JASSM-ER is already being used by aircraft and the Long Range Anti-Ship missile, which is just a JASSM-ER designed for VLS launch, is finishing up development right now."
He didn't repeat himself. Everything he said is blatantly true to anyone with half a fucking brain. You, on the other hand, just mention "real life examples" without mentioning a single fucking one. Pony up, or fuck off.
I would love to get this but I don't think it is worth the cost.
>>30169022
... okay, you lost me. Yes, that is a Tomahawk engaging a ship. What's your point? That the Harpoon was obsolete as a SHIP-BASED ASuW missile years ago? Yes, we all know that. That's why the Flight IIA Burkes traded them in for much more useful helicopter hangars. They stayed relevant as air-launched ASuW weapons for much longer than that. Incidentally, the USN handed its ASuW role over entirely to submarines and aircraft carriers around the same time; a doctrine decision they are now rapidly reversing.
>>30169032
>I would love to get this but I don't think it is worth the cost.
I bought it 50% off during the Steam summer sale. 40 bucks is a hell of a lot more reasonable than 80.
>>30169011
TASM wasn't dropped because it wasn't viable, TASM was dropped because it wasn't needed.
Now that there is a need, Block IV missiles will be retrofit with a proper seeker.
>>30169055
>That the Harpoon was obsolete as a SHIP-BASED ASuW missile years ago?
The USN dropped Harpoons from IIA Burkes to save money because it prioritized naval aviation for anti-ship work.
The current distributed lethality concept includes adding Harpoons to ships that do not have them. An example of which is the USS Coronado.
>>30168757
>Without that, what's the point of a navy?
To kill another navy.
>but you can't actually use it offensively against his assets on shore
Name me a country that has ever had "invading the mainland North America as a part of its naval doctrine. No, in the case of Russia enemy shore is right next to their own shore. Anything that needs a cruise missile can eat one from air or ground forces, while the navy will be busy keeping the USN away.
>neither had any real reason to spend money on those things
Well, that's my point. Russian "naval power projection" by all means equals anti-ship capability, not land attack capability.
>4 ships needed to fire 26 cruise missiles
Corvettes with less than 1000 tonne displacement. The point is that they didn't need to deploy them anywhere near Syria. Or even Mediterranean. Hell, they can theoretically hit Aleppo from the Baltic Sea.
>Ignore the cruise missiles that crashed
Thanks, I will indeed ignore something that never happened.
>Hence the significance of the Kirov upgrades
As land strike sure. As anti-ship not so much. 949A undergoing modernisation to carry 72 missiles instead of 24 is a much more significant thing in my opinion.
>>30168800
>laser had a Pk of about 60% against P-800s
So far it only had a 100% Pk against a plastic boat.
>>30168908
>the only one I couldn't get an exact google result for was the 1145.5
Admiral Kuznetsov. It's there in the file name.
>>30169022
>engaging a slow-moving ship with zero air defence capability
And now you realize what the anti-ship upgrade is actually for: economic targets, not armed military targets that can defend themselves.
>>30169067
>TASM wasn't dropped because it wasn't viable, TASM was dropped because it wasn't needed.
>Now that there is a need, Block IV missiles will be retrofit with a proper seeker.
Eeehhh. Fuck. Actually, I think you're both right.
TASMs were finally dropped in 1991; the last ones were actually VLS capable (since the VLS debuted in 1986.) So there wasn't an issue of space, as of such - the VLS made it a lot easier to carry tons of Tomahawks if you wanted, compared to the old deck box launchers. But Tomahawks are very expensive, and without a terminal evasive maneuver they're a lot more vulnerable to point defense of all kinds. Remember that most warships in the navies of the world aren't American richfag showy shit; a great many only have a handful of medium range SAMs - or none at all - and a modest-to-decent complement of point-defense missiles that only reach a rather short distance (5-8nm). Against those weapons, terminal evasives like a pop-up maneuver significantly increases chances of defense penetration. The Harpoon had this - and actually, so did the TASM! But, again, the Harpoon was a lot cheaper.
But remember the TASM reached 250nm and the Harpoon only 60-70 or so, depending on generation, and that's a big difference for a ship-based weapon. The shift to airpower as the primary weapon is what sealed the deal for the Harpoon. Survivability of TASM and Harpoon were similar, but the Harpoon's low standoff range was very problematic, from a ship-based perspective.
But as you point out the Tomahawk is a good platform for an anti-ship missile because of its insane fucking range, and adding the sensors (and defensive jammers) to it again do make a pretty decent missile. It's inferior to air-launched Harpoon spam but much, MUCH better than ship-launched Harpoons (even a theoretical VLS variant) because, again, RANGE.
>>30169128
>The current distributed lethality concept includes adding Harpoons to ships that do not have them. An example of which is the USS Coronado.
Yeah, Boeing is pitching new versions, I'm sure, but the smart money is really on the Naval Strike Missile, which is also a small, very affordable weapon, but with much, much better range. The Flight IIA Burkes ditched the Harpoons because two ASW capable helicopters are MUCH more useful than space devoted to an obsolete launching system that only holds eight rounds; the VLS was the new hotness and everyone knew it. (The only reason we don't have a VLS capable Harpoon is doctrinal/administrative, after all.)
It is still surprisingly viable in the air-launched role however, and we've got a shitload of them lying about.
>>30168452
>1145.5, 1144, 1164, 956, 1155 x2, 949A x2, 971 x3, 671RTMK x3. This order of battle will rape anything on the planet.
Put this up against the John C. Stennis strike group (includes two Ticos and 9 Burkes), which I picked because the US had the Stennis sail through the SCS recently.
Holy shit, is there a torrent for this game? Its expensive as shit but I want it!
>>30169272
A IIA Burke is perfectly capable of carrying quad pack Harpoons, hell the original distributed lethality presentation depicted them receiving Harpoons.
They were not fit for the same reason IIA's only have one CIWS currently, money.
>>30169159
>To kill another navy.
But that only denies the sea to the enemy, it does not let you project power.
>Name me a country that has ever had "invading the mainland North America as a part of its naval doctrine. No, in the case of Russia enemy shore is right next to their own shore. Anything that needs a cruise missile can eat one from air or ground forces, while the navy will be busy keeping the USN away.
Exactly, completely defensive.
>Well, that's my point. Russian "naval power projection" by all means equals anti-ship capability, not land attack capability.
This doesn't concern me much. That is the doctrine of old, rusty ships in an old, rusty navy built for the old dusty past. Russia is moving forward, building many brand new ships with a much greater ability against both land and shore targets. They are building a powerful offensive navy, and that is definitely what gets my attention; it signals their intention to be a potent force on the world stage. We must think of Russia's future power first, because that is what Russia is thinking about too.
>As land strike sure. As anti-ship not so much. 949A undergoing modernisation to carry 72 missiles instead of 24 is a much more significant thing in my opinion.
>72
Holy shit. They're upgrading them to something that can rival the converted Ohio-class cruise missile boats!? That's very impressive, and a massive increase in capability.
>As land strike sure. As anti-ship not so much.
Kalibr is a very good, new missile and can do both jobs. I suppose this depends on if you think supersonic is better for anti-ship compared to subsonic.
>So far it only had a 100% Pk against a plastic boat.
We might find out the Pk against low-flying Su-24s soon~
>Admiral Kuznetsov. It's there in the file name.
Ah, thank you.
>>30169317
>A IIA Burke is perfectly capable of carrying quad pack Harpoons, hell the original distributed lethality presentation depicted them receiving Harpoons.
Oh, certainly, but those were just early suggestions and computer models. The missile actually test-fired from the LCS recently was the NSM, and the upgraded anti-ship Tomahawk has reached IOC and initial deployment... well, now, this summer. I haven't heard of an upgraded Harpoon yet; probably because the Harpoon is simply old, and it's about time it was put out to pasture.
But you've still got a point; the Harpoon (just like the NSM) is just a damn box launcher; you can slap one on a convenient flat spot and rig it up to the combat system with relatively little trouble. You do give up some tonnage capacity for that, but if you need the missiles, then you can just load less fuel. I don't think it was *all* about money alone, but that was definitely a big part. Even older Flight I/II ships often only sortie with four Harpoons loaded to save money on maintenance.
>>30168591
Nukes still have to get pretty close to do damage.
>>30168570
>You would win without firing a single shot just by holding out and burning a giant hole in Russia's wallet.
That's actually a big part of the idea; when you're firing expensive interceptors at cheap cruise missiles you lose the money war, but lasers can turn that math around.
>>30169420
There is apparently an extended range Harpoon, and the Coronado is going to be firing (presumably older) Harpoons at RIMPAC this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MuaaFhSoZc
>>30169360
Wait, I was stupid. The 949A is much better for anti-ship because it can hide much easier; American ECM and air superiority doesn't matter underwater!
>>30169360
It projects your power into the sea. It is as defensive as a nuclear attack submarine is.
>We must think of Russia's future power first
I was kinda talking about what their navy is now and why was it developed this way. You can't just say naval power projection is only for land attack and call it a day. It's a different navy with a different role and a different doctrine and it has been like that for decades. You don't blame the USN for not having the equivalent of Granit or Vulkan and therefore "lacking" in power projection, right?
>I suppose this depends on if you think supersonic is better for anti-ship compared to subsonic.
I mean that when it comes to anti-ship missiles their navy is armed to the teeth and Kirov will not be as much of an increase in relation. Though still considerable, of course.
>We might find out the Pk against low-flying Su-24s soon~
A small hovering plastic drone - sure, a strike bomber flying at basically your ship's mast level - nah.
>>30169478
>There is apparently an extended range Harpoon, and the Coronado is going to be firing (presumably older) Harpoons at RIMPAC this year.
>Boeing is thrusting their Harpoon into the competition
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-backs-extended-range-harpoon-to-stave-off-kon-425271/
>already in free-flight testing
>"and improved turbojet engine to approximately double the Harpoon’s unclassified range of 67nm (124km) to 134nm"
Well that's fuckin NEAT. Thank you anon, I didn't have a fucking clue about this!
>>30168521
"Aegis cruiser reporting" >:]
>>30169616
>You don't blame the USN for not having the equivalent of Granit or Vulkan and therefore "lacking" in power projection, right?
They don't need them - they've always had big aircraft carriers with lots of planes and air-launched munitions that can do anything those missiles can do, and better. The USN has never lacked for power projection in any sphere, land or sea. The Russians have traditionally lacked greatly at projecting power ashore from the ocean. But they're changing that. They're going from a one-aspect threat to a two-aspect threat, which is significant!
>>30169616
>A small hovering plastic drone - sure, a strike bomber flying at basically your ship's mast level - nah.
Well similar weapons have already engaged mortar rounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlf6Vz6W_ts
But yeah, the unit on the Ponce is just a testbed; it's there to work out operational kinks. The final unit will be much higher power. They're not very far away now, though.
>>30169685
>that can do anything those missiles can do, and better
Except for being supersonic data-linked sea-skimmers with real time satellite guidance hiding under water.
>Well similar weapons have already engaged mortar rounds
The difference is that an incoming supersonic missile is not a hovering plastic drone or a mortar round. It took them 20 seconds to blow up a mortar round with a very simple and high trajectory. Even if we'd assume if might burn through a missile at the same rate, that is like 20 kilometres.
>>30169055
>Yes, that is a Tomahawk engaging a ship. What's your point?
Strike range of a block IV Tomahawk missile
>~1000 miles
Strike range of a Super Hornet + LRASM
>~1000 miles
Think about that combination for a second.
>>30169811
>It took them 20 seconds to blow up a mortar round with a very simple and high trajectory.
Using a 10Kw laser.
>>30168779
>A single Arleigh-Burke usually patrols with *fifty-six*
So what? Burke is 5 time bigger than Gepard. It's a matter of how much money you want to spend. If they need more missiles - they launch them fro submarines and aviation. Point is that Russian tactic allows then to fire a lot of missiles from different fleets without expensive concentration of forces. Soviet fleet was a strange and extremely expensive zoo of different classes incapable to hit ground targets. Now Russians build modern fleet for modern world.
>>30170306
That assburger feel when you know exactly what specific class of a cruiser that is, but it seems impossible to know which one in particular of all three that have ever carried 687 hull number during their lifetime. Badass photo though, saved.
>>30170709
Pretty sure thats 697
>>30170734
Typo, meant to write 697.
>>30168779
>according to a senior U.S. defense official who requested anonymity to discuss intelligence matters Thursday, a few of the missiles did not make it to their intended targets.
i'm losing last bits of respect for american military every time people at pentagon throw some impotent damage control fit like that
>>30171198
Elaborate why you think that is 'damage control'.
scary as fuck
>>30172170
Literally a copy-pasted image of an American testbed.
Step it up vatnik.
>>30161263
birds get BTFO 2:34
A problem with COIL is that it consumes a continuous supply of chlorine, iodine, hydrogen peroxide...while it "fires". The higher the power, the more chemicals it consumes.
How many missiles can you engage before the Zumwalt snorts through its chemical inventory is probably why the Air Force scrapped its Airborne Laser program.
>>30172474
You might want to actually look into the lasers in question before you embarrass yourself again.
One thing I don't understand is why the Navy is so open about the railgun? You'd think something like this would be super secret. Like the 117 or the B2 or whatever.
>>30172563
Plasma Space Magic Railguns are still classified
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
>>30172550
I'm no chemist I'll give you that, but given that COIL derives its energy from a continuous chemical reaction, are you suggesting the input chemicals magically recover themselves after reacting to fire the laser?
And why cancel the Boeing 747 YAL-1? Which had a COIL?
>>30172563
Because the basic science is impossible to conceal but the materials engineering requires a sophisticated first world MIC.
>COIL
chemical lasers are a dead end. FELs are cool but forever 20 years away. Fiber lasers (and to a lesser extent modular solid slab lasers) are available right now.
>>30172668
I said look into the lasers the navy is using now, not a cancelled project.
>>30172668
Because the Cold War was over and the program was expensive.
>>30172668
Dunno about the new laser, but they probably canceled the one in the plane because its a pain in the ass to lift shit into the air. Not as much of a problem in a hulking ship.
>>30163063
newfag here
what software have you been using
>>30172718
>I said look into the lasers the navy is using now
All I see here is COIL this, COIL that.
Like I said, I'm no chemist.
What did you say the navy's current laser is called? (serious question because I don't think you know).
Yeah google says COIL uses up chemicals like nothing. No need for a chemical degree here.
>>30166754
how do airlocks in submarines work. all that water pouring in with that much force...
>>30172835
Try googling navy laser instead of COIL.
>>30172835
What exactly are these figures? Cause from what Im seeing they're getting around 200W of output using just 10mmol a second, which isn't a lot considering how many moles of gas you can quash into an average sized scuba tank, and how big these destroyers are.
Also the Navy is using a solid state laser now, so this whole thing is pointless.
>>30172923
Dude you have a problem with verbal English?
Just spill the beans.
"try google" = I'm a total fucking moron reply
>>30173039
Zumdere
>>30172947
I'm no chemist, but when I see "supersonic mixing nozzle", I'm thinking economy isn't a strong suit.
>>30173064
>I'm no chemist
Clearly. Speed has nothing to do with it. If I swapped my cars fuel line for one thats got the diameter of a human hair, the its still going to consume the same amount of gasoline despite the fact that the gas molecules are moving from the tank to the engine at the speed of sound.
>>30173034
>google says
>DON'T TELL ME TO GOOGLE!
wew lad
>>30173089
>spot on about COIL
>spot on about you're a moron
not a bad record, I should be a chemist
>>30173082
>Clearly
No.
I see why you're not a chemist.
>>30173148
>How many missiles can you engage before the Zumwalt snorts through its chemical inventory
I will give you one more clue, lets see if you can realize your mistake.
>>30173165
>cant comprehend the concept of mass flow rate
If any of you degenerates have pictures of laughing girls saved, now is the time to use them.
>>30173184
sorry fag, you're the mistake.
>>30173203
>can't comprehend the concept supersonic fuel line not used in you car for good reasons.
>>30173238
Can you really not understand that the laser could be sipping fuel despite the fact that its entering the chamber faster then sound?
>>30173238
Yeah, and that reason is because it would provide no benefit. Also wouldn't affect fuel his fuel consumption in the slightest.
>>30173224
I will concede I mistakenly thought you were not a complete retard, an anon even pointed it out for you early on.
>>30173290
>I will concede I mistakenly thought you were not a complete retard, an anon even pointed it out for you early on.
Is it going to insult your micropenis to say it yourself?
I'm not claiming to be a good reader.
>>30173253
>>30173272
we got a bunch of none experts doing rocket science here...
I'm going to assume the USAF has some actual rocket scientists under employment..and COIL is dead in the water.
>>30173337
You can't read when an anon specifically stated what you got wrong?
>>30173388
Because solid state lasers are better suited for being mounted on a ship then a chemical laser that needs a gas supply, not because "supersonic fuel speed = extreme fuel consumption" like your uneducated ass keeps saying.
>>30173396
umm No?
>>30173412
>solid state lasers
how about liquid laser, plasma laser, gas laser, dog fart laser...
pretty weak "proof" ladies
>>30173546
9/10 you were fucking great up until now. Perfectly captured the essence of "guy who types out his car ad all in one sentence with no caps or punctuation other then ellipses".
>>30173412
Alright guys, I'm willing to accept the navy is now going solid state.
This is now a solid state laser Zumwalt thread.
I need specifics for CMANO.
Lasing medium. YAG? ruby? exotium?
Excitation method?
Maximum power?
Laser frequency?
...
But I shouldn't hijack the dialogue,as you guys are the experts.
GO, GO, GO
