Last Two Battleships!

[captcav]

Just reading an article about the last two battleships (iowa class) still in reserve status with the USN. I thought all battleships were decommisioned? if not, have the last two who still remaine active been upgraded with up-to-date weapon systems? sm-2's? ssm's? in addition to their 16" guns?

Wouldn't it be nice to go back to building battleships again? but include all the new mod cons! imagne a new age 16" or 20" 4 set gun platform!! then you could neatly tuck away some VLS tube at the front n back from extended capabilities! would give the marines great cover range! Please read the following below.




Full Cost and
Schedule for
Reactivating and
Modernizing
Battleships Have Not
Been Analyzed



To reactivate two Iowa class battleships to their decommissioned
capability, the Navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million. This does
not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish gunpowder for
the 16-inch guns because a recent survey found that it is unsafe. In terms
of schedule, the Navy’s program management office estimates that
reactivation would take 20 to 40 months, given the loss of corporate
memory and the shipyard industrial base.
Reactivating the battleships would require a wide range of battleship
modernization improvements, according to the Navy’s program
management office. At a minimum, these modernization improvements
include command and control, communications, computers, and
intelligence equipment; environmental protection (including ozonedepleting
substances); a plastic-waste processor; pulper/shredder and
wastewater alterations; firefighting/fire safety and women-at-sea
alterations; a modernized sensor suite (air and surface search radar); and
new combat and self-defense systems. Although detailed studies would be
needed to identify the full extent of modernization needs and costs, the
Navy has no plans to conduct these studies.
The Navy’s program management office also identified other issues that
would strongly discourage the Navy from reactivating and modernizing the
battleships. For example, personnel needed to operate the battleships
would be extensive, and the skills needed may not be available or easily
reconstituted. Other issues include the age and unreliability of the
battleships’ propulsion systems and the fact that the Navy no longer
maintains the capability to manufacture their 16-inch gun system
components and ordnance.


Validated
Requirements for
NSFS Overall Have
Not Been Established


The role of naval surface fire support has been evolving in tandem with the
Navy’s amphibious assault doctrine, and for well over a decade, since the
decommissioning of the last of the Iowa class battleships, both the Navy
and Marine Corps have strived to address the specifics of how to fulfill
NSFS requirements. Until recently, these services have had difficulty with
reconciling their respective positions. Operational requirements
documents for several systems, such as the new destroyer, that will
contribute to the NSFS mission have been developed. On several
occasions, the Marine Corps has specified to the Navy what they believe
the replacement NSFS capability should be and the timing of the
capability. However, no single document has ever addressed the overall
capabilities and the balance between different systems that will be
required to provide effective, continuous, and sustainable supporting fire
for increasingly capable expeditionary forces operating ashore.
Although no formal NSFS requirement currently exists, in August 2004, the
Navy and Marine Corps agreed on an approach to correct the problem by
formally agreeing to develop an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) that
would address the overall capabilities needed for naval fire support. The
goal of this ICD is to document and address the overall capabilities
required of naval fire support. This will assist in determining the most
effective and efficient balance of capabilities and in determining the
cumulative offensive power that naval forces must be capable of
generating. An integrated product team chaired by the Marine Corps’
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development office, in coordination
with the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, will conduct the required
analyses, develop the ICD, and endeavor to gain the Department of
Defense’s approval for the ICD.

[Syxx_Killer]

I'd love to see battleships again. Last I checked, it seems pretty hard stop a huge shell coming at you. :88)

[Kapitan]

few shells from that there fine ship the iowa onto the kirov class would certainly do mighty damage.

yet these fine ships are the only ships capible of single handedly engauging a kirov what happens if china accidently build 20 improved kirovs ?

opps

[OneShot]

Last time I looked no western Navy does "Single Handly Fight" anymore. Slugging it out 1vs1 is not only stupid from a tactical point of view it simply doesnt happen, unless those two ships are the last ones on the battlefield left. Whenever such comments come up I think about the saying ... "When you go to a gunfight, bring the biggest gun you can and all the friends you have with their guns" ... my personal addon to that ... "and when you can trick the other guy, shoot him in the back, or have some other option of cheating and creating a one sided fight - DO IT". War is not fair - 2nd place means you are dead.

So when you compare the numbers, you end up with such statements like "only class left to single handly fight the Kirov" but that simply doesnt work.

Back on topic ... it would surely be cool to see the Battleships resurface, they are one hell of mean looking ships. And I don't want to be the enemy on the beach when they do NGFS *shudder*

[TLAM Strike]

Imagine this, battleship-sized warship with a pair of 20in rail guns (they are working on them), a few hundred VLS tubes, and a F/A-35 capable flight deck... :rock:

[Molon Labe]

TLAM, I think I just filled the cup.

[captcav]

Couldn't agree more! think about it! the DD(x) programme is still a very long way away, these ship resresent the might and power of the US, and they are available now! whats 18 months in the grand scheme of things? and really? 500 million to the us is a one day of bad arms trading between russia and china!

Despite the ship v ship engagements, which i must say wouldnt be ideal for the BB's, the shore engagements is what counts! keeping our boys on the ground safe and sound, whilst at the same time, have the capability to launch sm-2's, and a volley of Harpoons.

Keep in mind! Iowa;s 16" can be launched from 24 nm away via radar guided turrets. No other navy in the world can support such an act! nor would they ever contemplate taking it on!

This gentlemen represents the ultimate might in world navy's! im sure china would certainly reconsider its expansion of it's carrier fleet should these two momoths appear around the waters of Tiawan!

[sonar732]

Something to think about is when the Wisconsin was stationed off of Kuwait during Gulf War I, the Iraqi's flew the white flag when a drone was flying over them because they saw another unit be hit by those 16" guns! :rock: :rock: :up:

[Cochonou]

I thought the current US doctrine was to secure the ground by air superiority provided by carriers. I don't really see what would be the use of battleships in a modern battle, apart from being a big and juicy target for torpedoes or exocets.
If you remember, the General Belgrano did not fare too well during the Falklands war.

I would rather see them becoming floating museums.

Edit: A few spelling corrections

[LuftWolf]

The modernized Iowa's are MILES and MILES away from the Brooklyn class light cruiser that was the General Belgrano.

1) The GB was hopelessly unmodernized and poorly crewed

2) The GB was operating without proper ASW, and AAW screens.

3) There is simply no other ship with persistence, survivability, and firepower of a modernized Iowa BB. With proper screening they are virtually unsinkable short of a nuclear warhead.

If those ships were fully modernized, within the context of a CAG or, especially an amphibious assault group, their capability to support American operations would be unmatched by any other ship afloat, not even close, not by a long shot.

[Kapitan]

1) The GB was hopelessly unmodernized and poorly crewed


erm hell no GB had the most modern destroyers to date at the time of the conflict not to mention the newly bought in type 22 frigates.

poorly crewed well according to america france and a great deal of naval powers through out the world britain has the most grueling training reghieme on the planet, not to mention the highly trained crews and according to american officals and analysts they are envious of the royal navys training and tactical ability and have ranked the RN as number 1 in this field PERIOD.


2) The GB was operating without proper ASW, and AAW screens.

type 22 and type 12 and a few other ships are fully capible of intercepting and sinking nuclear and conventional submarines as they are today, type 42 is an air defence destroyer capible of engauging multiple targets and destroying them.

type 22 is capible of anti air warfare and anti submarine and anti ship warfare and is partnerd to a type 42 for tactical advantages so the entire spectrum is coverd not to mention the helicopters they both carry giving the ASW and AAW field a broader out look.

3) There is simply no other ship with persistence, survivability, and firepower of a modernized Iowa BB. With proper screening they are virtually unsinkable short of a nuclear warhead.

to me luftwolf and no offence but thats a load of BOLLA**S no ship is unsinkable even the iowa you americans sank the yamato which was alot more powerful advanced and stronger than any iowa with primative torpedos and bombs.

6 SS-N-19 or 6 SS-N-22's should sink an iowa no problem or render it so badly damaged there is no use for it bar scrapping.

if you want id rather take a kirov than an iowa simply because you maintain a 16inch gun yes but it has a meek range of only say 24 miles i can sail out side that range and out side the range of your harpoons (70 miles) and yet i can still launch on you with a battery of 24 SS-N-19 which would certainly destroy you.

Iowa is old very old and the strength of the steel isnt what it used to be.


would be unmatched by any other ship afloat,

in terms of weapon battery the kirov surpasses the iowa despite only having 6 inch main guns the kirov a battle cruiser is faster and more agile than the iowa and can travel greater distance at greater speed in a 1 v 1 id take a kirov simply because my weapons out range yours and are more effective.


No other navy in the world can support such an act! nor would they ever contemplate taking it on!

dont think the kirov was ment to just sit in port looking innocent they were designed specificly for such a ship


If you remember, the General Belgrano did not fare too well during the Falklands war.

belgrano was obsolete even when she first was built the argentine navy was not well funded 90% of thier navy was ex WW2 at that time the captain of conquorer recals sighting US allen m summner class destroyers these were 1940's relics floating antiques by this time.

ultimutly the most unique thing that happend to the belgrano was the fact she was sunk by WW2 MK8 torpedos not wire guided tigerfish.

the crew were inadiquately trained the ship was poorly maintained (feture which showed on the 25th of may aircraft carrier) and were lacking funds to even support extended trips to sea.

the kirov is the only modern battle ships at sea infact they are very very large cruisers classed as battle cruisers 2 are in reserve 1 active one in repair pending scrap

just think if the wall came down 10 years later there could have been 24 or even 30 kirovs romeing the waves along with 12 typhoons

[LuftWolf]

You totally misunderstood me.

GB=General Belgrano

[Kapitan]

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: thought you ment great britain :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

i realy need to change the GB sticker on the bumper of the car :oops:

my appologies

[LuftWolf]

In terms of the Iowa:

What is the operational state of the Kirov and what is the quality of its support ships? :hmm:

One Nimitz, one Iowa, plus 6+10 AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, plus multiple Frigates and 2-4 marine landing ships=power projection.

Minus the Iowa, the USN can do that a few times over.

With the two Iowa class BB's supporting the current capacity of the USN, talking about the Kirov is kind of silly. :up:

[LuftWolf]

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: thought you ment great britain :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

i realy need to change the GB sticker on the bumper of the car :oops:

my appologies

NP. :lol:

[Kapitan]

i was meaning kirov V iowa 1 on 1

obviously russia would respond with at least 6 sovremennys the kuznetsov 4 udaloys the slava about 40 other ships and 17 submarines at least


northern fleet houses 7 oscar class submarines ready for action on gaurd for a 15 minuet notice one of these oscars can cause so much havoc that it would put the american oparation back alot if not destroy alot of ships in the process.

agies cant handle more than 10 targets at once each oscar would fire thier main batterys of 24 SS-N-19 missile and the kirov would fire her battery of 24 not to mention the kuznetsovs battery of 12

so thats 204 SS-N-19 missiles coming right at you at once no ship the american navy has could handle that many incoming projectiles then id move on to the sovremennys the tranutuls the nanchukas grishas krivack ect ect

try around 600 maybe more missile incoming at once best radar can track 60 targets at once even if you shoot down 1/3 its not enough it would render the battle group inoprable

the fleet wont move farther than the bearents sea and thus could run for home re arm and be back out to sea in time for round 2 the missiles the russian navy have out range any missile for anti ship (bar air launched) the USN has

even admitted by the americans whom said "we are 10 years behind the russians in anti ship missile technology"

[LuftWolf]

It all looks so neat on unclassified paper... :ping:

[Kapitan]

worked it out to around 512 missiles fired in one hit from 2/3 of the northern fleet

that would destroy a great deal of any battle group especialy as most of the missiles have a 2000lb warhead attached and are nuclear capible and out range american missiles.

only problem is rotation at dock fire that many missile gunna have a big hole in the stock gunna take a while to fill.

[Kapitan]

i acctualy set up a mission where the northern fleet engauged 4 american battle groups, results were amazing

the level pegged

:o

[LuftWolf]

At the risk of sounding stupider... :88)

I don't think it's an issue of one group verse another group like Jutland with missiles.

There are some very complicated electronic, logistical, and command related issues you are neglecting.

The bottom line is that America can keep the Russians in port at all points if necessary. Russia can't do that to the US.

If the conflict goes nuclear then this is all a mute point, but short of total war, the Russian's simply do not retain the power projection capabilities that the US does.

No amount of fashioning paper tigers can get around that fact.

[Kapitan]

that is true americas command and control is alot better than that of russia's but america would have a big job on thier hands if they were to even attempt to keep the russians in port.

shore batterys of missiles would fire on surface ships as would patroling surface ships,

america may have maps that say oh there base is here and we need to follow that river to get to it but russia will never realease the charts needed to navigate the trechorous waterways of murmansk or arkangelsk (plenty of man made obsticals)

i agree the control and command is a shambles in russia but in recent years they have bought it together and working on it and in a few years we may see then train with america they al ready do.

on the whole america alone doesnt have the power to keep russia in port there are plenty of back doors (north russia theres over 4,000 that i know of)

america would need help britain cant help because her precious convoys to russia which happen once a month to and from russia gaurded by british warships (normaly type 23 frigate).

america has some nice ships but with thier cut backs they now are starting to lack on things russia is catching up on faster and faster and they sell it bit by bit to china who catch up faster and faster

like a wheel never ends

[Kapitan]

in todays politics russia has no wish to keep american navy in port and is activly helping in gun and drug smuggleing and also the war on terrorism

(russian troops in afghanistan and also chechnya also part of alquieda)

russian navy deploys world wide the moskva was in malta not so long ago so was Azov and a few other ships including smilevy, russia visited australia for the first time with a narutashimy frigate also america too pearl harbour with admiral tributs or pantaleyev

just cause russia dont have the money america has doesnt mean its not a force to be dissmissed the russian navy is still hugely powerful more so a threat than china or any other country

and the best bit is they are now on our side

[TLAM Strike]

If you remember, the General Belgrano did not fare too well during the Falklands war.

belgrano was obsolete even when she first was built the argentine navy was not well funded 90% of thier navy was ex WW2 at that time the captain of conquorer recals sighting US allen m summner class destroyers these were 1940's relics floating antiques by this time.

ultimutly the most unique thing that happend to the belgrano was the fact she was sunk by WW2 MK8 torpedos not wire guided tigerfish.

the crew were inadiquately trained the ship was poorly maintained (feture which showed on the 25th of may aircraft carrier) and were lacking funds to even support extended trips to sea. Kapitian are you familiar with the ARA Santa Fe S-21? After she kept the British sweating as they took South Georgia they manage to catch her in shallow water and pounded her with bombs, torpedoes and missiles (AS-12s) but couldn't sink her. Eventually the crew beached her and abandoned ship. The Brits later scuttled her. She was a US Built Balao class GUPPY conversion (Ex USS Catfish SS-339) built in 1945! World War II relic my a$$, ASMs and homing torpedoes from Wasp and Lynx helicopters couldn’t sink her. What does that tell you about “made in USA”! :|\

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/471/0000001ml.jpg
Diesel Boats Forever!
Hear the diving klaxon sound.
Diesel Boats Forever!
Take her deep, and take her down.
:P :P :P

[Apocal]

Kapitian are you familiar with the ARA Santa Fe S-21? After she kept the British sweating as they took South Georgia they manage to catch her in shallow water and pounded her with bombs, torpedoes and missiles (AS-12s) but couldn't sink her. Eventually the crew beached her and abandoned ship. The Brits later scuttled her. She was a US Built Balao class GUPPY conversion (Ex USS Catfish SS-339) built in 1945! World War II relic my a$$, ASMs and homing torpedoes from Wasp and Lynx helicopters couldn’t sink her. What does that tell you about “made in USA”! :|\


It tells me the British needed to improve their aim and ASW techniques.

And I'd much rather recount the war record of the ARA San Luis:

San Luis[/b] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Luis)]San Luis reported two attacks on Royal Navy ships during the war. On May 1, the RN ships HMS Brilliant and Yarmouth were sent to intercept the San Luis in the Falkland Sound channel. San Luis reported firing two torpedoes at the ship which subsequently missed.

San Luis attacked again on the night of May 10. Alacrity had made passage up the Falkland Sound, sinking an Argentine merchant navy ship on the way. As Alacrity left the channel before dawn, its sister ship Arrow was waiting to escort her back to the Task Force. San Luis detected the two ships and fired upon them, again missing.

For the rest of the war, San Luis tracked the British ships, but with no successful attacks.

Seems both sides could use some time on the torpedo range.

[TLAM Strike]

I’m curious to know what types of torpedoes each side used on each other. I know that a French built Pakistani submarine took three homing torpedoes to sink an Indian Destroyer back in the 60’s or 70’s. The torp that hit was fired at her stern. Are all homing fish so inaccurate?!? :roll: Or do real life sub commanders just lack my mad skills? :-j

[Sea Demon]

agies cant handle more than 10 targets at once each oscar would fire thier main batterys of 24 SS-N-19 missile and the kirov would fire her battery of 24 not to mention the kuznetsovs battery of 12

so thats 204 SS-N-19 missiles coming right at you at once no ship the american navy has could handle that many incoming projectiles then id move on to the sovremennys the tranutuls the nanchukas grishas krivack ect ect

try around 600 maybe more missile incoming at once best radar can track 60 targets at once even if you shoot down 1/3 its not enough it would render the battle group inoprable

the fleet wont move farther than the bearents sea and thus could run for home re arm and be back out to sea in time for round 2 the missiles the russian navy have out range any missile for anti ship (bar air launched) the USN has


AEGIS can't handle 10 targets at once??? Let me tell you roughly how the system works. It can monitor well over 100 with SPY-1. The Aegis cruiser has four missile-directors, and 30 guidance channels.

Each SM-2 Standard SAM of the AEGIS system has three phases of flight: INS, MCG and terminal SARH. There are 122 on the Ticonderogas, Arleigh Burkes carry 98. The Flight IIA's carry more.

So, now, when an Aegis cruiser is facing 24 incoming Anti-Ship Missiles, and is put on "auto", it functions something like this, the system will volley the first four missiles, firing four SM-2's. As soon as the SAMs reach the MCG phase, the system will volley four additional missiles targeting SSMs #5, 6, 7 and 8; as soon as the first four SAMs reach terminal phase the system lights its directors, the system then takes the SM-2's 5, 6, 7 and 8 into the MCG, and fires four new missiles against targets 9, 10, 11, and 12. According to sources, the illuminators only need to "flash" the target in order to complete it's flight profile.

So, the Aegis can therefore simultaneously guide 12 SAMs at single targets. That's the unclassified version. But that's not all, however, there are several rates of fire, so you can set the system to engage every incoming target with two missiles. In that case it is going to simultaneously guide 24 SAMs against 12 different targets and time-share the illuminators.

And it also has six spare guidance channels. And don't forget about it's ability to cooperatively engage and use time-sharing management. So, it can take over SM-2s fired by other ships with the spare guidance channels. It can also use channels from other ships. Eventually, if totally saturated (unlikely in this day and age), the single ship system could for a few seconds take up to 30 SM-2s under control. Combine 3 Tico's and 1 Arleigh Burke and you could theoretically direct over 90 missiles simultaneously. In this regard, it's easy to see how a CSG with four AEGIS combatants can deal with 70 or more anti-ship missiles in an all out naval engagement at once. Heck, even 100. And I haven't even touched on point-defenses yet. Or aircraft from the carrier airwing itself. These two layers would provide defense against many more adding to the already set layer of AEGIS. At this point in time, Russia can't mass any force to deal with USN CSG's. I'd put my money on a USN strike group over anything the Russians can put in the water.

One more note. The AEGIS system has been tested against "multiple" sea-skimming supersonic targets and was extremely successful. Against MOSKIT types it will use many more methods to defeat the systems via electronic warfare methods. And you're forgetting the counterstrike capabilities of USN/USAF combined forces. I'm guessing that every single Russian naval/coastal facility in the North Fleet would be attacked on short order if Russia embarked on such an attack against a USN battle group. Long-range CALCM's and other LACM's from B-52's and B-1's, Next Generation Tomahawk strikes from naval surface and sub-surface platforms en masse, B-2 strikes in conjunction with certain electronic warfare means (B-2's can each carry 80 500 lb guided munitions), etc......It wouldn't be pretty.

[Apocal]

Or do real life sub commanders just lack my mad skills? :-j

Imagine for a second you had never played any SubSim before. You're only practice was like that approach mission in Sub Command, where you fired and it was always considered a hit and a kill as long as you hit the buttons in the right order and you only do it maybe five or six times.

Then do it for real. I bet you'd screw something up, possibly multiple times. The thing about veteran commanders isn't that they're so good... it's just that everyone else sucks.

[Kapitan]

no war would be pretty the B52's probly wouldnt get passed russian air defence from the border of finaland to murmansk is a good hour and alot of SAM batterys same for the B1 may fly supersonic but doubt it will get passed.

aegis may be able to handle 30 targets at once or more or how ever many you said (cant remember) but if it did have such a wave even that couldnt handle a huge volly of that size.

your CIWS and phalanx systems couldnt engauge a SS-N-19 or 22 in time in fact they say the time the missile enters range the misssile is around 0.0025 second to impact (or something like that)

on hit from one of the missiles on a destroyer of cruiser would be a mission kill dont need to sink it damage it beyond its fighting capibility.

[XanderF]

At this point in time, Russia can't mass any force to deal with USN CSG's. I'd put my money on a USN strike group over anything the Russians can put in the water.

THAT is an amusing quote, given the nature of this forum.

Last I checked [tongue firmly in cheek], Aegis's engagement capabilities vs subsurface threats are....somewhat less impressive.

[Kapitan]

a single oscar class can rien enough havoc to completely fu*k up a US CVBG now russia has 12 of them

america can deploy 12 battle groups that one oscar to each battle group meaning that the 12 battle groups will be stuffed over

simple plus the SM2 isnt that great it failed many times to intercept training exocets and there the low end anti ship missile if it cant take them then what chance have you got against a 24 tonnes missile that hurtling towards you at mach 2 and fitted with nuclear capible warheads.

not alot

[Sea Demon]

no war would be pretty the B52's probly wouldnt get passed russian air defence from the border of finaland to murmansk is a good hour and alot of SAM batterys same for the B1 may fly supersonic but doubt it will get passed.

aegis may be able to handle 30 targets at once or more or how ever many you said (cant remember) but if it did have such a wave even that couldnt handle a huge volly of that size.

your CIWS and phalanx systems couldnt engauge a SS-N-19 or 22 in time in fact they say the time the missile enters range the misssile is around 0.0025 second to impact (or something like that)

on hit from one of the missiles on a destroyer of cruiser would be a mission kill dont need to sink it damage it beyond its fighting capibility.

The B-52's and B-1's wouldn't need to fly anywhere near Russia's coastline. Those LACM's have an extremely long range. And there are alot of em'. In the context of numbers, you're probably right that some may get through.....possibly. AEGIS's strength lie in connectivity, sensor coverage, fast response, missile quality, and electronic warfare/ECM. These Russian systems have alot against them in that regard. But I gotta tell you, on the same note, I understand Russia could do some damage of their own as well. I don't deny that. I just think the quality of these AEGIS ships, and capabilities of their systems might make anybody think twice before launching any kind of attack. WW3 would stink for both the USA and Russia if they were to be on opposing sides.

THAT is an amusing quote, given the nature of this forum.

Last I checked [tongue firmly in cheek], Aegis's engagement capabilities vs subsurface threats are....somewhat less impressive.

I'm not so sure about this. The only thing I can say is that subs are difficult to detect for any nation. I actually believe that these ships (AEGIS) would perform pretty well if on a war-footing in ASW. Also depends on the environments thay are dealing with them. From what I remember, there were a few times where USN ships were surprised by diesel subs. But I'm not quite certain what the circumstances were. Based upon the evidence that the USN has leased a Swedish AIP sub to begin looking at tactics and sensors to deal with the threat, Im would agree that the USN probably has difficulties in this area. At this point, pretty much every nation does.

[Kapitan]

USN has neglected submarines since the end of cold war and thier navy has gone to dissoray both in strength and finacialy.

buget went down 12.3% in 5 years for the USN and at the moment that just enough to cover what they have hence why they decomissioning loads of ships and submarines early

russian navy buget went up 11.77% in the last 8 years and can now afford to maintain what they got and build smaller numbers of new ships.

as for the uk buget increased in the last 5 years by 3%

germany decreased by 4.2%

[Sea Demon]

a single oscar class can rien enough havoc to completely fu*k up a US CVBG now russia has 12 of them

america can deploy 12 battle groups that one oscar to each battle group meaning that the 12 battle groups will be stuffed over

simple plus the SM2 isnt that great it failed many times to intercept training exocets and there the low end anti ship missile if it cant take them then what chance have you got against a 24 tonnes missile that hurtling towards you at mach 2 and fitted with nuclear capible warheads.

not alot

All I can say is that there is alot of speculation there. And no, the SM-2 is pretty high in quality. Where and When did the USN test against training Exocets. This last summer, they were fielded against low flying supersonic drones and intercepted every last one of them.

Right now, Russia has 9 Oscars, not 12. And I'm certain that they're all not operational right now. Oscars only carry 24 ASuW missiles. If the battle group has just 2 AEGIS ships they can handle a measly 24 missiles. That's not enough to get through. Even in Soviet times, the Soviets understood that 1 Oscar was not enough to repel a USN battle group with missiles. And if the Oscar launched, the Battle group now has datum to begin a search.

[Sea Demon]

Opps. Sorry mods. Double post. Please delete. :-?

[Kapitan]

according to ship data and ship list russia oparates 12 oscar class submarines if kursk was still around it be 13

SM2 wastested this year during a thursday war (RN weekly training exercise) multinational

the SM2 failed to hit 3 of the 12 targets (drones) with the british system failing to intercept only one

(might be mission thing dont know) but they did miss or were told to miss or something

[Kapitan]

SA-N-9 is also very high quality can shoot down very fast sea skimming missiles there gets a point though where it cant as with all missiles

[Sea Demon]

USN has neglected submarines since the end of cold war and thier navy has gone to dissoray both in strength and finacialy.

buget went down 12.3% in 5 years for the USN and at the moment that just enough to cover what they have hence why they decomissioning loads of ships and submarines early

russian navy buget went up 11.77% in the last 8 years and can now afford to maintain what they got and build smaller numbers of new ships.

as for the uk buget increased in the last 5 years by 3%

germany decreased by 4.2%

You talk about budget cuts. The USN is still building Virginia SSN's, DD(X) is still being developed, OHIO's are going through a conversion for 4 SSGN, And we're still adding Burke hulls into service. Regardless of what you say, nobody is going to challenge the USN for sea supremacy in the near term. I don't know where you get your facts but the USN is actually getting more money in the budget and it's overall capabilities are expanding.

Bottom line, nobody can project naval power anywhere near the USN.

Most of Russia's surface fleet is still in disarrray we still haven't seen Borei. From what I understand the Russians don't go to sea very often either. I am very impressed with the UK's efforts however with their Type 45 and Germany with their 214 subs.

[Sea Demon]

according to ship data and ship list russia oparates 12 oscar class submarines if kursk was still around it be 13

SM2 wastested this year during a thursday war (RN weekly training exercise) multinational

the SM2 failed to hit 3 of the 12 targets (drones) with the british system failing to intercept only one

(might be mission thing dont know) but they did miss or were told to miss or something

According to Janes and Globalsecurity the number is 9. And that's current for this year.

When did this test happen, and can you provide some kind of link? What type of drones were they? What ships were involved? What month?

[Kapitan]

navy news think it was for mission damaged simulated they do that often was watching something on HMS richmond where they were told to miss and let the "missile hit" so they could practice a hull rupture

exercises are rigged :nope:

According to Janes and Globalsecurity the number is 9. And that's current for this year.

9 active 12 availible janes is a good source but they have in the past missed alot out ! global security isnt realy a good source i found half thier infomation totaly wrong it contradicted everything else

when i get my my folders out (not even going to attempt it today) il name every oscar class that is availible for active duty

(oh boy i dred this gunna be like hiroshima on a good day :o )

[captcav]

ummm? guys?? the battleships! focus on the battleships!!!

[Kapitan]

we are and thier eqivilents

oscar SSGN equivelent to under water battle ship

Kirov is in its own right a battle cruiser / ship

[sonar732]

It looks like the battleships won't be joining the fleet...new link on subsim's homepage states that a new bill was passed sending the Iowa to California and the Wisconsin to stay in Norfolk...both as museums. :nope: :down: :cry:

[Hartmann]

I think that could be too expensive modernise the battleships .

Whit this money is possible built a new ship class and more adapted to the modern warfare.

A battleship is very strong but a single missile that pass the antimissile screen can destroy it or damage enough to return to port.

it´s like a magnet for the missiles or torpedos, too big and heavy, not very maneuverable.and his huge siluette could be detected by radars a lot of miles of distance.

The Bismarck battleship was mortally wounded by a swordfish biplane with a torpedo, despite the heavy AA barrier.

The hood destroyed by a single shell .

The yamato sunk by planes and torpedos.

General belgrano despite the antitorpedo belt , was sunk by a british submarine.

They can put a modern weapons system but the enemies has this sistems too and the forces are very balanced.

[XanderF]

a single oscar class can rien enough havoc to completely fu*k up a US CVBG now russia has 12 of them


wasn't actually referring to missiles.

Missiles can be shot down.

Torpedoes can't.
Oscars only carry 24 ASuW missiles. If the battle group has just 2 AEGIS ships they can handle a measly 24 missiles. That's not enough to get through. Even in Soviet times, the Soviets understood that 1 Oscar was not enough to repel a USN battle group with missiles. And if the Oscar launched, the Battle group now has datum to begin a search.
Indeed, a study of Soviet doctrine vs a US CVBG is quite enlightening.

Basically, it amounted to two SSGNs moving into position ahead of the US CVBG, and receiving telemetry from satellites or an SSN in the vicinity of the task force. The SSN (or satellite) would be providing firing solutions for both the SSGNs and the Kirov/Slava/etc battlegroup sent to intercept.

Anyway, Soviet theory held that a Kirov battlegroup letting fly ALL its SSMs, and two or three SSGNs unloading ALL their SSMs, and a FULL REGIMENT(yes, regiment) of Tu-22ms would be involved in the attack.

They figured that would be enough to sink a carrier.

'Course, that was back in the SM-1 days, with the twin dual launches on the Ticos and no Burkes (IE., no VLS in the fleet). I doubt, with SM-2s in VLS launchers, even THAT would get through.

Torpedoes, though, torpedoes. THAT is the answer!

[Sea Demon]

we are and thier eqivilents

oscar SSGN equivelent to under water battle ship

Kirov is in its own right a battle cruiser / ship

Russians have difficulties putting their subs including Oscars out to sea. Quality control is suspect. Pretty recently a Russian Admiral said that the Kirov was on the verge of "blowing up". Can't say that about any Ticonderoga, Type 42 Destroyer, Kongo, or Arleigh Burke. Kirov wouldn't last very long in any type of war situation. All it is is a nice big juicy target for 688(I). 2-3 Mark 48's under the hull would do the trick. :cool: :rock:

Sea Demon

[Apocal]

no war would be pretty the B52's probly wouldnt get passed russian air defence from the border of finaland to murmansk is a good hour and alot of SAM batterys same for the B1 may fly supersonic but doubt it will get passed.

The great thing about cruise missiles is that you don't have to penetrate the enemies' air defense network to employ them. Or we could quite simply use B-2s and F-117s instead.

aegis may be able to handle 30 targets at once or more or how ever many you said (cant remember) but if it did have such a wave even that couldnt handle a huge volly of that size.

OK, I have to ask, if a AEGIS-equipped vessel can can handle 30 simultaneous engagements... why wouldn't be able to handle 24? Even given a (incredibly conservative) engagement window of one minute, and assuming it takes 10 seconds of illumination for intercept to be achieved, the ship would take down... 24 missiles.



your CIWS and phalanx systems

CIWS and Phalanx are the same system.

couldnt engauge a SS-N-19 or 22 in time in fact they say the time the missile enters range the misssile is around 0.0025 second to impact (or something like that)

Ignoring that RAM is replacing CIWS and has already been fitted in large numbers, the actual engagement time is a around 3 seconds for the SS-N-19, seeing as it travels at ~1500 knots.

Factoring in that RAM has consistently (90%+) destroyed target drones that are faster, lower-flying, and smaller (both physically and in terms of RCS/IRCS), and without having a warhead in some cases, I wouldn't bet the house on any SS-N-19s getting to the carrier.

And just to finally stick a fork in the SS-N-19 threat, the ESSM (evolved seasparrow missile) is faster (by almost a full Mach), more manueverable, longer ranged and has larger warhead than a RAM.

[LuftWolf]

The Bismarck battleship was mortally wounded by a swordfish biplane with a torpedo, despite the heavy AA barrier.

The hood destroyed by a single shell .

The yamato sunk by planes and torpedos.

General belgrano despite the antitorpedo belt , was sunk by a british submarine.

The General Belgrano was a Light Cruiser. :stare:

The Hood was a Battlecruiser from 1922 which had not received an uparmored deck (5 inch plate over main magezine).

The Yamato was sent on a suicide mission without any aircover and pounded by dozens of dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

The Bismark was hit in the screws and rudders by a torpedo from a torpedo bomber. The highly advanced optically directed AA guns could not be calibrated on the British Swordfish because they were too bloodly slow, and the Germans hadn't accounted for the antiquated British technology when creating the Bismarks integrated fire control systems (strange but true...).

All these cases show is that a battleship when hopelessly outclassed or alone is vulnerable. Well, yeah. Of course.

A modernized Iowa BB in an American CAG or CVBG is a completely different thing. I have to say that the permanent decommissioning of the BB's represents more of a doctrine preference of the USN and their desire to support certain areas of the naval arms industry with contracts for new ships rather than a sign that the BB is not a legitament weapon in modern naval warfare. There IS a reason after all that they were mothballed and brought back into service three times since the end of WWII.

[Kapitan]

as for the kirov blowing up that was a myth

the admiral in moscow hated the commander of the Peter the great because of a long family dispute so to embarras him he sent his ship to sea then made the international statement "she gunna blow"

pure hatred

The great thing about cruise missiles is that you don't have to penetrate the enemies' air defense network to employ them. Or we could quite simply use B-2s and F-117s instead.

have you heard of LRLGW (long range laser guided weapons) stealth or not laser would find a mark america i hear also has deployed these weapons bog standard laser guided bomb just put on a missile

CIWS close in weapon support system yes i know its the same lol goal keeper the european system is alot better and been proven to.

Russians have difficulties putting their subs including Oscars out to sea

year 1999 america reports 3 oscar class submarines active simaltanoiusly one the kursk in the mediteranean one in the eastern sea bord and one near pearl harbour pacfic

same year 32 surface ships 28 submarines put to sea

[Sea Demon]

as for the kirov blowing up that was a myth

the admiral in moscow hated the commander of the Peter the great because of a long family dispute so to embarras him he sent his ship to sea then made the international statement "she gunna blow"

pure hatred

The great thing about cruise missiles is that you don't have to penetrate the enemies' air defense network to employ them. Or we could quite simply use B-2s and F-117s instead.

have you heard of LRLGW (long range laser guided weapons) stealth or not laser would find a mark america i hear also has deployed these weapons bog standard laser guided bomb just put on a missile

CIWS close in weapon support system yes i know its the same lol goal keeper the european system is alot better and been proven to.

Russians have difficulties putting their subs including Oscars out to sea

year 1999 america reports 3 oscar class submarines active simaltanoiusly one the kursk in the mediteranean one in the eastern sea bord and one near pearl harbour pacfic

same year 32 surface ships 28 submarines put to sea

I notice that same admiral was fired....because he told the truth and embarrassed the Russian Navy. Luftwolf and others are right. If IOWA BB was out there and re-armed with 100-120 TASM's, Kirov would be blown to smithereens. Kirov (I think there's what 2 left?), wouldn't stand a chance.

America at this time has much more and higher quality weapons available than Russia. You've heard of AGM-86D, Next Generation Tomahawk(some with electronic warfare modes for penetration mission), JSOW, JDAM, SM-6 ERAM(going to be hot when deployed), SM-3 for TBMD, AGM-158 JASSM, LOCASS, and soon to be fielded SM-4 LASM. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

If you haven't heard, the USN is largely replacing Phalanx with RAM and ESSM. It's going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to penetrate CVBG layering defenses utlizing carrier aircraft, SM-2, RAM/ESSM, and challenging ECM fields. And the USN has the capacity to strike back hard. My thinking is the USN carrier would destroy any Russian battle group from 1500 - 2000 Km away. Or maybe an LA 688(I) or two. Maybe combined forces with British Trafalgars and maritime assets. Kirov/Slava SAG's wouldn't last 30 minutes.

That also looks like a low number of ships being put out to sea. America does bigger deployments with much more naval hardware in 1 month.

[TLAM Strike]

a single oscar class can rien enough havoc to completely fu*k up a US CVBG now russia has 12 of them


wasn't actually referring to missiles.

Missiles can be shot down.

Torpedoes can't. ASW Motars and Rockets (not ASROCs) are Anti-Torpedo capable and MK-46 torpedoes are said to be Anti-Torp capable.

[LuftWolf]

I was a little exuberant (and confused...) when I said the Bismark had radar directed AA... that's not correct, it was optical only. So I edited my post.

Fact checking is a b..ch. :shifty:

:-j

Although I consider that a major error on my part, given the well known state of various parties radar at the time. :stare:

[Kapitan]

luftwaffe had a radio system where they could direct thier bombers right to thier targets sent out waves of dots and dashes.

as for bismark they planned to be intercepted by spitfires not WW1 antiques the guns were to fast and were missing thier target

[SeaQueen]

Just reading an article about the last two battleships (iowa class) still in reserve status with the USN. I thought all battleships were decommisioned? if not, have the last two who still remaine active been upgraded with up-to-date weapon systems? sm-2's? ssm's? in addition to their 16" guns?

Wouldn't it be nice to go back to building battleships again? but include all the new mod cons! imagne a new age 16" or 20" 4 set gun platform!! then you could neatly tuck away some VLS tube at the front n back from extended capabilities! would give the marines great cover range! Please read the following below.


I don't know the specifics of the BB debate, but I know that the DD(X) is really an destroyer sized vessel optimized for land attack and between DD(X), TACTOM, and the CV(X) my suspicion is that the Marine Corps requirements for fire support are going to be met (which is the only real argument for keeping them).

Precision guided weapons have probably been a big key to the demise of the BB too, because they represent a really serious force multiplier. Why pepper an area with 2000# shells when you can drop a fraction of the number of 2000# bombs, get the same effect, and be less vulnerable while doing it?

Now a days, even though everyone is talking about cruising around in "the littoral" the truth is that nobody really wants to get close to shore. "A ship's a fool that fights a fort," Nelson once said, and the same holds true today. You get close to land and you are easier to find, your sensors don't work as well, your missiles don't work as well, people can shoot shore-based cruise missiles at you all day long, fighter planes with more cruise missiles can find you, ballistic missiles might start landing on you, heck, even grunts with artillery might take a pot shot at you.

Battleships, by today's standards, have to get really close, compared to a TACTOM or an F/A-18 operating on instructions relayed from a platoon of Marines operating a UAV. It's a whole different world from even the first Gulf War.

Right now is actually a really interesting time for navies, because there's a lot of questions about what post-Cold War navies should look like. Unfortunately, with diminished post-Cold War defense budgets, and now the war in Iraq, people are making decisions based strictly on what is affordable, and while everyone thinks BBs are cool, they just don't make sense anymore.

[Apocal]

CIWS close in weapon support system yes i know its the same lol goal keeper the european system is alot better and been proven to.

Then why did you write "CIWS and phalanx systems"? It leads one to believe you have no idea what you are talking about...

[TLAM Strike]

CIWS close in weapon support system yes i know its the same lol goal keeper the european system is alot better and been proven to.

Then why did you write "CIWS and phalanx systems"? It leads one to believe you have no idea what you are talking about... CIWS is a general term for a family of weapon systems, the Phalanx is a specific system. Technically Kapitain is correct US ships can mount several "point defense systems" (that is the term I would have used to advoid confusion) including the Phalanx, RAM, Stinger and 25mm guns.

[Apocal]

CIWS close in weapon support system yes i know its the same lol goal keeper the european system is alot better and been proven to.

Then why did you write "CIWS and phalanx systems"? It leads one to believe you have no idea what you are talking about... CIWS is a general term for a family of weapon systems, the Phalanx is a specific system.

In the USN, it isn't. CIWS refers only to the Mk. 15 Phalanx. RAM is only referred to as "Ram" and 25mm guns aren't used in point defense (at least on any ship I've been on or heard of). They aren't even considered AAW (strictly ASuW or MIW) weapons on most ships.

Technically Kapitain is correct US ships can mount several "point defense systems"

Then he'd be wrong about them not being able to intercept Shipwrecks or Sunburns, as RAM was purpose-built for just that task. Either way, the ridiculous pro-Russian exaggerations need to stop.

[TLAM Strike]

CIWS close in weapon support system yes i know its the same lol goal keeper the european system is alot better and been proven to.

Then why did you write "CIWS and phalanx systems"? It leads one to believe you have no idea what you are talking about... CIWS is a general term for a family of weapon systems, the Phalanx is a specific system.

In the USN, it isn't. CIWS refers only to the Mk. 15 Phalanx. RAM is only referred to as "Ram" and 25mm guns aren't used in point defense (at least on any ship I've been on or heard of). They aren't even considered AAW (strictly ASuW or MIW) weapons on most ships. Calling the Mk 15 a CIWS is just due to the fact that its the dominate Point Defense system. If they had the Goal Keeper that would be what they would use the term CIWS for, if they had the Crotale-NG or Sea Wolf same thing.

Machine Guns like the 25mm and .50 cal have been used for Point Defense. An Israeli warship once downed a SS-N-2 Styx with a .50 cal, isolated case but its could still be used for that purpose.

Technically Kapitain is correct US ships can mount several "point defense systems"

Then he'd be wrong about them not being able to intercept Shipwrecks or Sunburns, as RAM was purpose-built for just that task. Either way, the ridiculous pro-Russian exaggerations need to stop. Whatever I'm just pointing out that a CIWS and the Phalanx aren't one in the same.

[Apocal]

Calling the Mk 15 a CIWS is just due to the fact that its the dominate Point Defense system. If they had the Goal Keeper that would be what they would use the term CIWS for, if they had the Crotale-NG or Sea Wolf same thing.

Not really, RAM and BPDMS (old Seasparrow) have about the same range as Sea Wolf and Crotale-NG and never were they referred to as "CIWS".

Machine Guns like the 25mm and .50 cal have been used for Point Defense. An Israeli warship once downed a SS-N-2 Styx with a .50 cal, isolated case but its could still be used for that purpose.

I'm aware they were once used for emergency antiship missile defense, but they aren't nowadays and haven't been for quite a long time, patrol boats notwithstanding. It's actually quite dangerous to use them in an AAW role on some ships, as the mount are located by launchers and there is a fair chance of the gun crews being burned alive by the launch of their own missiles.

EDIT: And all this times into battleships by virtue that CIWS mounts were the only hard kill defensive system that could take the repeated shock of 16".

USNSFA was proposing all sorts of crazy schemes (more than a few of which would have cost more than building all new battleships) stocked with updated, COTS electronics. Except for COTS not taking 16" shell shock too well either. Oops. Although one engineer I talked to had the best proposal I heard yet, cutting out the aft turret and creating a second hardened citadel to place a tactical length (IIRC) VLS group in.

If finally decommissioning the BBs gets ESSM or LCS (or any number of systems needed to fill crucial capabilities) sped up by even a month, it will be worth it.

[TLAM Strike]

Calling the Mk 15 a CIWS is just due to the fact that its the dominate Point Defense system. If they had the Goal Keeper that would be what they would use the term CIWS for, if they had the Crotale-NG or Sea Wolf same thing.

Not really, RAM and BPDMS (old Seasparrow) have about the same range as Sea Wolf and Crotale-NG and never were they referred to as "CIWS". Because they weren't the main Point Defense system. If it is or is supplementary to the last line of missile defense its correct to call it a CIWS or the regional term (since CIWS is an English language term). If a ship were armed with both RAM missiles and a MK 15 it is correct to refer to both as a CIWS since both are a form of Close In Weapon System of course the crew of that ship wouldn’t call both a CIWS to avoid confusion, which is why you never called your ship's Stinger missiles CIWS.

CIWS is both a Proper Noun and a Common Noun; Phalanx (in this case) is a Proper Noun. In Kapitain's case he may have meant to use Phalanx as a Proper Noun and CIWS as a Common Noun.

[Apocal]

Because they weren't the main Point Defense system.

The Knox-class featured either old Seasparrow or Phalanx. The ones equipped with Seasparrow never referred to their mounts as CIWS mounts. Which is odd, considering that Seasparrow predates the Phalanx by at least eight years...

Presently, the Ronald Reagan and San Antonio have only RAM... yet it's still called RAM and never CIWS. In no official document is any weapon referred to as CIWS but the Mk. 15 Phalanx. Raytheon themselves (http://www.raytheon.com/products/ram/) don't refer to RAM as a "close-in weapon system", they call it a "guided missile weapon system" or describe it as "a supersonic, light-weight, quick-reaction, fire-and-forget missile designed to destroy antiship missiles.".

I'm looking through everything about RAM, nowhere do I see "RAM is a close-in weapon system"...

If it is or is supplementary to the last line of missile defense its correct to call it a CIWS or the regional term (since CIWS is an English language term).

Last line of defense is generally referred to as "point defense" and systems involved in it "point defense weapons systems". Of course, you won't find many developers calling it that anymore...

If a ship were armed with both RAM missiles and a MK 15 it is correct to refer to both as a CIWS since both are a form of Close In Weapon System of course the crew of that ship wouldn’t call both a CIWS to avoid confusion, which is why you never called your ship's Stinger missiles CIWS.

On ship's without Phalanx, only RAM, they call it "RAM". I've never been on a ship with just Stingers. I don't think there is a ship in the Navy that just has a Stinger det.

CIWS is both a Proper Noun and a Common Noun; Phalanx (in this case) is a Proper Noun. In Kapitain's case he may have meant to use Phalanx as a Proper Noun and CIWS as a Common Noun.

CIWS close in weapon support system yes i know its the same

[Kapitan]

phlanx and goal keeper are CIWS systems re read what i said i aimed at a specific type cause CIWS could also include sea dart seawolf missile systems.

pro russian yes but thats because aprocal your so blatently ignorant to the f**king obvious, your pro american so either way niether wins.

i know weapon systems i know unit types and capibilities i know what the russians can and cannot do aprocal im the commander of my own ship now shut the f**k up

sorry for the crimson tide quote felt the need :D (btw in 10 years i could be in command of my own ship)

russian equivelent to phlanx and goal keeper is the AK series of CIWS could have ment these or any other number of systems by saying CIWS and phlanx i specified a specific type.



as for america it can be defeated your navy embarrasingly was hit wasnt it USS Cole 2000 no big powerful mighty ships involved just the cole a sad state to see them people die because some stupid belief.

elait incident showed us no matter how big the ship it can be sunk by smaller faster more agile craft packing weapons of far less capibility.

just because america has a large navy doesnt mean she is undefeated same with russia china france everyone america will one day fall on its arse as every country has done, almost happend once it will happen again in fact america is on the verge of it now.

[Takeda Shingen]

Three pages of discussion to be summed up below:

captcav: Battleships can carry lots of weapons. We should use them.

TLAM: I agree.

Apocal: I think the program is needless drain on the budget, as we have more capable and efficient ships in production.

Kaptain: Russia big. Russia strong. Grrrrr.

[Kapitan]

allieluya <<< is that how you spell it ?

[TLAM Strike]

allieluya <<< is that how you spell it ?
Hallelujah

[compressioncut]

Because they weren't the main Point Defense system.

The Knox-class featured either old Seasparrow or Phalanx. The ones equipped with Seasparrow never referred to their mounts as CIWS mounts. Which is odd, considering that Seasparrow predates the Phalanx by at least eight years...

Presently, the Ronald Reagan and San Antonio have only RAM... yet it's still called RAM and never CIWS. In no official document is any weapon referred to as CIWS but the Mk. 15 Phalanx. Raytheon themselves (http://www.raytheon.com/products/ram/) don't refer to RAM as a "close-in weapon system", they call it a "guided missile weapon system" or describe it as "a supersonic, light-weight, quick-reaction, fire-and-forget missile designed to destroy antiship missiles.".

I'm looking through everything about RAM, nowhere do I see "RAM is a close-in weapon system"...



Yeah that's because Raytheon has to differentiate its system from things like Phalanx and Goalkeeper, because CIWS has become synonomous with rotary-cannon style point defence systems, despite the fact that you can use missiles for the same purpose. It's marketing, man.

I've seen RAM referred to as CIWS in publications and have also seen it briefed as such, because that's what it is. I don't think it deals too well with asymmetric threats, though, so I'm not sure why the RAM system is completely replacing Phalanx on some US units. Block 1B Phalanx can effectively deal with small surface targets - it's called the "Jetty Sweeper" in the Canadian Navy. I think the only real disadvantge compared to Goalkeeper, now, is the fact it still has to be reloaded seperately as opposed to a continuous feed system.

But I'm not an ASuW/AAW guy so I only get my stuff from eavesdropping. Take it as you will.

[Apocal]

Long post short, Seasparrow and ESSM are taking up the asymmetric threat where Block 1B isn't available. The Navy can't afford redunant weapon systems and when you have something that is capable against a small boat at a mile and something capable against the same at at many times greater the range... well the choice isn't a hard one to make.

[LuftWolf]

luftwaffe had a radio system where they could direct thier bombers right to thier targets sent out waves of dots and dashes.

No, that was a British system called "Oboe" used in Pathfinder Force units.

To the best of my knowledge the Luftwaffe never developed guidance systems for their bomber forces. Perhaps you are thinking of the coordination between German landbased radar and their night-fighters and flak units. :hmm:

[Kapitan]

i think i might be i know there was something and something else with something in between something so probably