Thai navy joins pirate patrol

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by diver

Well it isn't supposed to be 'fun'.

And as TLAM Strike says, battling an assymetric attack by pirates or extremists or Iranian boghammers would be a very 'whites of the eyeballs' experience. I promise you when you are facing those kinds of threats all the modern firepower in the world wont eliminate your fear.

Just as Javelin missiles havnt stopped soldiers having to do nasty up close work, Harpoon missiles havnt seen the end of naval gunnery (of all calibres). I'd argue that the 5 inch mount is still the primary weapon of western escorts, except perhaps the 12.7mm.

never meant fun in real life. Modern naval warfare is pretty dull, but if you put a mixed WWII fleet vs another mixed WWII fleet, it would be VERY interesting. If a massive fleet battled one another today, itd be over in minutes. if they didnt sic nukes on one another, theyd just unleash a cascade of ASMs on each other.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

never meant fun in real life. Modern naval warfare is pretty dull, but if you put a mixed WWII fleet vs another mixed WWII fleet, it would be VERY interesting. If a massive fleet battled one another today, itd be over in minutes. if they didnt sic nukes on one another, theyd just unleash a cascade of ASMs on each other.

Well maybe not minutes. Aircraft still are not that fast when cruising over long distances, once one side has located the other the battle would last about an hour or so- battle including the time it takes to get to the target- otherwise both a WWII and Modern Day sea battle would last minutes.

Midway was over in the space of hours:
06:00 Spruance orders the attack
07:00 1st aircraft are launched
09:20 1st USN air attack on Japanese CTF
10:00 2nd USN air attack destroys majority of Japanese Carriers

Lets compare that to a hypothetical modern day engagement
06:00 AWACS detects RED carrier group at approx 1000 nm from carrier. (it could be a long longer but 1000 nm was about the max range of a WWII naval bomber)
(lets assume it takes roughly the same time to, fuel, load and ready the planes. Its really doesn't normally, but that is another topic...)
07:00 8 F/A-18 Hornets are launched with Harpoon ASMs and 8 F/A-18E Super Hornets are launched with AAW loadouts- both Hornet groups have drop tanks, 4 S-3B Vikings are launched for refueling. Speed about 600 knots (Avg cruise speed of F/A-18).
07:45 Strike package refuels approx 500 nm from carrier
08:30 Strike Package launches 16 AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, strike package refuels and returns to carrier around 10:00

Not much of a difference, about two hours at around the same distance. In other words the combat time is cut in about half.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well maybe not minutes. Aircraft still are not that fast when cruising over long distances, once one side has located the other the battle would last about an hour or so- battle including the time it takes to get to the target- otherwise both a WWII and Modern Day sea battle would last minutes.

Midway was over in the space of hours:
06:00 Spruance orders the attack
07:00 1st aircraft are launched
09:20 1st USN air attack on Japanese CTF
10:00 2nd USN air attack destroys majority of Japanese Carriers

Lets compare that to a hypothetical modern day engagement
06:00 AWACS detects RED carrier group at approx 1000 nm from carrier. (it could be a long longer but 1000 nm was about the max range of a WWII naval bomber)
(lets assume it takes roughly the same time to, fuel, load and ready the planes. Its really doesn't normally, but that is another topic...)
07:00 8 F/A-18 Hornets are launched with Harpoon ASMs and 8 F/A-18E Super Hornets are launched with AAW loadouts- both Hornet groups have drop tanks, 4 S-3B Vikings are launched for refueling. Speed about 600 knots (Avg cruise speed of F/A-18).
07:45 Strike package refuels approx 500 nm from carrier
08:30 Strike Package launches 16 AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, strike package refuels and returns to carrier around 10:00

Not much of a difference, about two hours at around the same distance. In other words the combat time is cut in about half.

i said MIXED fleet. mixed WWII fleets as in DD,CL,CA,BB and even SS. didnt mean including carriers in what i said. besides they wouldnt have to send fighters. just ship launched cruise missles. as opposed to WWII, where you cant detect fleets until theyre in your face practically, and having shells fly. there wouldve also been torpedoes flying.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i said MIXED fleet. mixed WWII fleets as in DD,CL,CA,BB and even SS. didnt mean including carriers in what i said. besides they wouldnt have to send fighters. just ship launched cruise missles. as opposed to WWII, where you cant detect fleets until theyre in your face practically, and having shells fly. there wouldve also been torpedoes flying.

No carriers? That's discounting one of the most important and decisive naval weapon in World War II; who has ever voluntarily sailed into combat without them?

In World War II fleets wouldn't be detected when they're 'in your face', there were amazing inventions such as recon aircraft (Even on cruisers and battleships) and shipborne radar that fixed this problem, much as they do nowadays.

And torpedoes can't technically fly without a rocket...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i said MIXED fleet. mixed WWII fleets as in DD,CL,CA,BB and even SS. didnt mean including carriers in what i said. besides they wouldnt have to send fighters. just ship launched cruise missles. as opposed to WWII, where you cant detect fleets until theyre in your face practically, and having shells fly. there wouldve also been torpedoes flying.

Fighters and bombers have greater range than cruise missiles. The only large ASM in the USN is the Harpoon with a range of only 70 nm. A F/A-18 Hornet has a combat radius of 400 nm, with refueling it could be extended to around 3100 nm using carrier based tanker aircraft only (S-3 Vikings).

Originally Posted by Raptor1

No carriers? That's discounting one of the most important and decisive naval weapon in World War II; who has ever voluntarily sailed into combat without them?

... off the top of my head I would have to say the HMS Hood, Prince of Wales, Repulse...

In World War II fleets wouldn't be detected when they're 'in your face', there were amazing inventions such as recon aircraft (Even on cruisers and battleships) and shipborne radar that fixed this problem, much as they do nowadays.

And torpedoes can't technically fly without a rocket...

Exactly as I recall after the Bismark sank the Hood she was tracked by shore based recon aircraft in addition to the RN Cruisers that trailed her.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

... off the top of my head I would have to say the HMS Hood, Prince of Wales, Repulse...

HMS Victorious was present and launched an attack on the Bismarck the very same day.

Prince of Wales and Repulse were supposed to have a carrier, HMS Indomitable, but she broke down along the way.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

HMS Victorious was present and launched an attack on the Bismarck the very same day...

But she was not part of the Hood/PofW SAG, she was assigned to the KGV/Repulse SAG about 300 nm to the south of Hood and thus not range to help much (Range of Fairey Swordfish only 475 nm).

Prince of Wales and Repulse were supposed to have a carrier, HMS Indomitable, but she broke down along the way.

Don't forget HMS Hermes a Light Carrier. She was considered too slow to operated with the two battleships but she was fully operational and in the area.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

No carriers? That's discounting one of the most important and decisive naval weapon in World War II; who has ever voluntarily sailed into combat without them?

In World War II fleets wouldn't be detected when they're 'in your face', there were amazing inventions such as recon aircraft (Even on cruisers and battleships) and shipborne radar that fixed this problem, much as they do nowadays.

And torpedoes can't technically fly without a rocket...

i know carriers were the turning point of naval warfare, ut im talking about good old fashion gunships. basically not counting ANY aircraft including recon, then yea youd detect fleets pretty dam close.

And respectfully, what are you smoking? we have intercontinental ballistic missles. we have missles that can travel anywhere in thw world. such as NUKES. You must be forgetting that subs have ICMB nukes. one missle = one dead fleet. plus, you can detect a fleet ANYWHERE in the world now thanks to satelites. WWII fleets had NOOOONE of that. hell, they still used celestial navigation. a battleship can throw a shell a HELL of a lot farther then it can pick up ships back then. So, assuming there isnt any recon of any sort, and lets just say its a little rough conditions, then Youll be in each others face before you get ahold of each other. there wasnt any kind of missles on those ships. Except for dumb rockets. those they did have. that meant that they had to rely on guns and torpedoes. i would pay whatever it took if i could see a giant WWII fleet battle. ones with all aspects. attacks by guns, torpedoes, and planes too. except THIs time the gunships will actually be in the fight as opposed to the normal Long range plane vs plane vs ship battles. that would be marvelous. very entertaining.

Itd be exciting to see the battle. and i have this wierd thrill about seing ships sink. i think watching the titanic when i was like 4 helped develop that. Its interesting to me to see giant behemoths like the Titanic and Yamato go under. i dont know why. and i also like to envision myself inside the actual ship when its sinking. Wierd thrill, i guess.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i know carriers were the turning point of naval warfare, ut im talking about good old fashion gunships. basically not counting ANY aircraft including recon, then yea youd detect fleets pretty dam close.

Well then you should focus on WWI, or that German fight they named that Battleship after. Because if you disregard Aircraft when discussing WWII you might as well discount Submarines or Radar as well.

And respectfully, what are you smoking? we have intercontinental ballistic missles. we have missles that can travel anywhere in thw world. such as NUKES. You must be forgetting that subs have ICMB nukes. one missle = one dead fleet. plus, you can detect a fleet ANYWHERE in the world now thanks to satelites.

Assuming the Recon Sats have not been taking out by ASAT birds or Hunter Killer Sats or blinded by ground based lasers. The US, and the USSR spent a lot of time and money on finding ways to do it, the threat go so real that they had to make a treaty to outlaw such weapons less one side use them and then launch a nuclear attack while the other side was blinded. (BTW the 1st successful satellite intercept was way back in the early '70s, by an manned armed spacecraft no less).

ICBMs can be taken out too. The SM-3 has proven that capability.

WWII fleets had NOOOONE of that. hell, they still used celestial navigation.

Incorrect while Celestial Navigation was important (its still used, read above to guess why) they did have radio navigation like the British GEE system..

a battleship can throw a shell a HELL of a lot farther then it can pick up ships back then. So, assuming there isnt any recon of any sort, and lets just say its a little rough conditions, then Youll be in each others face before you get ahold of each other. there wasnt any kind of missles on those ships. Except for dumb rockets. those they did have. that meant that they had to rely on guns and torpedoes. i would pay whatever it took if i could see a giant WWII fleet battle. ones with all aspects. attacks by guns, torpedoes, and planes too. except THIs time the gunships will actually be in the fight as opposed to the normal Long range plane vs plane vs ship battles. that would be marvelous. very entertaining.

Itd be exciting to see the battle. and i have this wierd thrill about seing ships sink. i think watching the titanic when i was like 4 helped develop that. Its interesting to me to see giant behemoths like the Titanic and Yamato go under. i dont know why. and i also like to envision myself inside the actual ship when its sinking. Wierd thrill, i guess.

Look up The Battle of Surigao Strait. Just about the only time such a thing happened in WWII. However the US Battleships utilized Radar for detection and fire control, the Japanese did not- take a wild guess how it turned out...

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well then you should focus on WWI, or that German fight they named that Battleship after. Because if you disregard Aircraft when discussing WWII you might as well discount Submarines or Radar as well.

Assuming the Recon Sats have not been taking out by ASAT birds or Hunter Killer Sats or blinded by ground based lasers. The US, and the USSR spent a lot of time and money on finding ways to do it, the threat go so real that they had to make a treaty to outlaw such weapons less one side use them and then launch a nuclear attack while the other side was blinded. (BTW the 1st successful satellite intercept was way back in the early '70s, by an manned armed spacecraft no less).

ICBMs can be taken out too. The SM-3 has proven that capability.

Incorrect while Celestial Navigation was important (its still used, read above to guess why) they did have radio navigation like the British GEE system..

Look up The Battle of Surigao Strait. Just about the only time such a thing happened in WWII. However the US Battleships utilized Radar for detection and fire control, the Japanese did not- take a wild guess how it turned out...

well, i love the Air aspect of WWII, but it was the last major war where major head-to-head gun battles.