Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[tonyH]

" and I am sure they will eventually be useful warships, well with some aircraft as well."
" There is stuff on the 'net suggesting Battleships, unmanned fighters and drones maybe the next big weapons in whatever combination."

Roy

What's the difference between a drone and an un-manned fighter?

[roycv]

Hi un-manned fighters seem to be very expensive and use computer systems to manoeuvre and use evasive systems to attack.  Also they come back to re-arm etc. 

Drones would seem to be as per the Iranians ones as supplied to the Russians and more the kamikaze idea.
Anyone got any comments on this?
Roy

[KitS]

Wonder why they used a Spitfire to take that shot?

Perhaps because a couple of them fly out of Goodwood, not that far away, and they just happened to spot both carriers below them?

[Colin Bishop]

The US Navy is having a re-think about strategy after the Ukraine missile attack on the pride of the Russian fleet, Moskva.  Clearly very disabled if not sunk.  There is stuff on the 'net suggesting Battleships, unmanned fighters and drones maybe the next big weapons in whatever combination.
Unless I am also being sucked into a mis-information web!

A reliable RN source told me that the RN was also surprised about just how easily the Moskva appeared to have succumbed to a couple of Harpoon type missiles. However this may have been down to outdated equipment and Russian incompetence as much as anything. Their military is making a pretty poor showing at the moment and much of their latest gear doesn’t seem to be working too well.

Drones are and unmanned weapon platforms are of course all the rage at the moment but this is simply another manifestation of the pendulum swinging between offense and defence. It used to be all about guns versus armour back in the Victorian navy days and topped out at 16 inch guns and 24 inch armour until things got a bit ridiculous as these huge guns took ages to reload and were unlikely to hit a moving target while ships became unable to carry the weight of armour needed to defeat them. And then the French came up with the idea of a navy on the cheap whereby small, nimble torpedo boats could ‘swarm’ battleships and make them obsolete. It never happened, although the torpedo (along with the bomb), did kill off the battleship when used from aircraft, and, to a lesser extent, submarines.

Drones are having some success in Ukraine because they are operating over land where the targets are easily identified. As one of our Admirals has said, it’s a different story at sea because the targets are moving around and have to be found. So to make a successful strike, the drone or missile must be guided in some way. Either via a remote link or by using its own active and passive sensors which in both cases render it electronically or physically vulnerable to defensive action. At the moment the latter will be surface or to air missiles, electronic jamming or high volume gunfire. Many warships now building are being given extra electrical generating capacity to allow for the use of high energy beam weapons as they become available. And so the pendulum begins to swing back.

Colin

[Baldrick]

Perhaps because a couple of them fly out of Goodwood, not that far away, and they just happened to spot both carriers below them?

And those spits are both tandem cockpit  (experience flips )

[tonyH]

The implication, therefore, is that weaponry delivery systems have to be reactive. They need to be adaptable in a much shorter time than POW/Type26 etc. The actual weapon, whether a lump of stuff to hit with or a "magic" beam is irrelevant. Nor is whatever fires/transmits the payload over a relatively short distance to the target. Drones are cheap, can be cloud launched and are adaptable.  Any supposedly "worldwide" navy is going to have to carry the drone/unmanned plane/boat/vehicle to the theatre, as it did in mid 1982 and in that context Prince of Wales is worse than Ben-my-Cree because the latter fulfilled the "now" while the production line, including the political musings, of the former is typically disastrous.
H rrump!

[dodes]

You are not wrong, aircraft carriers have their uses, but they are extremely vulnerable to missiles and have been for some time. Just think half a dozen super sonic missiles coming in and it only needs one to hit. I see those 3 x hi tec destroyers they have are now being armed with 9 x super sonic missiles, says something.

[Colin Bishop]

You are not wrong, aircraft carriers have their uses, but they are extremely vulnerable to missiles and have been for some time.

Ah, but we don't know that for sure as no aircraft carriers have been hit by missiles to date. As with all weapon systems, it is only when they are actually in action that you will see the reality. As an example, who would have expected the Russian tanks invading Ukraine to be so vulnerable to portable anti tank missiles? They stored their ammunition in the turret next to the crew and when hit, everything exploded and blew the turret sky high. I bellieve the American tanks store their ammunition separately from the crew compartment which gives the crew a better chance of survival. In any event, the cost of a shouder mounted missile is peanuts compared with the cost of a destroyed modern main battle tank.

Aircraft carriers are expected to be screened by their escorting ships and  submarines and also their own aircraft which detect incoming threats. It is a layered defence and the emphasis is on co ordinated electronic management and reaction to incoming threats by all the vessels and aircraft involved. That is why everything is so expensive these days.

The underlying lesson is that things do not always turn out as expected and this has always been the case so the outcome of a conflict can be very difficult to predict. The Russians expected to just roll over Ukraine with their superior numbers but have been fought to a standstill and reduced to simply lobbing shells and missiles into Ukranian territory which might do a lot of collateral damage but doesn't necessarily impact much on the military situation.

There is a lot being said about hypersonic missilles but also evidence that they are not necessarily that effective against a moving target which requires last minute course corrections at high speed. A near miss is still a miss and American carriers undergo shock tests to check that they are resistant to proximity explosions.

All of us armchair warriors don't know the half of it!

Colin

[raflaunches]

Ah, but we don't know that for sure as no aircraft carriers have been hit by missiles to date. As with all weapon systems, it is only when they are actually in action that you will see the reality. As an example, who would have expected the Russian tanks invading Ukraine to be so vulnerable to portable anti tank missiles? They stored their ammunition in the turret next to the crew and when hit, everything exploded and blew the turret sky high. I bellieve the American tanks store their ammunition separately from the crew compartment which gives the crew a better chance of survival. In any event, the cost of a shouder mounted missile is peanuts compared with the cost of a destroyed modern main battle tank.

Hi Colin


The main reason discovered as to why Russian tanks seem to be so susceptible to the anti-tank missiles has found to be that the explosive reactive armour (ERA) isn’t actually fitted! What appears to ERA plates are just the plates without the explosive part! So they look all singing and dancing modern tanks but in reality they are only pretending. And as you say, the internal layout doesn’t help either with internal explosions.

[Colin Bishop]

That's really interesting Nick. Is the implication that somebody has syphoned off the funding for the reactive armour or was it never fitted in the first place due to budget constraints?

I have only visited Russia once on a Baltic cruise calling at  St Petersburg. The palaces etc. were spectacular but it is an alien place. We were there for two days and took two coach excursions to see the sights. During these we witnessed no less than 30 separate road accidents. One was a huge fire involving two vehicles. There were survivors sitting on the roadside and other victims dying in the burning wreckage as we subsequently heard. Meanwhile the traffic just kept flowing around the conflagration as if it was just a minor obstruction. Just unbelievable really.

Colin

[raflaunches]

Hi Colin


No-one is 100% certain which is the case as both are plausible.
I’ve always wanted to see the Aurora but I think that’ll never be possible with current events and my job being exact opposites of what is considered to be safe or wise.

[Colin Bishop]

We missed seeing  the Aurora  too due to traffic delays. Still, there is always the Averoff in Greece.

 Colin

[tonyH]

Aircraft carriers are expected to be screened by their escorting ships and  submarines and also their own aircraft which detect incoming threats. It is a layered defence and the emphasis is on co ordinated electronic management and reaction to incoming threats by all the vessels and aircraft involved. That is why everything is so expensive these days.

It's not just the escorts which support the carriers. What's important as well is the supply vessels which, generally, are soft targets. No fuel, spares or food and the shooting stops. Little boats such as those below worked in the Straights of Hormuz. They can carry anti ship missiles with ranges up to 170Km for the Chinese C705 or they can come in close with batteries of 8 short range ones.
You may find the attached intesting
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/12/iran-boosts-ircg-navy-swarm-attack-capabilities/

[Colin Bishop]

Yes, an interesting article.

Colin

[dodes]

Remember that the two large modern for then Italian Battle ships of the Litta Loro class were sunk by one remote controlled 350lb aerial bomb each dropped from 40,000 ft. As mention before the Chinese developed some years ago 7.5 ton missile with 1600mile range, which leaves low orbit then dives vertical at the intended floating target, much like the old V2's. If one of those missles hit the Gerald Ford it would not need a warhead as it's kinetic energy would disable it or probably sink it. As our previous comment mentions the soft target, when the old previous class of three , were at sea, following below the horizon was a RFA Fort class vessel as their mobile bomb bay.

[raflaunches]

Hi Dodes


The Fritz X flying bomb is the weapon you’re thinking of- three of them sunk the Roma- they had 720lb war heads fired by a Dornier 217 at about 18,000ft which had to stay in visual contact with the target so they could correct via radio control. The most famous battleship to be hit by two of them was the Warspite which survived the attack but quite badly damaged.
The main issue that modern missiles still suffer is that they still have to find the target and at sea it’s difficult to find a moving vessel and even then it must be a nightmare to actually hit it due to sea conditions and weather conditions.

[dodes]

Hi Nick, yeah I was watching a programme on t/v and that was what the figure was given, one bomg went down right through the armoured decks and blew a whacking great hole in the bottom of the hull shell, but what I am saying a 7.5 ton vertical diving missile at the faster than the speed of town will take out a aircraft carrier or disable it to such an extant it is none operational. These super sonic missiles do not need a warhead as their kinetic energy is like a tactical nuclear bomb going off. Though I hear our new carriers are not supposed to get within 1600 miles of a hot area, that is the reasion given for not shock trialling them or fitting any of their equipment on shock absorbent mountings which used to be the norm. There is a use for them , but what I believe is that they are now going the way of the battleship. Against small countries with limited weaponery okay but China or even Russia, then !!!!

[Colin Bishop]

but what I believe is that they are now going the way of the battleship.

Actually they are becoming more numerous!  America are committed to replacing their Nimitz class, Russia is spending a lot of money trying to refurbish the ancient one they have got, Japan are building one and converting two other ships to fixed wing operations, India has just commissioned a new one in addition to the second hand one they have, France has one and is designing a nuclear powered replacement, Spain and Italy both have one small one each. Carriers have never been more popular since WW2.

Colin

[dodes]

Aye Colin the major navies seem to be building new updated, though most seem to be fixed wing carriers which tells us something, but at 71 soon 72 I am more interested now in my spirit store than new warships. New boats come with a fanfare, then along comes something more newer and the former goes the way of the former on a beach with low paid workers with sledge hammers and gas axes ripping them apart. Watched the film " Sink the Bismarck" I was impressed when the last Ark Royal played her name sake in the film, she really looked the part of a pucker carrier and she had a full load of fixed wing aircraft. But before I sign off i wish everyone on this site A happy and prosperous New Year. (At least I manage to get some comments on this page!!!!)

[Baldrick]

 

Spain and Italy both have one small one each

[/size]

    I thought that was Goring and Himmler.

 

[tonyH]

When was the last time an aircraft carrier was used, by anyone, practically in anger and not (a) to give assistance with civil disasters or (b) a psychological projection of national ego? I honestly don't know

[JimG]

Russia sent there's to Syria and I believe it flew off aircraft in offensive sorties.  Of course that didn't last long as the carrier was soon non operational and limping home.

[Colin Bishop]

On that basis, when was the last time a nuclear submarine fired an ICBM in anger? It's all about power projection and deterrent.

In fact the last time a carrier used fixed wing planes in anger was in 2016/2017 by the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov during the Syrian campaign. Two planes were lost in accidents.

Then of course back in 1982, the Hermes and Invincible were key assets in the Falklands War with many sorties against the Argentine forces with their Harrier aircraft. They were vital to the war effort.

The measure of success of a naval asset is not necessarily determined by it's military strikes but in th extent it deters enemy action. The presence of the RN nuclear submarines kept the Argentinian navy in port after the sinking of the General Belgrano and the two carriers provided air defence over the Islands while they were retaken by British forces - a pretty convincing demonstration of applied naval air power.

The two QE class carriers have been labelled as targets by Russia and China but they don't sail alone and in order to get to one involves taking on their integrated support forces which include nuclear attack submarines. Same applies even more to the US Carrier groups.

To hit a carrier the incoming missile has to face the support group defences and then the target will be moving around very quickly. A carirer at full speed will cover its own length in under 30 seconds which doesn't give much opportunity for course correction by incoming missiles especially in the face of electronic countermeasures. Hypersonic missiles are subject to course correction issues in identifying the target and making last minute changes at those speeds. All very difficult stuff in a real life sitiuation.

Colin

[Capt Podge]

The presence of the RN nuclear submarines kept the Argentinian navy in port

... A certain R. N. diesel / electric Patrol submarine also performed this vital role throughout the campaign. (name of the boat withheld) 


Aye,
Ray.

[Colin Bishop]

Interesting! But where was it based as the diesel electric subs don't have the range or endurance of the nuclear boats?

Colin