"How would a modern naval battle (no carriers) be fought?" Topic
26 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern What-If Message Board Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor heads for Vicksburg...
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Deadone | 29 Jul 2014 7:12 p.m. PST |
Post 1945 naval battles became near extinct. Most of the ones fought since have been between small navies using small missile boats which were usually 245-1000 tons in weight. Most of the ones that involved larger ships involved either submarines sinking larger warships (ala Belgrano or Kukhri), airstrikes (ala destruction of Iranian frigate in 1988) or involved smaller missile ships (Indian Operation Trident in 1971 or sinking of Eliat in 1967). As far as I know the last engagements between larger ships was in 1956 in Suez: - 30/10/1956: Egyptian destroyer Ibrahim el Awal engaged by French destroyer Kersaint, Israeli destroyers Eliat and Yaffo as well as aircraft. Egyptian destroyer was damaged and captured by Israel. - 31/10/1956: Egyptian destroyer Domiat destroyed by light cruiser HMS Newfoundland. In these instances, the battles were traditional WWII style battles due to anti-ship missiles not yet in widespread service. So we don't really know how a modern naval battle would take place. Questions Assuming contested air superiority. 1. How would combat between two squadrons of frigates/destroyers of similar capability take place? Most carry only a small number of anti-ship missiles so would combat eventually revert to gun combat? 2. Would ship borne helicopters be of any use or would they be fodder for SAMs/AA? 3. How effective would CIWS be in stopping salvos of missiles? 4. At what ranges would combat occur? 5. How would combat in constricted sea space occur e.g. Aegean Islands or islands in Taiwan strait? Would this be pure gunnery due to short distances and "clutter" from islands? |
EJNashIII | 29 Jul 2014 9:11 p.m. PST |
"Most carry only a small number of anti-ship missiles so would combat eventually revert to gun combat?" It doesn't take many to wipe the map. You only need on each boat one more or so than the enemy defenses can handle. Assuming no fighter planes, most major players have light anti-ship missiles for their helicopters. link |
Lion in the Stars | 29 Jul 2014 9:11 p.m. PST |
Assuming FFG7s or Spruance (Burkes would be horrendous overkill): Helos launched to provide over-the-horizon radar data for Harpoons/equivalent. Launch Harpoons. Watch ships sink, hope the CIWS works for their incoming. A ship playing dirty at close-ish range might be able to use ESSMs (especially if they're quad-packed into VLS cells) for something much faster. ~40kg warhead at Mach 4, plus unburned fuel. If an SM2 was used as an antiship missile, I suspect that the target would burn to the waterline. 90+kg warhead at Mach 2, plus all the unburned fuel would be brutal, especially if it got a hull hit instead of a superstructure hit. In Operation Praying Mantis, a French-built La Combattante IIa gunboat (265 tons) wanted to pick a fight with USS Wainwright (CG28), USS Simpson (FFG56) and USS Bagley (FF1069).
The Joshan, an Iranian Combattante II Kaman-class fast attack craft, challenged USS Wainwright (CG-28) and Surface Action Group Charlie. The commanding officer of USS Wainwright directed a final warning (of a series of warnings) stating that the Joshan was to "stop your engines, abandon ship, I intend to sink you". Joshan responded by firing a Harpoon missile at them. The USS Simpson (FFG-56) responded to the challenge by firing four Standard missiles, while Wainwright followed with one Standard missile. All missiles hit and destroyed the Iranian ship's superstructure but did not immediately sink it, so USS Bagley (FF-1069) fired a Harpoon of its own; the missile did not find the target. SAG Charlie closed on the Joshan, with Simpson, then Bagley and Wainwright firing guns to sink the crippled Iranian ship. So SM2s are tolerable antiship missiles, in sufficient quantity. And most ships armed with SM2s carry a pretty decent number of them! |
Rich Bliss | 29 Jul 2014 9:30 p.m. PST |
The short answer is briefly. Most modern ships only need one or two missile impacts to incapacitate or sink. |
David Manley | 30 Jul 2014 9:29 a.m. PST |
I won't go into details, but from my personal experience I'd say that some of the preceding observations are "optimistic" :) |
nukesnipe | 30 Jul 2014 10:22 a.m. PST |
I was an Engineer/Deck Officer more than a Weaponeer, but I was TAO qualified. Here are my thoughts: 1. How would combat between two squadrons of frigates/destroyers of similar capability take place? Most carry only a small number of anti-ship missiles so would combat eventually revert to gun combat? *** Sort of hard to answer due to the number of variables involved. The goal is always to shoot and not be shot at, so if you know you have the range advantage, you'd try to keep it while coordinating your attacks so that your missiles arrive on target at the same time (STOT – Simultaneous Time on Top). If you are on the short end of the range stick, you really only have a few choices: decline combat, close rapidly to launch range, or try to sneak into range which can be hard to do in open water. Merchants are nice to hide behind…. Once the missiles are exhausted I'm not sure closing to gun range is really an option. Most modern ships have relatively small calibre guns (76mm, 54mm) which are not very good ship killers. You might be able to score a mission kill with them, but you need to get really, really close with those weapons. 2. Would ship borne helicopters be of any use or would they be fodder for SAMs/AA? *** Helos are vital. They are your eyes and ears, especially if you are trying to minimize the targeting data your enemy has. Your helos should be sent to lurk off-axis from you and the enemy (for instance, if the enemy is due north of you, you helos should be to the east or west of him) and relay targeting data to you. To improve their survivability, your helos will be doing "yo-yos", popping up above the radar horizon to obtain and transmit data, then dropping down below the horizon and scooting to a different location before popping up again. Note that during all of this, your ships are electronically silent. Nerve wracking as hell…. 3. How effective would CIWS be in stopping salvos of missiles? *** Can't really answer that as I have no idea. I've seen CIWS pluck 5" shells out of the sky, but that was in pretty ideal conditions. Assigning a pk (Probability of Kill) of about 0.7 (70%) would probably be a good start. The thing to remember is the time and distances involved in a modern missile duel. Most Harpoon/Exocet equivalent missiles move around Mach 0.9, which at sea level corresponds to about 9 miles per minute. Most of the actual missile war shots have been from within 20-25nm. You might pick up the launch as the missile enters its boost phase, but true sea skimmers do just that – skim the wave tops – so once it drops to its transit height you might not get it on radar until its 10-15 miles ways, which gives you just over a minute to react. Add to that the fact that most CIWS equivalent systems have engagement ranges of under 2nm (slightly longer for missile systems such as RAM) and your engagement time is reduced to about 10 seconds. A 3 to 5 second burst gives you about 5 seconds to respond to the next threat, assuming your adversary managed to achieve STOT. You probably stand a good chance of hitting the second missile, but the third will probably get through…. which is probably okay as you only had 3-5 engagements worth of ammo in your CIWS to begin with. 4. At what ranges would combat occur? *** That depends on the Rules of Engagement to which you are restricted. If you must VID (visually identify) your target and don't have a helo, you're looking at less than 15nm. If you're not allowed to accidentally clobber a non-combatant your ranges may be further affected. 5. How would combat in constricted sea space occur e.g. Aegean Islands or islands in Taiwan strait? Would this be pure gunnery due to short distances and "clutter" from islands? *** The ranges would necessarily be shortened, but missiles can still be used if you can differentiate your targets from land masses. Most modern missiles have adjustable seeker "swaths" (think field of view), so dialing the swath down to restrict the area being seen would help your missile in picking out the target from the land mass, at the price of possibly having your missile miss seeing the target in the first place. This is where IR (infrared) missile seekers come in handy…. Don't know if any of this helps. It's been a while, and my knowledge is getting dated. Regards, Scott Chisholm |
Legion 4 | 30 Jul 2014 12:23 p.m. PST |
|
Mako11 | 30 Jul 2014 5:25 p.m. PST |
Scott provided excellent answers. Here's my 5 cents (used to be 2, but devaluation is rampant): 1. How would combat between two squadrons of frigates/destroyers of similar capability take place? Depends upon the scenario, combatants, etc. I really see this as sort of a modern-day, old west gunfight, where the crew(s) that get(s) the drop on their opponent(s) has/have a big advantage, especially at shorter ranges, where they may not be able to respond to an attack, if hit by missiles Most carry only a small number of anti-ship missiles so would combat eventually revert to gun combat? Perhaps, though as mentioned, even a single hit by a decent sized SSM is going to most likely ruin your day. See what happened to the ships in the Falklands, which suffered a SSM, or single bomb hit. If not sunk outright, they are most likely out of the fight, due to a mission kill, and the need to concentrate on damage control, evacuation, etc. SSMs create a lot of shock damage, and frequently fires, even if they fail to detonate properly. 2. Would ship borne helicopters be of any use or would they be fodder for SAMs/AA? Absolutely, especially for detection, long-range surveillance, over the horizon missile targeting, etc. If they can stay at the visual, or radar horizon, they may be able to evade SAMs and flak fired at them. SSMs frequently have multi-legged capability, so may be able to attack enemy vessels from unexpected angles. 3. How effective would CIWS be in stopping salvos of missiles? Probably, quite effective at stopping the first few, with reduced capability against larger salvoes fired at the same time. RAM (Rolling Airframe Missiles), and other SAMs/guns may be able to help take down some of the inbound missiles too. Chaff, flares, radar seduction, etc. may be able to deflect more. 4. At what ranges would combat occur? Depends upon the rules of engagement, scenario, combatants, location, etc. If one side has longer-ranged weapons, or sensors, they'll attempt to try to maximize their advantages to the fullest, if they are smart. Know your enemy, and his capabilities. 5. How would combat in constricted sea space occur e.g. Aegean Islands or islands in Taiwan strait? Would this be pure gunnery due to short distances and "clutter" from islands? Generally, this will tend to reduce combat ranges, except where as list in 4, above, one side can use them to their advantage. Radar clutter, heat from rocks, buildings, etc. on shore may also adversely affect I/R seekers, etc. The smart captains/commanders will attempt to use land masses, islands, rocks, commercial vessels, weather, etc. to their advantage. |
Deadone | 30 Jul 2014 5:28 p.m. PST |
Thanks guys. It's a very interesting hypothetical especially as there are really no relevant historical precedents. It would be interesting to see how throwing an air defence destroyer to each side would change the outcomes in terms of missile and helicopter detection (but then I don't know if AEGIS etc works at sea level). |
Mako11 | 31 Jul 2014 4:03 p.m. PST |
I suspect it is fairly safe to suspect that it does, or very nearly so. You can probably go with various historical, WWII Japanese vs. USA destroyer/cruiser surprise encounter scenarios to get an idea on the effects of surprise, command/control/communications – known as C3i, radar/visual spotting, etc. on the combatants, and battle outcomes, since they are somewhat similar, though clearly, modern SSMs are far faster than long-range torpedo shots (though with similar lethality/damage levels to vessels from their respective eras). |
Lion in the Stars | 01 Aug 2014 12:43 p.m. PST |
(but then I don't know if AEGIS etc works at sea level). Depends on what you're trying to track, I think. Aegis was originally intended to handle Soviet-sized bomber raids (and their related missile swarms) on carrier groups. Most of those ASMs are not sea-skimmers to my knowledge. Plus, they'd be watched on radar as they dropped towards the sea. I'm quite sure that Aegis isn't going to track things like periscopes, but it probably would track Sub-Harpoons or Tomahawk ASMs. |
nukesnipe | 02 Aug 2014 9:10 a.m. PST |
I had an A-Jesus Acolyte once tell me the system could track a basketball at 250nm. I have no idea if that was/is true….. The system can easily track sea skimmers; don't know about periscopes. One of the original issues with the Aegis/SM2 and sea skimmers was the flight profile of the missiles. To increase the range the missiles initially convert chemical energy to potential energy by streaking to a stupid high altitude in a near vertical profile. They then tip over and travel toward their target at that high altitude and trade potential energy for kinetic energy in the terminal phase. Toward the end of their flight (at least with the SM2/Bk I we had on USS TEXAS (CGN 39)) the missiles are in unpowered flight. The problem with that flight profile is that in order to counter a sea skimmer the missile had to first travel vertically to stupid high altitude, then come back down to engage the target. Given the short engagement times, that flight profile became problematic. If I remember correctly, one of the early modifications to the system was to enable the missiles to do a quick turn over so they could more readily engage sea skimmers. On a side note, the early Aegis systems had problems in the littorals, especially in areas where there was a lost of dust in the air. The system would track atmospheric dust eddies as valid targets. It turned out that in the littorals the SPS-48C/SPS-49 combination with the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) package was actually better in those conditions. Of course, the USN decommissioned all the NTU ships because they, for the most part, were steam propulsion instead of gas turbine. In any event, that issue with the Aegis system has long been fixed. Regards, Scott Chisholm |
Lion in the Stars | 02 Aug 2014 10:20 a.m. PST |
@Mako: Subs still need to close in to visually ID targets (sonar isn't good at tracking surface ships unless you're close to the surface, and being close to the surface without having your scope up is asking to get run over). So you're talking about taking shots from within 15 miles or so, despite the long range of modern torps. The reason most modern torpedoes have such long range is to engage fast submarines, anyway. When a sub can exceed 33knots, it's possible to simply outrun a homing torpedo, as long as the sub can accelerate quickly enough and has enough initial separation. |
Ascent | 03 Aug 2014 12:07 p.m. PST |
So what rules would you use to play this scenario and what scale? |
Lion in the Stars | 04 Aug 2014 10:09 a.m. PST |
Well, the last time I did much Naval gaming was 1:1 scale… I'm not sure what rules I'd use, to be honest. I'm tempted to run this as a computer game, and just play Harpoon on the computer. The heck with Harpoon as a board/tabletop game. Once you start throwing mach-2 missiles around, mini scale is almost immaterial (all that matters is formation and missile approach angles), but I'd probably stick with 1/2400 or 1/3000 minis. 1"=1000yds has been my naval groundscale since doing things 1:1. 1"=1000yds is USN tactical plotting table scale! |
Lion in the Stars | 05 Aug 2014 3:58 p.m. PST |
I should clarify that. The last time I did modern Naval gaming, it was 1:1 scale. My WW2 naval was Seapower rules, 1:2400 scale GHQ ships, 1"=1000yards map scale. |
Mako11 | 06 Aug 2014 4:52 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the clarification Lion, though I really meant SSMs are now the "modern" equivalent of the WWII long-range torpedoes, and didn't mean to suggest that subs have over-the-horizon detection capabilities. I suspect in some cases (USA's perhaps), they do, if using satellite datalink info, and/or other methods for targeting enemy vessels with SSMs (SOSUS data, etc.), when using missiles with independent search, and terminal-homing capabilities (missile seekers with I/R, HOJ, radar-homing capabilities, etc.). |
Ken Hall | 07 Aug 2014 7:01 p.m. PST |
At the risk of repeating myself, I get good results with Mal Wright's Command Information Centre (a GQ1/2 modern variant). It's a lot more balanced with contested air superiority (as mentioned above), because an unmolested Hawkeye finds pretty much everything eventually. |
DavidinGlenreagh CoffsGrafton | 10 Aug 2014 8:07 p.m. PST |
G'day all, With regards to the below engagement, when I first read about it many years ago.. Assuming that the Iranian FAC had a full load out of 4 operational Harpoon SSM (and that may be a big assumption).. Why would the commander of the Joshan fire only a single SSM? Surely if you are going to attack a Task force you would launch all that you can and then run as fast & evasively as you can.. Same applies for the US response – overkill is something that you can explain to your admiral.. underkill and you may not be in any state to do explaining… as with the Joshan. Any-one know? (or would like to speculate – ;-) ) __________________________ In Operation Praying Mantis, a French-built La Combattante IIa gunboat (265 tons) wanted to pick a fight with USS Wainwright (CG28), USS Simpson (FFG56) and USS Bagley (FF1069). The Joshan, an Iranian Combattante II Kaman-class fast attack craft, challenged USS Wainwright (CG-28) and Surface Action Group Charlie. The commanding officer of USS Wainwright directed a final warning (of a series of warnings) stating that the Joshan was to "stop your engines, abandon ship, I intend to sink you". Joshan responded by firing a Harpoon missile at them. The USS Simpson (FFG-56) responded to the challenge by firing four Standard missiles, while Wainwright followed with one Standard missile. All missiles hit and destroyed the Iranian ship's superstructure but did not immediately sink it, so USS Bagley (FF-1069) fired a Harpoon of its own; the missile did not find the target. SAG Charlie closed on the Joshan, with Simpson, then Bagley and Wainwright firing guns to sink the crippled Iranian ship.
_________ |
Lion in the Stars | 11 Aug 2014 8:58 a.m. PST |
Assuming that the Iranian FAC had a full load out of 4 operational Harpoon SSM (and that may be a big assumption)..Why would the commander of the Joshan fire only a single SSM? My immediate suspicion is that only one missile managed to fire, due to stereotypical Islamic maintenance practices. Another possibility is standing orders to bring home 4 missiles or one kill per missile fired. As far as the US goes, note that the immediate response from the US was a firing of 4 Standard Missiles from one frigate, which had a single-rail launcher. I suspect that the cruiser was trying to keep the group protected from air and other attacks, since SM1s required a targeting signal (one dedicated antenna per target) from the ship. I believe that SM1s could share targeting info, so if you fired 4 missiles at one target, you'd only need one targeting dish for that target. I think the cruiser's one SM1 fired may have been handed over to the frigate's targeting radar. The Surface Action Group as a whole dumped 5 Standards into that FAC, after all, so I think 'overkill' was achieved. As for why a single Harpoon was fired, that was probably because the 500lb warhead on a Harpoon should have blown the FAC in half, so firing more than one was overkill once the FAC was no longer a threat. But when the remains of the FAC proved to be too small a radar target (or whatever else caused the Harpoon to not lock up the wreck), firing another $500,000 USD Harpoon would have been a waste when you can just close in and apply 3" and 5" gunfire to sink the hazard to navigation. |
nukesnipe | 11 Aug 2014 11:06 a.m. PST |
Your answer regarding Harpoon usage during Preying Mantis has to do with the missile fire doctrine in use at the time. Targets smaller than a frigate (corevttes, PCs, etc) rated a single Harpoon with a follow up as necessary. Frigates and Destroyers and some smaller cruisers rated 2 with follow ups. The FFGs like SIMPSON shot their Harpoons off their Mk13 rail launcher; consequently each Harpoon carried took a SM1 out of the magazine. The FFG-7 magazine only had 40 slots, one of which had to remain empty for magazine shuffles and a second that housed the maintenance "blue bird". Most FFGs only carried 4 Harpoons (and 34 SMs), so you had to be a bit stingy with them (ASuW was a secondary mission area for them after AAW and ASW). DDs and CGs carried 8 Harpoons as ASuW was a primary mission area. Similarly, there was a fire doctrine for the SM1 and SM2 missiles. SM1 was "shoot-shoot-look-shoot", meaning we shot two missiles in rapid succession at the target and evaluated the kill, then shot individual missiles until target kill. Due to the nature of the SM2/AEGIS system, missile doctrine used to be (I don't know if it still is) "shoot-look-shoot". Shooting SMs at a surface target might seem a bit odd, but if you were in an FFG it actually made a lot of sense. Lock up the target ship with your missile director and send a mach 2 missiles down range while you are setting up your Harpoon engagement. Follow the SMs with a dual-missile Harpoon salvo by shooting the first missile over the bow with an offset flight profile (i.e., shoot it over the bow and have it turn toward the target when you launched the second Harpoon) and follow it with a second missile shot down the target's bearing. If done correctly, both missiles should arrive on target at about the same time. Another thing to remember is that the goal isn't to sink ships – that takes too much effort. We were looking for mission kills, trying to render the target incapable of carrying on the fight. SMs were great for that, especially if they had expanding rod warheads (think 30-foot buzz saws) as those were ideal for taking out antennae. Regards, Scott Chisholm |
DavidinGlenreagh CoffsGrafton | 11 Aug 2014 7:49 p.m. PST |
Many thanks for the very interesting answers Scott and Lion! All the best David |
Mako11 | 12 Aug 2014 4:17 p.m. PST |
Perhaps the Iranians really tried to fire two missiles, and had a 50% failure rate, as well. Wouldn't be surprised at that, given their overall performance back in the day. As mentioned, the desire for making each shot count can't be discounted either, though it is poor doctrine against a foe with superior countermeasure capabilities. |
David in Coffs | 03 Feb 2015 3:38 a.m. PST |
G'day all, I recently got a copy of Task Force 421 – Operation Morvarid which could fill in some more details. Pre revolution Iran only received 8 or 12 Harpoons. P224 fired 3 (all missed) at Iraqui Osa's and one sunk with it in Nov 1980. In 1983 Iran sank 2 Osa's with Harpoons. So it could have been that Iran had only a single Harpoon to fire at the USN or if they had any more missiles they may have failed or not been on board. |
Lion in the Stars | 03 Feb 2015 12:33 p.m. PST |
Makes sense. I've always been under the impression that FAC doctrine was to launch all anti-ship weapons in a single flush, because the return fire is likely to be terminal to the FAC. No point in still having birds or torps onboard when you're sinking! |
David in Coffs | 03 Feb 2015 1:30 p.m. PST |
It is possible that P224 didn't fire it's last missile because of acquisition problems with the three that were fired and so was taking the last home rather than wasting it or perhaps it failed to fire. The Joshua that was later sunk by the USN was meant to have supported P224 but didn't perhaps due to mechanical issues. The first Stynx was evaded, the next crippled P224 the next two sank her. |
|