It stands for “Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile”. In tests it took down incoming drones maneuvering at 9 g’s at Mach 2+ (roughly the same capabilities of missiles like the Moskit or Sunburn).
Thanks for the link. What a fabulous weapon system.
Thanks for the link. What a fabulous weapon system.
The sparrow is amazing. I can’t find it via google just yet but I remember back in the late 80’s or early 90’s when we were doing some joint ops with the Turks right after we sold them some Kidd class DDGs. Somehow, a gunny got smart and gave it the old college try to see if he could get a lock on a ship itself with a sparrow and accidentally launched. I seemed to remember the missile, which wasn’t armed, removed a rather sizeable portion of the deck. Thank goodness the Turks were understanding.
What Raytheon has been able to do with them is astounding.
Still, getting to watch a Sea Whiz do it’s thing is a really impressive but scary thing. I’d personally have rather had all the picket defenses do their jobs catching, oops, shooting down, the missiles for the carrier before phalanx would ever need to be used but that ripping leather sound does give you the willies.
Then of course if it even hits the Carrier, it isn’t going to sink it, as it requires 6-7 hits (according to Soviet estimates) to knock out a US Carrier. They also said they couldn’t do anything to a Battleship but that’s a whole different story.
When they still did open air testing of nukes, they nuked an Iowa class. Still couldn’t get them to sink after a couple of attempts by naval demolitions guys who supposedly specialized in scuttling craft. The things are just to darn well built.
Anyway, the Soviets built the Slavas or Kirov, I can’t remember which, basically with the sole idea of if you thrown enough Shiprwecks at the Iowa’s, you’d be bound to hurt one. And you’d have to throw lots and lots of them. I don’t think they ever thought they’d actually sink the Iowa class ships, just disable them or keep them busy with fire control.
Still, with modern VLS, etc, the Iowa’s are an anachronism almost. The idea of hurling 2700lb 16" unguided projectiles in todays world seems almost funny.
Still, with modern VLS, etc, the Iowa’s are an anachronism almost. The idea of hurling 2700lb 16" unguided projectiles in todays world seems almost funny.
The 16" 50 caliber guns on a the Iowas are the most accurate of their kind ever built. With new rounds that were developed by DARPA in the 1980’s (and proved to be successful) the range of the guns are extended from a mere 25 miles out to 100+ miles. Combined with GPS guidance in these warheads, the Iowas would be the most effective warships in our arsenal.
We have a major lack of NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support). The plan to fill this gap will not be fulfilled until the new DD(X) class destroyers get into service. Even then it will not be able to match the capability of the battleships. In fact a battleship in a single day can deliver a payload per day that is 6 times greater then a carrier.
Total cost of reactivating, upgrading, and running 2 Battleships is the same as it costs to just buy 2 B2 Bombers (roughly 2 billion dollars). The amount of firepower that a battleship can deliver for it’s cost is unbeatable by any foreseeable platform.
Just imagine: Post one off these off the coast of North Korea with upgraded shells, improved fire control system, firefinder radars, and 61 Caliber 5" Guns we would deliver over 1600, 16" shells and over 10000, 5" shells on an incoming North Korean invasion force.
A single tomahawk costs 1.2 million dollars and can’t provide immediate NSFS. A single 11" Sabot BB(base bleed) round would cost 1/5th of that and it can provide immediate NSFS. Anything within 50 nm can be taken out by unguided rounds that cost 1/1000th of a Tomahawk. This on top of the fact that in order to match the payload of a single BB you would have to have 1600 VLS cells filled with Tomahawks, and we don’t even have 1600 tomahawks in both fleets combined (pacific and atlantic), let alone in one theater of operations.
We have a major lack of NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support). The plan to fill this gap will not be fulfilled until the new DD(X) class destroyers get into service. Even then it will not be able to match the capability of the battleships. In fact a battleship in a single day can deliver a payload per day that is 6 times greater then a carrier.
Total cost of reactivating, upgrading, and running 2 Battleships is the same as it costs to just buy 2 B2 Bombers (roughly 2 billion dollars). The amount of firepower that a battleship can deliver for it’s cost is unbeatable by any foreseeable platform.
The new DD (X) class are almost spooky in how high quality they are. You are right in that the payload per day capabilities of a DD(X) vs a battleship are not even close. But, given the political implications of the ability to direct fire from cruise missiles vs shells, it does make a certain sense to ramp up the production of the DD(X) and other systems.
Offshore bombardment like we did really to good effect last in Beirut wouldn’t be an easy sale today diplomacy wise. There is something very “sanitary” about a harpy going through some bad guys bathroom window versus a 16" taking out the bad guys building and neighboring buildings.
The June issue of Imprimis had a really good article by a former muckety muck of the Navy discussing the risk/benefit analysis of performing the DARPA upgrades to the Iowa’s versus plowing leaving them as is and going full bore into production with the new systems. I think the Navy will be much better off once the DD(X) gets underway and in fighting shape. Personally, I’m looking forward into seeing what they make of the LCS variants. Ever since they ditched the Pegasus, there hasn’t been really nice shallow draft swift boat that can show some killing power. 45 knots with a 20 foot operational depth. That is scary.
The new DD (X) class are almost spooky in how high quality they are. You are right in that the payload per day capabilities of a DD(X) vs a battleship are not even close. But, given the political implications of the ability to direct fire from cruise missiles vs shells, it does make a certain sense to ramp up the production of the DD(X) and other systems.
Actually I was referring to the AGS on the DD(X). It is a 155mm Howitzer (62 caliber I believe) that can pump out 12 rounds/minute. It’s the only real NSFS asset we will have in the foreseeable future. They are trying to give a destroyer the capacity to do something it can not. It can only hold 700 rounds of 155mm ammunition while a BB can hold 1600 rounds for the 16" (406mm) guns on top of 10,000+( I don’t recall the actual number) rounds for the 5" guns (121mm). And all of this you get for the price of an initial production DD(X).
Offshore bombardment like we did really to good effect last in Beirut wouldn’t be an easy sale today diplomacy wise. There is something very “sanitary” about a harpy going through some bad guys bathroom window versus a 16" taking out the bad guys building and neighboring buildings.
Given the political climate, your probably right. If we should or not, is a different question entirely.
The June issue of Imprimis had a really good article by a former muckety muck of the Navy discussing the risk/benefit analysis of performing the DARPA upgrades to the Iowa’s versus plowing leaving them as is and going full bore into production with the new systems. I think the Navy will be much better off once the DD(X) gets underway and in fighting shape.
The DD(X)'s AGS will have a range of 100 miles, if we’re lucky and they manage to get through the design phase without a hitch. It will have to be well within range of anti-ship missiles and will have to rely on it’s stealth to stay alive. Where as with a BB, you may be able to see it, but you can’t do crap about it.
Personally, I’m looking forward into seeing what they make of the LCS variants. Ever since they ditched the Pegasus, there hasn’t been really nice shallow draft swift boat that can show some killing power. 45 knots with a 20 foot operational depth. That is scary.
It also has no credible weapons.
http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/…M_msncap_05.jpg (Lockheed Martin)
http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/…alconcpethr.png (General Dynamics)
Actually I was referring to the AGS on the DD(X). It is a 155mm Howitzer (62 caliber I believe) that can pump out 12 rounds/minute. It’s the only real NSFS asset we will have in the foreseeable future. They are trying to give a destroyer the capacity to do something it can not. It can only hold 700 rounds of 155mm ammunition while a BB can hold 1600 rounds for the 16" (406mm) guns on top of 10,000+( I don’t recall the actual number) rounds for the 5" guns (121mm). And all of this you get for the price of an initial production DD(X).
If I remember correctly though, the AGS will literally be able to drop a significant number of those rounds all at once on target so there is a force multiplying factor. I’m not familiar with it but the Army is intigrating a similar system with their new version their mobile howitzer systems. They can tie mutlitple howitzers together like multiple DD(X) can link together as if they are 1 and put act as if they a much bigger ship. Anyway, their guns are really an afterthought. I think most naval designers would take the space used for guns and devote it more missile for the precise reason you’ve got to be relatively close by modern standards to use them.
Given the political climate, your probably right. If we should or not, is a different question entirely.
Can’t help but agree with you there.
It also has no credible weapons.
Now it doesn’t. But I’m willing to bet that the Navy isn’t going to build that fast of a boat with a shallow draft and a wicked propulsion system just to have an invisible helo delivery vehicle. Though, I can see them having good reason to have a near invisible ship that can park itself in shallow water and launch special forces types. For them, the gun system would make a great deal of sense as they are going to be up and close to the opposing forces. At that range, missiles would be counteroductive. Use the gun to give cover fire and rely on offshore assets to provide the majority of fire. Still, it will probably end up getting used in CnC roles or as a subhunter or some such role.
If I remember correctly though, the AGS will literally be able to drop a significant number of those rounds all at once on target so there is a force multiplying factor.
Yah, they fire them at varying angles and varying amount of powder so they can get up to 8 rounds to land at the exact same time. A single salvo from a BB can put 9, 16" rounds on target.
I’m not familiar with it but the Army is intigrating a similar system with their new version their mobile howitzer systems.
In their FCS (Future Combat System). It’s the NLOS-C (non line of site-cannon) variant. They should have just kept the Crusader IMHO.
I think most naval designers would take the space used for guns and devote it more missile for the precise reason you’ve got to be relatively close by modern standards to use them.
Guns can reach a target in several minutes. A missile takes over an hour to reach the target. If an outnumbered unit is surrounded chances are a missile will get their too late.
But I’m willing to bet that the Navy isn’t going to build that fast of a boat with a shallow draft and a wicked propulsion system just to have an invisible helo delivery vehicle. Though, I can see them having good reason to have a near invisible ship that can park itself in shallow water and launch special forces types. For them, the gun system would make a great deal of sense as they are going to be up and close to the opposing forces. At that range, missiles would be counteroductive. Use the gun to give cover fire and rely on offshore assets to provide the majority of fire. Still, it will probably end up getting used in CnC roles or as a subhunter or some such role.
I’m sure it will be done in the most exspensive inefficient manner.
Guns can reach a targets in several minutes. A missile takes over an hour to reach the target. If an outnumbered unit is surrounded chances our a missile will get their too late.
True, but the idea I read was the gun and another system on them that I didn’t see on the current diagrams they would be able to hold their own for a while. Obviously, at the 1st sign of trouble they’d run like heck for cover.
Yes missiles would take to long to reach if a plane or helo is hot on their tail that they weren’t able to handle themselves, but the idea I read was they were basically going to bristle like porcupine when it came to air assets that would attack them. The guns would provide enough cover against land and other seaborne assets as to give them enough time to get back under the cover of their operational units. Read he guys with real weapons.
I’m sure it will be done in the most exspensive inefficient manner.
I think this line qualifies as the understatement of the month.
True, but the idea I read was the gun and another system on them that I didn’t see on the current diagrams they would be able to hold their own for a while. Obviously, at the 1st sign of trouble they’d run like heck for cover.
In the two different diagrams there were two different guns. The one on the LM boat was a 35mm millenium cannon and the one from GD has a 57mm cannon. Both of them had SeaRAM (replacement for Phalanx) which is what I think you were talking about. From what I’ve read it’s very effective against incoming cruise missiles. I will have to give it this: it would be quite an effective anti-cruise missile/sub screen for the rest of the fleet. Giving it some more powerful weapons wouldn’t hurt either.
Yes missiles would take to long to reach if a plane or helo is hot on their tail that they weren’t able to handle themselves, but the idea I read was they were basically going to bristle like porcupine when it came to air assets that would attack them. The guns would provide enough cover against land and other seaborne assets as to give them enough time to get back under the cover of their operational units. Read he guys with real weapons.
I saw some videos from the 35mm gun that is going to be on the LM version (if it wins). It can knock out boats (like the one that hit the USS Cole) and helicopters very effectively. I don’t know that much about the 57mm gun, but I believe it’s Swedish.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4006/
I think this line qualifies as the understatement of the month.
Just imagine what kind of weapon systems we would have if the tree of liberty was refreshed (so to speak).
I saw some videos from the 35mm gun that is going to be on the LM version (if it wins). It can knock out boats (like the one that hit the USS Cole) and helicopters very effectively.
AHEAD should make the sea whiz look downright amateur if it works right and they can get it deployed. Sadly from the article, it does look like the Navy is relegating them to the role of hurling UAV’s and helos and playing subcatcher. Which is ironic because it doesn’t have any sort of ASROC array that I saw. Maybe I missed it. Bit of a change from what I orginially I heard it’s mission was but that is the military for you.
I don’t know that much about the 57mm gun, but I believe it’s Swedish.
Bofors, with the exception of the whole Sgt. York debacle (and that wasn’t their fault) manages to put out some fine equipment. There is a reason they have been around for over a century. Ironic and off topic but didn’t Alfred Nobel found or at least own Bofors at one point? Funny, the peace prize being awarded by some of the most amazing cannon makers in the world.
edit for content
On a somewhat related topic to the original post, has anyone read about the three Chinese defectors who are applying for aslyum in Australia? I’ll try to find a link…
http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/062705.htm
Also somewhat related:
With its economy growing nine percent a year and the US/China trade deficit growing twenty-five percent a year there is no denying China is becoming a force to be reckoned with. Although China has been increasingly embracing capitalism and has opened itself to the international market the Communist party and Hu Jintao show no sign of releasing its grip on the country. Along with its booming economy China has been spending more and more money on its military power, which seems to dramatically improve year after year. With no real regional enemies many wonder what’s this military build up for? China has also been increasing more and more pressure on Taiwan (which China sees as a rouge state) threatening to enforce its “One China Policy” with coercion. Will China turn to capitalism and western ideas? Or will its red leaders continue to use force to implement its policies? I would love to hear what everyone thinks.
With its economy growing nine percent a year and the US/China trade deficit growing twenty-five percent a year there is no denying China is becoming a force to be reckoned with. Although China has been increasingly embracing capitalism and has opened itself to the international market the Communist party and Hu Jintao show no sign of releasing its grip on the country. Along with its booming economy China has been spending more and more money on its military power, which seems to dramatically improve year after year. With no real regional enemies many wonder what’s this military build up for? China has also been increasing more and more pressure on Taiwan (which China sees as a rouge state) threatening to enforce its “One China Policy” with coercion. Will China turn to capitalism and western ideas? Or will its red leaders continue to use force to implement its policies? I would love to hear what everyone thinks.
Sorry, I wrote this at the beginning of the forum. I don’t know how it ended up here. I don’t mean to sound like Mr. Johnny Come Lately.
This is what would happen to China if they invaded Taiwan. Their military capacity would be zero within 3 weeks. Taiwan would be retaken. The US would buy its cheap crap from somewhere else. Its not going to happen. They can dream up all the EMP/computer virus weapons they want but the end result will be the same. In order to be successful they would have to invade Taiwan, Japan, India, Western Russia, and knock out the US Navy all at once so no-one could retaliate quickly. Then they would have to nuke the USA before we nuked them and we all know how those scenarios work. No one wins those. I think its more likely a less hard-line govt will come into place and they will be content with being a somewhat mixed economy.
This is what would happen to China if they invaded Taiwan. Their military capacity would be zero within 3 weeks.
Whose military capacity? China’s?
Taiwan would be retaken. The US would buy its cheap crap from somewhere else. Its not going to happen. They can dream up all the EMP/computer virus weapons they want but the end result will be the same. In order to be successful they would have to invade Taiwan, Japan, India, Western Russia, and knock out the US Navy all at once so no-one could retaliate quickly.
But this presupposes that we would retaliate quickly. We did not retaliate quickly even to direct attacks against America on 9/11.
We have not retaliated against Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Iran even though they are sending terrorists to kill our troops in Iraq.
We do not retaliate when China fires upon and forces down our reconnaissance aircraft – instead we apologize.
And when China ignores patents and copyright laws, we go to the W.T.O. or the U.N.
Then they would have to nuke the USA before we nuked them and we all know how those scenarios work. No one wins those. I think its more likely a less hard-line govt will come into place and they will be content with being a somewhat mixed economy.
What will make the hard-liners leave?
We have the military power to utterly destroy any of our potential enemies – China included; sadly, we do not seem to have the will power.
This is what would happen to China if they invaded Taiwan. Their military capacity would be zero within 3 weeks. Taiwan would be retaken. The US would buy its cheap crap from somewhere else. Its not going to happen. They can dream up all the EMP/computer virus weapons they want but the end result will be the same. In order to be successful they would have to invade Taiwan, Japan, India, Western Russia, and knock out the US Navy all at once so no-one could retaliate quickly. Then they would have to nuke the USA before we nuked them and we all know how those scenarios work. No one wins those. I think its more likely a less hard-line govt will come into place and they will be content with being a somewhat mixed economy.
I think you’re over estimating our military and underestimating the Chinese. I seriously doubt we would be able to remove China from Taiwan. Our only hope would be to stop them in the process. The problem is that the attack would probably come suddenly and swiftly there would be no time for us to align our forces in time to intervene. We might have one carrier in the area but the Chinese would easily sink it. I seriously doubt we would be able to remove hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers from Taiwan. If we stopped trading with them it would most likely hurt us a lot more than it would them. They are the largest market in the world and produce a lot more high-evolved products in the US than I think you realize.
We might have one carrier in the area but the Chinese would easily sink it.
What makes you think that the Chinese could sink one of our AEGIS-protected supercarrier groups, much less that it would be “easy?”
I think you’re over estimating our military and underestimating the Chinese. I seriously doubt we would be able to remove China from Taiwan. Our only hope would be to stop them in the process. The problem is that the attack would probably come suddenly and swiftly there would be no time for us to align our forces in time to intervene.
If we had the will power, we could defeat the Chinese air and naval forces, mine all of their harbors and close the straits of Taiwan, leaving any invasion force cut-off from re-supply.
We might have one carrier in the area but the Chinese would easily sink it.
How? Are you aware of the layered defenses that accompany a U.S. carrier at sea?
I seriously doubt we would be able to remove hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers from Taiwan.
Getting hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Taiwan would require a Normandy-style amphibious assault – and we would detect such a build-up.
A more likely scenario, in my opinion, would be an airborne assault on Taipei to seize the government and declare reunification. The U.S. would probably protest to the U.N., who would do nothing whatsoever, and after a few weeks and countless Chinese assurances that Taiwan would “remain free”, the whole thing would be a fait accompli.
If we stopped trading with them it would most likely hurt us a lot more than it would them. They are the largest market in the world and produce a lot more high-evolved products in the US than I think you realize.
You think the market in China is larger than the U.S.? There are more people in China, but their total purchasing power is a fraction of the U.S.
What makes you think that the Chinese could sink one of our AEGIS-protected supercarrier groups, much less that it would be “easy?”
AEGIS can detect the missiles the Chinese have but only under cretin conditions. Plus even “if” (and that’s a big if) we did detect the missiles our counter measures are not that great. AEGIS is old, and the Chinese by now most likely know how to operate around it. Plus the Chinese have more missiles to fire then we have to defend ourselves with. If China fired 15 missiles from different areas we probably would counter some, but many would end up hitting the carrier.