India versus Pakistan: Navies 1

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Israel: 373,190




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm… just a few things here concerning USN anti-ship missile capability, the USN has considerable number of aircraft capable of carrying and firing the AGM-84, and the AGM-119, as such you should take that into consideration before claiming that the SM-2 is all that’s basically left. And by the way the US has fielded the AGM-84K (standard current and future version), and I think it’s a bit more than "old", the Tico’s and Burkes are still Harpoon equipped. Originally the Flight IIA had their Harpoon launchers removed but following recent upgrades they have been refitted once again.


Just to follow up specifically.

The AGM-119 is an air launched anti-ship missile, not a ship based weapon. I understand they are carried by US helicopters on warships, but I was under the impression that Planeman was talking about ship based anti-ship missiles, of which the Navy has very few except on older DDGs and CGs. The US Navy has not purchased a ship launched Harpoon since the early 90s. The Flight IIAs do not have launchers, and the US Navy has not bought a specific launcher for the Harpoon since the last DDG-51 Flight I. The FFG launchers are in a warehouse in Virginia, I know this because I have seen them personally.

The Navy will not put Harpoon launchers on any ship now or in the future. The reason is, if the Navy ever needs Harpoons, they will buy Block II. The Block II is a VLS cell capable version of the Harpoon, and wouldn't require any extra costs other than to buy the missile themselves. Fire control and electronics are built into the DDG-51s so no cost there, like i said, the US Navy tests the missiles for Boeing.

The AGM-84K is an air launched version of the missile, not a ship launched version. It would be difficult to convert the AGM-84K into a ship launched version, since the missiles have fold out wings that would require special canisters for storage in a launch cell, thus would incur cost. There is no point, since the Block II already can do the job if needed, and are produced easily by Boeing although at a cost of 1.2 million per missile.

BTW, your last comment about refit is absolutely false. The Navy is about to go through the CG modernization program starting in FY07, which will be followed by the DDG modernization program. In other words, there has been no refit of the DDG-51s yet, just maintanance. The currently scheduled CG modernization program discussions involve removing the Harpoon launchers, which are located on the back of the ship, in favor of a UAV launching system for the Scan Eagle.

The DDG-51 modernization program is currently way underfunded under the 313-ship plan. Under the currently proposed DDG-51 modernization program, and god willing it will be changed, the CIWS in the rear will be removed in favor new electronics, while the Harpoon launchers would be removed and replaced with a SeaRAM. While the CG modernization program is well funded, it will be very interesting to see what happens long term with the DDG-51 modernization program, which is scheduled to start sometime around 2013.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Darksided here’s where I got my information from, If I understand it correctly the Flight IIA are still Harpoon compatible although they may not actually carry the Harpoon.


Originally, the flight IIA Burke class destroyers had their harpoon missile launchers deleted but when upgraded in the Twenty-Thirties, the harpoon canisters restored. The missile launchers were mounted between the superstructure and have been converted to launch standard long range missiles. These will normally carry special surface skimming missiles similar in role to the harpoon but can carry any type of long range missile. The five inch gun and torpedo tubes have been retained on all models with improved ordnance. The five inch gun can fire special extended range guided munitions

Link



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If I understand it correctly the Flight IIA are still Harpoon compatible although they may not actually carry the Harpoon.


That is exactly right, weight considerations allow for the mountings, although it is more likely the Navy would go with more advanced version for VLS. Fire Control is built into the electronics, so every ship can fire Harpoons without any electronics upgrade requirements.

The link you provided is from a gaming and simulation hobby site, the characteristics you listed are from the battleset of that particular gamers battleset. His description is of a fantasy ruleset, not the reality of what is.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Ah, that’s an embarrassment, well thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Planeman

You deserve the Way Above TopSecret award. Amazing stuff!


Where do you get the time to analyse all this?? I wish I had even 10% of this!

Ok. Now coming down to brass tacks, I would like to mention a few factors that need to be addressed too. The Combat Efficiency Equation is:

Combat Efficiency (CE) = Recon Capability (RC) + Fire Power (FP) + Logistics Support (LS).

Or CE = RC + FP + LS.


Now add Morale of opposing forces, Quality of Training and the Higher Direction of War including strategic and tactical planning and capability of execution.

Now this starts getting complicated !! But you can figure out a quantitative method to factor these in and give a more accurate picture of who stands where.

Wanna try it?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
In trying to quantify the USN anti-ship missile firepower I think I have to go for the theoretical launch capability if every missile tube was filled. We could adjust that down, but we have to be fair. MOST of the main navies spend half their time float about with less than a full compliment of missiles - Japan is a good example; nearly all her destroyers are fitted for 8 Harpoons but in most pictures you see none, two or six actually fitted. The RN Type-22 frigates spent years wandering the oceans with empty Exocet tubes.

We have to accept that all navies will have exagerated firepower by this method because of empty tubes. But we have to use the same measure accross all navies.


So,

Oliver Haz' P' FFGs, do they have the ability to fire Harpoon without modification? - and if so would 4 missiles be a reasonable fit if they were armed with Harpoons perhaps as a response to a changing world situation.

Al'Burke DDGs - same question. I know most don't actually carry them but do they still have the launcher fittings for the 8 Harpoons - and Trig' class too?

Sorry to bombard with questions.

PS. JMSDF is pretty awesome.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg


I find comments such as yours very condescending in nature. Who are you to decide what the governments should or should not be spending on??
Reserve your judgement on what is a waste and what is not for the future.


First, my comments were not made to be "belittling" or condescending. I am sorry that I might have given this impression. As for "who am I" to decide what governments should or shouldn't spend their resources on....I am no one in particular. I am simply a human being -- a resident of this planet. However, as such, I certainly feel entitled to express my opinion on what I view as pertinent to myself if no one else. What gives me this right? Well, if a war should break out anew between India and Pakistan -- or any other nations -- it affects me on an emotional level and, quite possibly, on a physical level as well. A nuclear war would effect everyone on this Earth.

As for reserving my judgement as to what is or isn't wasteful, well perhaps I could have, should have, reserved my opinion for a more appropriate forum. I do recognize and admit that my comments may have been off topic and out of context for this thread. However, I do feel that I have just as much right as you or, for that matter, anyone else to express my opinions on this or any other topic. After all, ATS is a place for conversation, debate and the free exchange of information and opinion. You have your opinion and I have my own.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Planeman

You deserve the Way Above TopSecret award. Amazing stuff!


Where do you get the time to analyse all this?? I wish I had even 10% of this!

Ok. Now coming down to brass tacks, I would like to mention a few factors that need to be addressed too. The Combat Efficiency Equation is:

Combat Efficiency (CE) = Recon Capability (RC) + Fire Power (FP) + Logistics Support (LS).

Or CE = RC + FP + LS.


Now add Morale of opposing forces, Quality of Training and the Higher Direction of War including strategic and tactical planning and capability of execution.

Now this starts getting complicated !! But you can figure out a quantitative method to factor these in and give a more accurate picture of who stands where.

Wanna try it?

All very valid, but far too complicated and time consuming to try. I'm taking the easiest route, at least that way I'll come up with something reasonably applicable if kept in context.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Darksided, I also have a question, one of your links said that UGM-84’s were removed from SSN’s but that they are preserved, could they be refitted once again without modifications?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Planeman,

The OHPs cannot fire Harpoons, and they do not have launchers even. The MK 13 launcher was for the SM-1s and the Harpoons, when it was removed, so was the ability to fire Harpoons. Fire Control doesn't exist.

DDG-51 through DDG-78 have 2 Quad Harpoon launchers, DDG-79 through DDG-99 do not. DDG-100 through DDG-112 will not either when they are complete.

All of the Cruisers still have 2 Quad Launchers on the aft of the ship. These will likely be removed over the next 8 years or so, but we won't know for sure until the final plans for modernization are announced.

Planeman, one idea is to think of it this way. Every H-60 can carry 1 AGM-119, so for example, the 30 OHPs basically payload 2 AGM-119s each, 1 on each helo. DDG-79 - DDG-99 have 2 helo's, so for the 21 Flight IIAs that is 2 AGM-119s each.

DDG-51 - DDG-78 carry 8 Harpoons each, and all US ships go on deployment with a full load. 28 x 8 = 224 Harpoons.

All 22 CGs have 8 Harpoons each. 22 x 8 = 176

Each Carrier Air Wing has 44 strike aircraft able to deploy Harpoon missiles. Each strike aircraft can deploy 2 Harpoons per sortie. There are 10 active CAWs. 44 x 10 x 2 = 880 Harpoons.

Each CAW includes 10 H-60s, so you can add in another 10 AGM-119s per CAW. Like I said, there are 10 CAWs. 10 x 10 = 100 AGM-119s.

Westpoint,

Yep. Fire Control is still aboard all remaining LA class submarines, and is built into both the Seawolf and Virginia class submarines. The Harpoons aren't deployed, but that is mostly because subs these days deploy with extra Tomahawks. The Harpoons are still considered available for service, but have been in storage since the late 90s. If they have been deployed since then, nobody would know, the Navy doesn't give much detail regarding weapons deployed on submarines.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Thanks Darksided, that's a great help. Although I heard the Penguin isn't all that widely distributed, but at any rate it's only fair to do things the same way across the board so I've counted all shipboard SH-70s as having 1 Penguin. I've estimated 4 Sub-Harpoons per SSN as a "normal" load IF they were deployed. In my calc I've assumed ALL the Harpoons are Block I.

Here's my count:




EDIT: I'll add the P-3 Orions also. And the Nimrods to UK likewise.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Planeman don’t forget the S-3B which are Harpoon capable, I believe each CAW carries a few S-3’s.


Originally posted by planeman
In my calc I've assumed ALL the Harpoons are Block I.


Planeman the AGM-84’s are different than the ship launched Harpoons you should take that into consideration.


[edit on 29-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Planeman the AGM-84’s are different than the ship launched Harpoons you should take that into consideration.

In terms of warhead, range, approach speed and sophistication?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
In terms of warhead, range, approach speed and sophistication?


Yes, if you already are then just ignore my above post.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
The basic Harpoon details as I have them:

Range: 180km
Warhead: 221kg
Speed: 240m/s (~Mach 0.9)
Sophistication: 850/1000 (Block I) & 900/1000 (Block II)


What do you make it?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Well, in regards to the air launched version of the Harpoon, here are the specifications I have from 5 different sources.

AGM-84 H/K

Range - 150 NM (278 KM)
Warhead - 488 LB (221 KG)*1
Speed - Mach .85 (647 MPH) Or 289 m/s*2
Sophistication - 880H and 920K

1. I got some conflicting information about the size of the warhead on the H/K version of the Harpoon, one sources says its 800 Lb.
2. Speed is based at Sea Level aka sea-skimming mode.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I wouldn't count the S-3, they will all be retired in the next 3 years, have already been retired on the West coast carriers, and are used exclusively as tankers now for the most part. Even their sea control systems including sonarbouys have already been removed.



Sucks in my opinion, they are still great platforms being retired early due to cost of new aviation platforms.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Just to add, the remaining ships which have Harpoons I believe use the RGM-84G version, here are the specifications for the G version.

Range: 75 NM (139 KM)
Speed: Mach .85 (647 MPH) Or 289 m/s
Warhead: 488 LB (221 KG)
Sophistication: 850-880

------------

Yeah, I agree the S-3 still has capably to offer, its a good multi-role aircraft for the navy, they should keep it around longer.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant

First, my comments were not made to be "belittling" or condescending. I am sorry that I might have given this impression. As for "who am I" to decide what governments should or shouldn't spend their resources on....I am no one in particular. I am simply a human being -- a resident of this planet. However, as such, I certainly feel entitled to express my opinion on what I view as pertinent to myself if no one else. What gives me this right? Well, if a war should break out anew between India and Pakistan -- or any other nations -- it affects me on an emotional level and, quite possibly, on a physical level as well. A nuclear war would effect everyone on this Earth.

As for reserving my judgement as to what is or isn't wasteful, well perhaps I could have, should have, reserved my opinion for a more appropriate forum. I do recognize and admit that my comments may have been off topic and out of context for this thread. However, I do feel that I have just as much right as you or, for that matter, anyone else to express my opinions on this or any other topic. After all, ATS is a place for conversation, debate and the free exchange of information and opinion. You have your opinion and I have my own.


You point is noted, and i would like to add here that i feel spending on Nuclear weapons, be it by India, Pakistan, US or Russia, whoever, is wasteful in nature and should be done away with completely.

But the reality is very different isn't it. However much we would like to believe that a Nuclear Weapon free world is possible, i do not see it happening in the near future. Plus a point to be noted here is that India claimed its Nuclear Deterrent was aimed at the Chinese threat rather than Pakistan. Infact India has a 'NO First Use' doctrine in place.

Also you have to remember that India along with other NAM nations tried really hard to get the Cold-War superpowers to give up Nuclear Weapons altogether. Unfortunately they were not succesfull.

Getting back to topic. Planeman, how about a firepower analysis of China, Japan and other Asian powers?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join