Jump to content


Photo

Latest Littoral Combat Ship News-- Navy Reconsidering


  • Please log in to reply
386 replies to this topic

#381 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 22 April 2017 - 2051 PM


Well I gave him a chance. There are no fields of fire at sea. On board ships, one refers to bearing arcs or firing arcs.
 
He can use his search engines. I read books.

You have also written books

It's safe to assume that LD doesn't give a crap if Ken E has written books or not. Wot matters is LD is a self-professed expert in all things defense and democracy because he has a blog, and we all know blogs > books....

#382 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,878 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 23 April 2017 - 1136 AM

 

Well I gave him a chance. There are no fields of fire at sea. On board ships, one refers to bearing arcs or firing arcs.

 

He can use his search engines. I read books.

You have also written books

 

 

Which doesn't really matter in this affair.

All he wanted is to criticize/annoy me.

 

There was - as usual - no worthwhile content contribution in his reply to me.

The exact technical term is of no interest to the question whether a foreship-mounted gun in a 57 mm calibre on a 40+ kts platform makes sense as a defence against a speedboat threat.

 

He is (and others are) just trying to harass me out of this forum, but I'm not like those who sent me private messages about how pointless it is and that they ceased to participate because of such mobbing.

Instead, I call out his logical fallacies and lacking text comprehension that he shows so often when I'm replying to something in a thread.

 

A sensible forum participant who disagrees with me could very well bring forward info/sources or reasoning to make his  or her case against mine. You won't see that from Ken. It didn't happen for months, maybe years.



#383 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 23 April 2017 - 1208 PM

I always doubted that the 57 mm gun on the LCS was a serious gun.

The obvious counter to attacking speedboats would be flank speed away from them, using an armament to shoot at them before the ship is in the range of speedboat weapons.

 

A forward-mounted 57 mm gun was never a reasonable piece of kit for this. It doesn't have the range and lacks the field of fire.

 

FIAC's do by their very nature, have a very short effective range* (non-stabilized HMG's and rockets),

and the 57mm does outrange those craft, by a huge margin, even with current unguided rounds.

The guided ORKA-round will not extend the effective range, but it will allow the gun

to engage and the destroy targets with fewer rounds and potentially multiple targets per second.

 

As for using flank speed to maintain distance, that is not always an option.

ROE might not allow fire for effect at will, so the fight might begin with opponents on all sides, making a retreat impossible.

The mission might also be to escort other crafts, that the LCS cannot leave behind,

or might be in mined or otherwise restricted waters (archipelago for instance), that means that the LCS cannot run away.

 

More dedicated FAC's are a completely different beast, as they might strike from >100 miles away.

The real challenge the way I see it, is boats (and ground launched) missiles like the Brimstone,

with enough range and small enough launchers, to make it near impossible to destroy the missiles before launch

and with a large number of small missiles to destroy post-launch.



#384 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 23 April 2017 - 1237 PM

Amateurs are always quick to deprecate terminology, saying 'everybody knows what I mean' and other lame excuses. However for military professionals, it remains very important. Without agreement on military and naval terms, it quickly becomes impossible to develop and circulate doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures throughout the forces. 

 

When in small units, just writing SOPs for Ops, Deployment, Intel Collection, Combat Logistics and so forth, the proper use of terminology saves much misunderstanding. It goes back to the early days of the general staff and the importance of the staff courses in establishing terms of agreement and military/naval terminology. Only with common language and terms can the staff officer communicate the meaning of orders to his chief, regardless of one's place in the chain of command.  Assigned to The Doctrine Center in 1984-85, I learned from some of the most acute thinkers how terminology affects these concepts, and when I began to write future concepts under contract after retirement, it paid off very well. Historical writing improves markedly with proper terminology as well.

 

As to where one places gun mounts on board naval ships, firing arcs alone explain little. One needs to know at the outset where the ship or craft is the wettest. Then there is the matter of proper space for magazines and handling machinery. The location of the lone 76mm mount on the USN FFG classes reflected this very well. As to tactical employment, the concepts treating that subject are far more sophisticated than the choices to fight running away or toward. That last remains laughable and not serious.


Edited by Ken Estes, 23 April 2017 - 1240 PM.


#385 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 23 April 2017 - 1329 PM

(...)
A sensible forum participant who disagrees with me could very well bring forward info/sources or reasoning to make his  or her case against mine. You won't see that from Ken. It didn't happen for months, maybe years.


And, as just you proved by that post, a sensible forum participant would be wasting his time, as you never, ever, recognize you are in the wrong. You do not abide by the rules of Dialectics.

But that makes of you a so delicious, Rhetorical punching ball...

#386 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,878 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 23 April 2017 - 1341 PM

Olof, escorting doesn't preclude the tactic as I described it. The platform can move towards the speedboat threat at flank speed, turn when speedboats are in effective range to be hit, and then flank speed away from the speedboats to maximise the time the speedboats can be hit without hitting themselves.

A problem arises when the speedboats get weapons and munitions of sufficient range, including maybe a stabilisation device (the earliest ones were already in use prior to WW2, so it would be inappropriate to think of Iranians as incapable of some degree of 3 axis stabilisation). I know there are huge differences in the quality of stabilisation, of course.

 

There's even a "portable" 122mm rocket launcher with tripod that fires the same rockets as BM-21. Aiming and hitting may be quite a challenge, but even small craft can mount weapons that outrange a 57 mm by much. The USN sure isn't optimistic enough to expect no such armament on speedboats. It sure was prudent to expect capable speedboats when designing a ship class for service over decades with a supposed capability to defeat speedboats. It all gets even more troublesome if one assumes that the Iranians might produce some boat-launched Sparrow missiles with an IR seeker.

Overall, I think the USN is relying much more on ESSM for defence against speedboats, and the LCS lacks ESSM (so far). That's why they got some kind of Hellfire missile specifically to counter speedboats.
The LCSs' 57 mm gun looks more like a "every warship needs a gun turret, let's not spend much weight on one for the LCS racing boat" thing than a counter-speedboat weapon.



#387 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 23 April 2017 - 2012 PM

<self deleted>


Edited by Corinthian, 23 April 2017 - 2013 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users