- 16/06/2015 at 16:30 #26206
An interesting article here about ocean transparency and submarine stealth.
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson16/06/2015 at 16:42 #26208
Hmm, can’t help feeling that if the Chinese thought that submarines would no longer be stealthy they might back off on building so many of their own. 🙂
There seem to be definite “schools” in warfare speculation, and one of them is “everything must be done with unmanned vehicles”. There are plenty of concerns, though: endurance, stealth (smaller vehicles means smaller propellers and more noise for the same speed), communications (laser links seem to work a lot less well than anyone hoped).
We hear a lot about non-acoustic detection, but it’s all very fuzzy. Nobody’s prepared to commit themselves to anything more detailed than wake turbulence, which is largely fixable. I think it’s very early to speculate on making entire classes of weapon obsolete.17/06/2015 at 02:17 #26228
I am inclined to agree with you on all points about submarines but I can’t help but wonder what information and technology is not available in the open sources. I also wonder about how surface vessels will fair if effective concealment becomes impossible due to space-based sensors. I am waiting on delivery of a copy of Norman Friedman’s “Seapower and Space” and have just begun reading his “Network-Centric Warfare”. When I have read and digested these then I will be in a better position to make at least a partially informed comment about the article. This summer’s reading is to be split between modern naval topics and learning more about Operation Barbarossa. I have on the reading list the two books already mentioned plus “Soviet Naval Tactics” by Milan Vego, “Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat” by Wayne P. Hughes and “Anti-Acess Warfare” by Sam J. Tangredi. If you can suggest any other good books on the topic I would be greatly appreciative. Oh, and by the way your Blog is also on the reading list!
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.17/06/2015 at 08:15 #26232
I’m just an enthusiastic amateur…
I think the satellite idea is an interesting one, but the RORSATs don’t seem to have been as great as everyone thought they were at the time, and the process between “there is a ship- or aircraft- shaped blip at location X” and “launch missiles” is still complex. (I’m a techie in real life so I tend to think a lot about the things that can go wrong in what the vendor promised was a perfect system.)
I’ve heard good things about Gorshkov’s The Sea Power of the State, even though it was published in 1979, but haven’t yet read it.17/06/2015 at 09:49 #26235DMParticipant
Bernoulli humps and submarine detection has been on the cards since the mid 1980s (I first heard about it being applied to Russian ocean observation satellites that were going to use radar to make the sea transparent) so it will be interesting to see how long it actually takes to get thins kind of thing into service18/06/2015 at 00:04 #26265
“The Sea Power of the State” has been ordered and I will let you know what I think of it when it arrives and I get a chance to read it carefully. Thanks for the suggestion and If you have others, throw them my way!
Significant Bernoulli humps seem to apply only to shallow running, fast moving subs if I understands what’s available on the “inter-web”. What I am interested in is other non-acoustic approaches to peering through oceans to find surface and sub-survive ships and boats. If we can now image and map the surface of Venus through the hellishly kinetic and dense Venusian atmosphere then we should be able to develop (or have developed) analogous technology for seeing through 1-10 km of salt water, thermoclines, inversions and all. Heck, we’re doing spectral analysis of xenoplanets’ atmospheres up to 750 light years away, so my guess would be that ocean transparency is much further along than open sources might let on. Obviously no comment about my speculation is expected but I am just stating my highly uneducated hunch. As I learn more I may realize that I am very wrong but given our capacity to look up, I suspect our capacity to look down through water is far better than most uninformed people like myself believe.
Cheers and good gaming.
13/07/2015 at 17:16 #27621Joe DobsonParticipant
- This reply was modified 6 years ago by Rod Robertson.
first post here
I’m not sure how useful this is, but here goes;
Ive read a few places about soviet naval doctrine. its a triple envelopment from oscar type subs, surface ships, and bear type airplanes. if basically boiled down to “FIRE ALL ZEE(TeH) MISSILEZ!!1!!1 lol. the basic idea was MAD. they knew that the navy couldn’t survive around american airpower. this is reflected in the designs of their ships and how the missiles are mounted, and the general lack of reloads (see Slava class). I’m a bit foggier on American doctrine, but I’m quite sure in centered quite heavily on aircraft.
I’ve played a few games of Surface Battlegroup. the tactical decision making is mostly represented in switching directors to attack or defense, and a few other resource management type things. its tactically challenging in a different sense. also with the Soviets, its the order you send the missiles in order to “psych out” the American and “sneak in” a big missile. I lost an Arleigh Burke to a Soviet destroyer like this. I’ll say this though: Battleships are a HUGE game changer. Especially if escorted by a Ticonderoga. Being able to take multiple hits and keep on steaming at the enemy is rather demoralizing, and once the big 16″ open up, game over man. Thats pretty much how my first game went. 25-30 soviet ships vs the New Jersey, a Tico, and a Perry. I ended up blowing the Kirov, 2 Slavas, and a few destroyers out of the water in rapid succession. A big thank you to my wingman in the Tico, he kept most of the hurting off me. Still took about 10 hits though. spent 2 turns with no electrical power and 1 turn with a bad rudder. But them guns… the look on their faces when once shell amidships reduced the Slava to an oil slick was priceless!
~Joe13/07/2015 at 17:28 #27622
I think it would be fair to sum up the American approach as basically “the aircraft do the hard work (and defend the carrier), the carrier is a base for the aircraft, the escort ships and subs defend the carrier”. So American ships were (and are) similarly lacking in big missile reloads; one serious engagement and they’re close to dry. (This is true even now; a modern British T45 only carries 48 SAMs, and reloading those is a dockyard job.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.