Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US navy doctrine question.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pruitt
    replied
    The targeted ship could be lit up by search radars from some of these sources, but could not know which signal is being used to guide a missile coming in. That is why on the movie Top Gun you see violent maneuvers to break the target lock. Some missiles also use a remote signal to come in on and don't turn on the acquisition radar onboard until they are close.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post
    Most surface surveillance comes from AWACs, but the P-8 Poseidons, P-3 Orions, RC-135 (and other ELint), drones, subs, or even satellites can provide sufficient targeting information for the B-52s to make an undetected approach from below the radar horizon to the weapons release point.
    so you're saying that the plane will get all the data and intel to find the ship, but the ship won't get any back...right...makes total sense

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    I would be curious as to how far the missile drops after release.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied

    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post

    how exactly does the B-52 find the ship(s) without the ship(s) not seeing it in the first place to know where to go and when to pop up?

    obviously neither unit is going to be operating in a vacuum, meaning an aircraft the size of a B-52 with no stealth design and a massive RCS, will have trouble sneaking up on anyone.
    Take the case of two B-52Hs, they flew from Guam to Diago Garcia filed as tankers, and used KC-135 frequencies. Then flew to the Persian Gulf to support the US fleet, which was being shadowed by Soviet ships directing Bear bombers launched from Afghanistan. Being vectored by the US ships, the two bombers flew just under 80 or 90 feet above sea level and surprised the Soviets in thinking it was their own bombers making a pass. Thus proving the US had a strategic reach.

    When this B-52 informed USS Ranger they were 9 kms out, the carrier controller couldn't see them. The pilot told him to look down.

    Lowdown8.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Herman Hum
    replied
    Most surface surveillance comes from AWACs, but the P-8 Poseidons, P-3 Orions, RC-135 (and other ELint), drones, subs, or even satellites can provide sufficient targeting information for the B-52s to make an undetected approach from below the radar horizon to the weapons release point.

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post
    There still is no radar capable of penetrating the surface of the earth.


    Popping up to 600 feet to launch missiles at 60-80nm range still has plenty of protection from the radar horizon. SAMs cannot hit what they cannot see.
    how exactly does the B-52 find the ship(s) without the ship(s) not seeing it in the first place to know where to go and when to pop up?

    obviously neither unit is going to be operating in a vacuum, meaning an aircraft the size of a B-52 with no stealth design and a massive RCS, will have trouble sneaking up on anyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post

    The SAM ranges are still limited by the radar horizon. As long as the B-52s fly below the radar horizon, they can get as close as 40-50nm and launch the weapons without ever being engaged by the ship defences.
    That's why the Navy has the E-2D Hawkeye. Negates that problem. Toss in that today everything is data linked, including satellites, and sneaking up on naval ships at sea gets much harder to do, even for submarines.


    The B-52 is not only limited to 8x Harpoon missiles. It can also carry multiple weapons such as swarms of decoys to saturate / occupy the defences. Depending on where the B-52s are based, they can more easily (and quickly) return to base, re-arm, and return for secondary and tertiary engagements than the ship can return to a port to replenish its SAM magazine. (They cannot be replenished at sea.)

    However, even during the Cold War, there were only a limited number air-launched versions of the Harpoon available and they were scattered around the globe. I am pretty certain that it is not possible to simply strap ship- or sub-launched weapon variants onto an aircraft for employment.
    It doesn't help that there's just a dozen or so still flying and that the typical mission profile takes days from the decision to strike to mission return to complete. As to what it can carry, this is limited by the electronics and cabling the plane has installed at any given time. Different missiles require different electrical connections, different on board electronics, and software to be targeted and fired from any platform.

    So, a B-52 would have to be configured for the mission correctly before being used. How long that takes I have no idea, but I'd bet it's measured in days not hours.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    Not sure what the minimum air launched height is for Harpoon, but let's say the ship's radar is 20 metres above sea level, and a Harpoon is skimming at 10 metres above the water, the ship has less than 2 minutes to detect and destroy it. If a plane could launch the harpoon at around 600 or 700 metres above sea level and at maximum range(@124 kms)... the ship would still not be able detect the aircraft.
    Last edited by Achtung Baby; 23 Jun 19, 14:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herman Hum
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post
    so you think a B-52 will over come dozens of SAMs and be able to return back to base to rearm? that's a very optimistic outlook...but again why use a B-52 when you can launch a wing of F-18s that will carry more ASMs, have a smaller radar cross section, and have their own decoys as well? it just doesn't make much sense...the slava class cruisers carry 64 of the navalized S-300...i'm sure that's enough to down a B-52, and deal with any missiles it may have launched at range, and still be ready for a second B-52 to attack...the kirovs have at least 96 (varies between the two active ships per wiki.) gorshkovs have 32 reduts 9m96 which have a range roughly equal to a harpoon...a gepard class will carry osaM SAMs with a 500km range...
    There still is no radar capable of penetrating the surface of the earth.

    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post
    i don't think b-52s ever fly that low...but how exactly will the plane not be able to be engaged by the ship's defenses even if they fly low? they either pop up to launch farther away, or they get detected flying low and can then be engaged...
    Popping up to 600 feet to launch missiles at 60-80nm range still has plenty of protection from the radar horizon. SAMs cannot hit what they cannot see.

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post

    The SAM ranges are still limited by the radar horizon. As long as the B-52s fly below the radar horizon, they can get as close as 40-50nm and launch the weapons without ever being engaged by the ship defences.



    The B-52 is not only limited to 8x Harpoon missiles. It can also carry multiple weapons such as swarms of decoys to saturate / occupy the defences. Depending on where the B-52s are based, they can more easily (and quickly) return to base, re-arm, and return for secondary and tertiary engagements than the ship can return to a port to replenish its SAM magazine. (They cannot be replenished at sea.)

    However, even during the Cold War, there were only a limited number air-launched versions of the Harpoon available and they were scattered around the globe. I am pretty certain that it is not possible to simply strap ship- or sub-launched weapon variants onto an aircraft for employment.
    so you think a B-52 will over come dozens of SAMs and be able to return back to base to rearm? that's a very optimistic outlook...but again why use a B-52 when you can launch a wing of F-18s that will carry more ASMs, have a smaller radar cross section, and have their own decoys as well? it just doesn't make much sense...the slava class cruisers carry 64 of the navalized S-300...i'm sure that's enough to down a B-52, and deal with any missiles it may have launched at range, and still be ready for a second B-52 to attack...the kirovs have at least 96 (varies between the two active ships per wiki.) gorshkovs have 32 reduts 9m96 which have a range roughly equal to a harpoon...a gepard class will carry osaM SAMs with a 500km range...

    basically unless you happen to find one or two older ships out on their own a B-52 isn't going to do much on it's own, except get shot down.

    i don't think b-52s ever fly that low...but how exactly will the plane not be able to be engaged by the ship's defenses even if they fly low? they either pop up to launch farther away, or they get detected flying low and can then be engaged...
    Last edited by General_Jacke; 22 Jun 19, 22:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herman Hum
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post
    capable of destroying a navy? thats hilarious. you load a B-52 up with ASMs and it will likely be detected and shot down a long way from the intended target...the russians have a navalized version of the s-300 missile if i'm not mistaken which out ranges the US's ASMs by quite a bit...outranges harpoon easily, from what i see it out ranges NSM by about 5 miles (assuming its the S-300VM variant) LRASM out out range that by about 80 miles, however if the ships have the VMD or V4 variants then even LRASM doesn't give a b-52 the range needed to significantly damage a major combatant let alone a navy...
    The SAM ranges are still limited by the radar horizon. As long as the B-52s fly below the radar horizon, they can get as close as 40-50nm and launch the weapons without ever being engaged by the ship defences.

    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post
    according to this site the B-52 can only carry and launch 8 harpoons...
    https://www.stratofortress.org/current-operations.htm
    you'd be better off with smaller strike aircraft like onboard a carrier...maybe someone who knows more about carrier based aircraft can further enlighten us but i'm pretty sure the F-18 can carry at least 4 harpoons...
    The B-52 is not only limited to 8x Harpoon missiles. It can also carry multiple weapons such as swarms of decoys to saturate / occupy the defences. Depending on where the B-52s are based, they can more easily (and quickly) return to base, re-arm, and return for secondary and tertiary engagements than the ship can return to a port to replenish its SAM magazine. (They cannot be replenished at sea.)

    However, even during the Cold War, there were only a limited number air-launched versions of the Harpoon available and they were scattered around the globe. I am pretty certain that it is not possible to simply strap ship- or sub-launched weapon variants onto an aircraft for employment.

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    We happen to have what Billy Mitchel wanted, a long range bomber capable of destroying a navy. Its called a B-52.
    capable of destroying a navy? thats hilarious. you load a B-52 up with ASMs and it will likely be detected and shot down a long way from the intended target...the russians have a navalized version of the s-300 missile if i'm not mistaken which out ranges the US's ASMs by quite a bit...outranges harpoon easily, from what i see it out ranges NSM by about 5 miles (assuming its the S-300VM variant) LRASM out out range that by about 80 miles, however if the ships have the VMD or V4 variants then even LRASM doesn't give a b-52 the range needed to significantly damage a major combatant let alone a navy...

    according to this site the B-52 can only carry and launch 8 harpoons...
    https://www.stratofortress.org/current-operations.htm
    you'd be better off with smaller strike aircraft like onboard a carrier...maybe someone who knows more about carrier based aircraft can further enlighten us but i'm pretty sure the F-18 can carry at least 4 harpoons...
    Last edited by General_Jacke; 22 Jun 19, 21:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    We happen to have what Billy Mitchel wanted, a long range bomber capable of destroying a navy. Its called a B-52.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Probably. Why risk a gazillion dollar ship and crew when you can send a few ensigns flying airplanes with the same missiles to do the job? Aircraft carriers give the USN the ability not to have to use surface ships offensively as routine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herman Hum
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
    The weapons like Harpoon are for protection only.
    I don't know if that is the current practice, but I read a forum message from a former Orion crewman who said that the Harpoon was developed in response to Soviet guided missile submarines. The SSGs had to run on the surface in order to fire their cruise missiles. If needed, the Orion crews were unable to engage them because the aircraft only carried ASW homing torpedoes that would not work against virtually stationary subs on the surface.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X