NationStates Jolt Archive

For NS modern tech, I was noticing that it seemed like missiles are rapidly becoming obsolete. While somewhat obvious in Naval Warfare, I have also noticed increasingly deadly anti-missile defenses on fighters. Thus I see more and more nation using ETC AA cannons. Even on tanks, use of mini-CIWS has negated the missile effect. So is the day of the missile winding down?

Not even close. Don't be fooled by what the SD crowd has to say.

I rather like missils... it's a bummer then, that it does in fact seem they are dying out...

Not even close. Don't be fooled by what the SD crowd has to say.

I'm just looking at all the viewpoints :eek:

Well, they are seen less often than most other things. I'm pretty new at posting on the forums, but i don't see many missiles.

in reality the missile is replacing the ciws, but in NS it appears that everything is obsolete so there is no use arguing about it

This is because there is a certain segment of NS that has romanticized WWI-style naval battles and has convinced themselves and unfortunately many others that vast amounts of armor render them almost immune to anything but big guns.

This is because there is a certain segment of NS that has romanticized WWI-style naval battles and has convinced themselves and unfortunately many others that vast amounts of armor render them almost immune to anything but big guns.

While I agree with you in some respect... It would take a lot of missiles to take down some of these ships. Also there are the ICBM sized Anti-Shipping missiles. Also, Phoenix, how is the missile replace the CIWS?

It seems to be the direction several governments and companies are going in. There is an instance of a CIWS failing to shoot down a missile and an anti-aircraft missile making the save, I will look it up for you.]

EDIT: here it is
Phalanx in combat (at sea)

The Phalanx system has not been openly credited with shooting down any enemy missiles or aircraft.

February 25, 1991, during the first Gulf War, the USS Missouri and the Phalanx-equipped USS Jarrett were in the vicinity of an Iraqi Silkworm missile (often referred to as the 'Seersucker') that had been fired, either at Missouri or at the nearby HMS Gloucester. After Missouri fired its SRBOC chaff, the Phalanx system on Jarrett, operating in the automatic target-acquisition mode, fixed upon Missouri's chaff and fired a burst of rounds (not destroying the incoming missile). From this burst, four rounds hit Missouri which was two to three miles from Jarrett at the time. There were no injuries.[2] The Silkworm missile was then intercepted and destroyed by a Sea Dart missile launched from Gloucester. Incidentally, this is the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile, during combat at sea...

...Phalanx is considered inadequate against some modern threats and is being gradually supplemented and replaced by the Rolling Airframe Missile, which has greater range and higher hit probability. The RAM system uses an automated and self-sufficient radar fire control similar to that of Phalanx.

EDIT2: see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system#Missile_systems

I see, so missiles on missiles, or lasers?

Would be interesting to see what Questers/Sarzonia/Prat had to say, they are big fans of Naval guns, I think.

You could just take a page from the bombing of the USS Cole, and just use fishing boats loaded with terrorist bombs and detonate it near the ship. It might cause some damage, but enough explosives could sink the ship. If missles are obsolte, use other tactics then in order to get the enemy off-guard.

Well, it IS a lot more difficult to shoot down a flying shell than a missile :P

I am, however, somewhat suprised that nobody seems to make use of torpedos, especially ones with supercaviting technology. I imagine even an SD might have trouble stopping one with its armour, since they get up to speed at around ~200 knots/230mph.

Well, it IS a lot more difficult to shoot down a flying shell than a missile :P

I am, however, somewhat suprised that nobody seems to make use of torpedos, especially ones with supercaviting technology. I imagine even an SD might have trouble stopping one with its armour, since they get up to speed at around ~200 knots/230mph.

And that is why they invented the under-water 30mm CIWS that you see on SD.

It also should be noted that the ETC guns have a MUCH longer range that our current guns, even an older 16 inch would go much further.

And that is why they invented the under-water 30mm CIWS that you see on SD.

Even a 30mm round isnt going to have much of an effect on a steel tube going 230 miles an hour. SC torps dont NEED explosives.

Even a 30mm round isnt going to have much of an effect on a steel tube going 230 miles an hour. SC torps dont NEED explosives.

Its an SC 30mm cannon :rolleyes:

Its an SC 30mm cannon :rolleyes:

Ah, I see, and no doubt this 30mm SC underwater cannon has Omni-bullet technology, allowing it to not only take out our particular hypothetical torpedo, but all OTHER torpedos in the area, yes?

I'd like to see somebody make an SC 30mm round though...as I understand it designers are having enough trouble cramming the engines into a regular diameter torpedo. :p

Ah, I see, and no doubt this 30mm SC underwater cannon has Omni-bullet technology, allowing it to not only take out our particular hypothetical torpedo, but all OTHER torpedos in the area, yes?

I'd like to see somebody make an SC 30mm round though...as I understand it designers are having enough trouble cramming the engines into a regular diameter torpedo. :p

All I know is what I see on the designs....

All I know is what I see on the designs....

Indeed. I suppose I shouldnt be TOO terribly suprised after reading about Axis Nova's flying battleships.

Indeed. I suppose I shouldnt be TOO terribly suprised after reading about Axis Nova's flying battleships.

What?

If SDs are so...so...powerful, well, avoid them. If a nation focuses soley on SD, they must have not very good armies right?

Take over all the land and air. They own the seas, but you own the air, meaning you can still get in shipments to fund your puppet government/annexed territory and maybe do aerial attacks, but I guess they got Omni-Air Protection as well. Regardless, it does not matter how many ships they contorl...if you take over their capital, you win the war.

flying battleships

How come I am reminded of 1984?

If SDs are so...so...powerful, well, avoid them. If a nation focuses soley on SD, they must have not very good armies right?

Take over all the land and air. They own the seas, but you own the air, meaning you can still get in shipments to fund your puppet government/annexed territory and maybe do aerial attacks, but I guess they got Omni-Air Protection as well. Regardless, it does not matter how many ships they contorl...if you take over their capital, you win the war.



How come I am reminded of 1984?


The nations that build Sd's have defense budgets in the tens of trillions and massive pops. (like me)

Instead of building 40 carriers, they build an SC.

What?

My reaction exactly.

Supercavitating guns work by shooting supercavitating bullets. :P Same stuff that can make torps supercav can make bullets.

However, supercavitating torps have to be wire guided and have no active guidance, and poor manuverability. And, if you break their supercav bubble, they hit the water like a car hitting a semi truck at 90mph. But supercav guns have extremely short range, and cause massive drag on the ship at high speed, I prefer to use small 240mm counter torps or ASW mortars.

but I degress.

Missiles aren't obsolete. Even the 'big gun' people like prae and quester have their own good missile designs. And ZMI has a pwnage icbm sized anti-shipping missile to end all anti-shipping missiles. However, slower missiles like the tomahawk and harpoon have become obsolete, but even the sunburn and silkworm are still somewhat effective.

Missiles still have their place, as a hypersonic missile with a armor piecing cap and a good sized warhead will do a world of hurt to most ships.

Silver Sky, what about in Aerial and ground combat?

Sophisticated NS anti-missile systems have rendered RL missiles pretty much obsolete. But they haven't rendered sophisticated NS missile systems obsolete. In reality, anti-missile systems are not intended to completely negate a missile threat (unless it is small or unsophisticated), but to reduce the amount of damage it causes. In this they are very effective, but missiles will still get through, and the missile still has a massive range advantage over the gun.

Neither missiles nor guns are obsolete in NS.

You could just take a page from the bombing of the USS Cole, and just use fishing boats loaded with terrorist bombs and detonate it near the ship. It might cause some damage, but enough explosives could sink the ship. If missles are obsolte, use other tactics then in order to get the enemy off-guard.
XACTLY!:D For example, I'm of half a mind to dig up some Soviet 650mm wake-homers and create a version you could (barely I'm sure) stick under a Su-34 Fullback or such. From what I understand, Questers has actually been fairly successful with this doctrine; and I see no fault so long as the torpedoes have longer ranges and more flexible targeting capabilities than the old WWII straight-runners. Remember, flexibility and combined-arms (including huge guns) are the key to warfare; especially in NS since more effective defenses and anti-godmoding rules combine to require more innovative attacks if you want to score Pearl Harbors or anything, as I'm learning in my Zanski/Nicksyllvania war with consistently-underwhelming missile-spam results even in truly UNGODLY numbers (such as 720 conventional AS-16/Kh-15A Kickbacks inbound; with 120 SS-N-19/P-700 Shipwrecks, 80 AS-20/Kh-35 Kayaks, and 20 SS-N-21C/RKP555 conventional Sampsons...:eek:) being thrown at the enemy by my forces.

I wish you sensible guys had been more prevaliant more than a year and a half ago during my playing NS for a couple of months until I had to quit. I was reading a "Why SDs are invincible" thread like every other day. I gave up arguing that stuff when eveyday 5 new people would come and throw down the same words the previous guy had. Its much better now, take a bow.

Missles arent obsolete in my opinion, but when it comes down to it, they just arent as awsome as guns, which is what NS is about to people, having fun, so it is easy to see where some would try to down grade them in interest of fun, but I like to keep it real.

As long as a player accepts that anti missle tech is not going to stop 100% of NS missle tech, I think it would be pretty realistic.

Sorry if I am talking incohesively, I am currently thinking about a naval redesign so its all buzzing around in my messed up head.

Silver Sky, what about in Aerial and ground combat?

Aerial is almost done exclusively with missiles, guns have their place yes (strafing runs and dogfighting) but it's basically all missiles, as there are very little countermeasures against missiles other then stealth, chaff/flares/advanced decoys and mini missile interceptors.

As for ground combat, they're useful, guided MLRS rockets are basically missiles in everything but name and are greatly effective in the counter batter role against standard SPH/SPGs, also ATGM such as Kornet can still do damage to NS tanks from the side and are extremely capable of taking down IFVs in a single shot. Also, Kinetic Energy Missiles such as HATM, CKEM and LOSAT would probably be capable of taking down even NS tanks (not sure about this, don't have any solid stats). However, the prevalance of Active Protection Systems have downgraded the effectiveness of slower ATGMs, and even of the Mach 6+ CKEM, but not enough to make then useless.

Then there is flak guns vs SAMs. Again, SAMs win, they are capable of reaching high altitude bombers (60,000ft+) and blow them up dozens if not hundreds of km away. Flak guns, even ETC are generally restricted to <30,000ft and no more then a dozen km away.

Well with guns and missles is the thing that size of population affects guns lot more seriously then missles, you just cant put SD's with 30 inch guns to water if you don't have huge population. For launching large number of good missles you don't need so huge ships.

I don't believe missiles are extinct by any stretch of the imagination. The big problem is that a lot of nations on NS don't have realistic expectations of what point defense can and cannot do.

That said, I have a new missile in my inventory that makes use of some of the very weaknesses described in the article (and uses concepts from missiles already in service in the real world). For example, a missile that "jinks" as it approaches the target, making it more difficult to hit.

I wish you sensible guys had been more prevaliant more than a year and a half ago during my playing NS for a couple of months until I had to quit. I was reading a "Why SDs are invincible" thread like every other day. I gave up arguing that stuff when eveyday 5 new people would come and throw down the same words the previous guy had. Its much better now, take a bow.
You probably read a "Why SDs are crap and easy to kill" thread every other day, in which SD proponents (ie. the people you are praising as sensible now) were arguing that actually it was quite hard to sink a multimillion tonne ship with huge compartmentalisation, which is still true.

I don't believe missiles are extinct by any stretch of the imagination. The big problem is that a lot of nations on NS don't have realistic expectations of what point defense can and cannot do.

That said, I have a new missile in my inventory that makes use of some of the very weaknesses described in the article (and uses concepts from missiles already in service in the real world). For example, a missile that "jinks" as it approaches the target, making it more difficult to hit.

Jinking is a double edged sword, it can be useful to avoid SAMs and point-defenses, but it does slow down the missile which means alot when said missile slams into a heavily armored SD.

But let me tell you a little story. Once Rosdivan used a couple of hundred of missiles that flew at 100,000 feet and could be launched 700 kilometers away. My standard naval SAMs(the MDSM-4 and MDSM-6) had a ceiling of 95,000 feet and his missiles were somewhat armored to protect against my WHIRLWIND Anti-Aircraft/Anti-Missile system. I lost an entire Dreadnought Battlegroup... but learned a valuable lesson: 'If its flying too high, you cant hit it.'

While I agree with you in some respect... It would take a lot of missiles to take down some of these ships. Also there are the ICBM sized Anti-Shipping missiles. Also, Phoenix, how is the missile replace the CIWS?

A lot less than you'd think, actually. It's possible to make missiles that can pierce any armor in existence on an NS ship with a single blow.

Also, no, it's not harder to shoot down a shell than a missile. Why people believe this is beyond me, as shells arn't any faster than missiles (and indeed, slower much of the time) and have very predictable courses. The only reason people don't bother with it in real life is because no one builds battleships anymore.

Armor also doesn't help with regards to torpedoes, really-- the more you have, actually, the worse off you are. Torpedoes do most of their damage via shock waves from their explosion, which bypasses armor. Even a modern-day ADCAP could cause serious damage to any NS ship because of this.

Instead of building 40 carriers, they build an SC.

[OOC: 40 Carriers > 1 SD.]

My Ophion missile is a unique type of missile that darts over the ground or sea and swives around before making an actual attack. While harder to destroy it definately needs some combat action to justify if it is obsolete. So far though in all my theoretical work, it would be hard to even see it on the ground as it zips over hills or winds through valleys before striking.

Missiles are great for long range targets, but I'm working on a new type of missile already to counter specific nation threats.

[OOC: 40 Carriers > 1 SD.]

It honestly depends on what you want with your navy.

Raw firepower? SD.

Power projection? Carrier

A APBC shell with guidance and a rocket motor is basically a missile, anyways.

A APBC shell with guidance and a rocket motor is basically a missile, anyways.

Yeah, except with a much more expensive launch platform and a much smaller payload of explosives.

It honestly depends on what you want with your navy.

Raw firepower? SD.

Power projection? Carrier

[OOC: Correct. Investing the bulk of ones military might into only a few ships is dangerous and puts nations in a very vulnerable position, though.]

Yeah, except with a much more expensive launch platform and a much smaller payload of explosives.

A gun and its turret is not a 'much more' expensive launch platform; you have to take into consideration the cost of building the VLS platform, the fire mechanism and the missile itself. For NS VLS, you also have to take into consideration the loading belt, or however your ship reloads its VLS (which is more expensive, anyway you look at it) than reloading normal shells.

But, I'm not arguing against missiles - I use missiles more than I do use shells. I'm just saying that shells are basically turning into missiles anyways. And shells can have similar payloads to missiles - especially considering the size of shells/guns on NS.

Vault 10 has already made every argument about this subject that I would care to, so I'll just say that guns are inferior to missiles for all but a couple of mission profiles and leave it at that.

A gun and its turret is not a 'much more' expensive launch platform; you have to take into consideration the cost of building the VLS platform, the fire mechanism and the missile itself.

All of which will add up to a lot less than a gun, its turret, the turrets armor, the ships armor, and all of the work dedicated to making the ship capable of carrying its armament. Even a simple twin arm launcher is only about a hundred thousand pounds. Unless you don't have any electronics going into your gun system (which is nonsensical), the gun is going to cost vastly more. Yamato's turrets weighed 2,700 tons, just the material cost will vastly outweigh the cost of the VLS system (as evidenced by the fact that missile systems and VLS are common place).


But, I'm not arguing against missiles - I use missiles more than I do use shells. I'm just saying that shells are basically turning into missiles anyways. And shells can have similar payloads to missiles - especially considering the size of shells/guns on NS.

Shells cannot have similar payloads to missiles. Too much shock protection needs to be built into them. The latest versions of Harpoon, the SLAM-ER, have payload fractions of .4. You're simply not going to get that with a shell.

For NS modern tech, I was noticing that it seemed like missiles are rapidly becoming obsolete. While somewhat obvious in Naval Warfare, I have also noticed increasingly deadly anti-missile defenses on fighters. Thus I see more and more nation using ETC AA cannons. Even on tanks, use of mini-CIWS has negated the missile effect. So is the day of the missile winding down?

No.

Simply put, missiles are not as much fun.
So greater emphasis in placed on guns, and counter missile defenses.

People might use this thread as a way to slam SD users but that is because those people breath through their mouths and play with their feces.

Missiles tend to be boring...thats all. Guns of course have their place, I mean MLRS will never replace good old shell arty, the naval guns providing shore bombardment capability are fecking great. Long range inland land attack by stand off missile...owns and i mean who shoots with guns on aircraft before at least trying to shoot them down with missiles?

Missiles do things guns cant and it will always be that way.

Also dont let wankers who act like CIWS is the be all end all of Missile warfare, convince you they are right---they are not. CIWS is "Last Chance" stuff.

Missiles are not going anywhere.


And Axis..ouch...is right, MIssiles can do a great deal against an SD sized vessel...and please dont confuse a "Mission Kill" with a "Sinking" one missile can missile kill an SD.
And the torpedo issue also true as far as I know.

A lot less than you'd think, actually. It's possible to make missiles that can pierce any armor in existence on an NS ship with a single blow.

:takes out pen and paper:

Mind telling us how?

:takes out pen and paper:

Mind telling us how?

Ye good old fashioned KE strike will do it. A couple thousand pounds of missile, with AP head, impacting at hypersonic speeds will go through just about anything. So will several hundred pounds or more of a shaped charge. To get the same KE as Yamato's shells had at their muzzle at Mach 3, you need an 850kg (at impact weight) missile. At Mach 4, 480. At Mach 5, 306 kg. Which is less than the weight of a Kh-15P impacting its target at Mach 5 incidentally, while it still manages to carry a 150kg warhead to the target.

Ye good old fashioned KE strike will do it. A couple thousand pounds of missile, with AP head, impacting at hypersonic speeds will go through just about anything. So will several hundred pounds or more of a shaped charge. To get the same KE as Yamato's shells had at their muzzle at Mach 3, you need an 850kg (at impact weight) missile. At Mach 4, 480. At Mach 5, 306 kg. Which is less than the weight of a Kh-15P impacting its target at Mach 5 incidentally, while it still manages to carry a 150kg warhead to the target.

Yeah, thats how you sunk that Dreadnought Battlegroup of mine. But I was asking him.

:takes out pen and paper:

Mind telling us how?

He is technically right - missiles are near-infinitely scaleable and, to take an extreme example, you could quite easily take a Saturn V, load it up with a few hundred tonnes of explosive, and fire it at a ship at mach 20. Nothing will stand up to that.

What he has failed to tell us is that in order to do this, and even worse, to do it at a decent range, the missile has to be HUGE, and this annihilates many of the advantages of using a missile at a stroke:

Weapon Cost: When you get to something like ZMI's Khan missile (a 20m long missile designed to destroy NS capitals), the cost difference between a shell and a missile stops being "quite large" and starts being "monumentally huge". A Khan costs nearly a billion dollars to build (IIRC, the wiki page only lists the price in "rungs" for which no exchange rate is given, so it's not exact), whereas a shell of similar destructive power will cost you only a few thousand $s.

Launch Platform Cost: The major plus point for missiles is that you can put a payload of missiles with power equivalent to 11" shells on a destroyer - the weapons may cost more but the launch platform costs less. This goes out the window when you start scaling things up. A Khan is 25m long, and that doesn't include the canister. In order to fit an appreciable number into a hull, you need to put them in vertically, or at worst at a slight incline like the Soviets did on Kirov. A ship deep enough to carry a 25m missile is going to be pretty huge - bordering on becoming an SD anyway.

Interceptibility: As size increases, so does interceptibility. A missile as tall as an office block and as wider than a man is high is much easier to intercept than a shell which is only a warhead. Worse, if you want any appreciable range, you're going to have to use relatively slow engines for much of the journey, given the enemy a large window in which to attack and destroy your missile.


Very large missiles are by no means useless - in fact, Khan has proved highly effective - but they are also not a panacea and not "superior" to gunfire. They become so expensive (Khan is as expensive as a 9,000t US Arleigh Burke class Destroyer) that losing them becomes a real cost, and "spamming" them ceases to be a viable tactic, especially as their vulnerability to interception does not significantly decrease, and may arguably increase. That is why navies that are actually halfway competent - like Praetonia's, Questers's or ZMI's - use both gunfire and missiles, and don't take the view that one is inherently better than the other.

Ye good old fashioned KE strike will do it. A couple thousand pounds of missile, with AP head, impacting at hypersonic speeds will go through just about anything. So will several hundred pounds or more of a shaped charge. To get the same KE as Yamato's shells had at their muzzle at Mach 3, you need an 850kg (at impact weight) missile. At Mach 4, 480. At Mach 5, 306 kg. Which is less than the weight of a Kh-15P impacting its target at Mach 5 incidentally, while it still manages to carry a 150kg warhead to the target.
It doesn't really work like that, unfortunately. Most of a missile's pre-launch mass is fuel, and that's all or mostly gone by the time your missile hits the target, so you're only going to have warhead mass and then a little extra from the sensors, casing (which is designed to be as light as possible), the engine itself and any leftover fuel.

Also, most of the damage caused by shells isn't caused by KE, but by chemical explosives. Solid metal "AP" shells were indeed used by navies on all sides during the battleship era, but they just punched holes in ships and hoped to get lucky and hit something important. They rarely destroyed ships unless they hit a magazine, and most of the time the major damage they did was to individual turrets, knocking guns out of action.

-snip-

Good post.

It doesn't really work like that, unfortunately. Most of a missile's pre-launch mass is fuel, and that's all or mostly gone by the time your missile hits the target, so you're only going to have warhead mass and then a little extra from the sensors, casing (which is designed to be as light as possible), the engine itself and any leftover fuel.

To go back to the example I used, the Kh-15A (made a mistake in the P designation, that's the wrong one), the warhead is 150kg. It needs double that to hit the KE of Yamato's shells when they leave the muzzle. Can we not assume that the left over fuel, casing, and guidance will go up to that? Especially as a competent military isn't going to launch from extreme range and so there will be a large amount of fuel left. Put it another way, one can easily take the Kh-15A as a design basis for a missile with a 300kg penetrator to impact the deck at Mach 5. Back of the hand calc would put that missile, assuming an additional 150kg explosive warhead, at 3,600 kg. Not out of the line (an NSified Buccaneer or Intruder should be able to carry two after you strengthen the hardpoints and possibly move the landing gear around) but shows why I prefer shaped charges or torpedoes for SDNs. Still, assuming that AP penetrator, that's some 34 inches of deck armor that it can penetrate with 150kg available to blow up the innards. Not a threat to be taken lightly.

And seriously, what's the point of bringing up the Khan other than to create a strawman? It's completely beyond any actual need. Or do you honestly think that you need a Khan to take out an SDN?


Also, most of the damage caused by shells isn't caused by KE, but by chemical explosives. Solid metal "AP" shells were indeed used by navies on all sides during the battleship era, but they just punched holes in ships and hoped to get lucky and hit something important. They rarely destroyed ships unless they hit a magazine, and most of the time the major damage they did was to individual turrets, knocking guns out of action.

Right, but when you're talking about defeating armor, KE is a relevant basis for comparison. Also keep in mind that the KE from a missile is more than enough to disable a ship (as we've found out from tests with concrete warheads and Exocet's initial warhead unreliability, the missile that hit Sheffield never detonated for instance).


That is why navies that are actually halfway competent - like Praetonia's, Questers's or ZMI's - use both gunfire and missiles, and don't take the view that one is inherently better than the other.

That's not competency, that's idiocy. In every basis of comparison except for volume, large caliber shells show themselves to be worse than a missile. They have less range, less potential for damage, less speed, less ability to conduct manuevers to avoid enemy counterfire, no precision unless fitted with a guidance system comparable to that of a missile, no capacity for stealth characteristics, etc.

And how are you even supposed to bring an opposing fleet under your guns if they don't wish to? I'm more than willing to match a carrier group or fleet of mine against a comparable guns based force and watch you try and close to gun range. It should be highly amusing to watch your ships trying to close to gun range, something that's limited to about one hundred nautical miles at best (if for no reason other than time of flight, ERGM takes 5.5 minutes for 50nm), against a fleet that is just as fast or faster and has the capacity for highly accurate strikes over a thousand nautical miles away.

Ros, no offense, but do yourself a favor and work on your reading comprehension. He said neither is better than the other, which means he uses both guns and missiles. Frankly, I don't think the supercapital crowd uses anywhere near enough missiles, but that's just me.

Also, note I'm not saying you don't have a point about holding open the range, it's my preferred tactic, eventually missiles are going to run out and the fleets will have to close, at which point the carriers are going to be nothing more than sitting ducks.

Or, alternately, if the fleet runs out of missiles, and the enemy fleet is still floating and in working condition (something rather unlikely), he can just sail away.

As to why that is, if you're using an SD-centric fleet and the other guy is using a carrier-based fleet, you're going to be slower, no contest.

Or, alternately, if the fleet runs out of missiles, and the enemy fleet is still floating and in working condition (something rather unlikely), he can just sail away.


Nice theory, but in practice it doesn't really work. The enemy fleet could just as easily match course and speed to shadow the fleet and call in land-based bombers to finish the job.

As to why that is, if you're using an SD-centric fleet and the other guy is using a carrier-based fleet, you're going to be slower, no contest.

Anybody who concentrates on one or the other is a freaking moron. As it is, any fleet that actually survives a battle is going to be in such bad shape they won't be going much faster, if at all.

Nice theory, but in practice it doesn't really work. The enemy fleet could just as easily match course and speed to shadow the fleet and call in land-based bombers to finish the job.

Right, an SD-centric fleet is going to be able to keep up with a carrier battle group. I'd love to see one try, for comedic value if nothing else.

I have also noticed increasingly deadly anti-missile defenses on fighters. Thus I see more and more nation using ETC AA cannons. Even on tanks, use of mini-CIWS has negated the missile effect. So is the day of the missile winding down?
People trying to stick anti-missile defenses everywhere just proves that missiles are already so powerful that the defense has to be aimed against them.
Effectiveness of these things is often grossly overestimated.

A long thread I've noticed late... So I'll just comment on some things.


Well, it IS a lot more difficult to shoot down a flying shell than a missile
Not really. It depends on the missile, of course. But a shell is what you see from far away and know the trajectory. A thing like Granit is coming in at an unpredictable trajectory, at well higher speed, and has both the structural strength to take a good deal of damage and explosive which is hard to detonate.
For AP shell, it's even harder to destroy, but then you can use a more powerful weapon: it's much easier to hit.


Mind telling us how? Mind telling, don't mind selling ;-). Are we national/corporate leaders or what?


And that is why they invented the under-water 30mm CIWS that you see on SD.
A problem of any underwater cannon is very low range. "Very low" means that torpedoes don't even need to come this close to a ship, they detonate below in any case. Besides, it's not as easy to detonate the warhead as it seems.
The only deployed real-life torpedo defense system is... Shkval. That's right, the supercavitating Shkval was actually made as a pre-programmed torpedo defense weapon, to intercept them, sometimes with normal warhead, sometimes with a nuclear one. The modern version has some guidance, more range, etc., making it suitable against ships and subs, but it's still a defensive weapon.


were arguing that actually it was quite hard to sink a multimillion tonne ship with huge compartmentalisation, which is still true.
It is. However, different weapons have different effects. Trying to sink a SD with gunfire is, realistically, bad idea. Most of them have armor so thick that is simply impossible to pierce with any normal gun, even of 30" size.
Now, there are methods, of course... I'm not building it, so I'll give some ideas - use tank-like long rods. I almost have the design for a good method, but have nowhere to put it anyway. Still, the more advanced the shell is, the more the distinction between shells and missiles is blurred, cost included.

Another way is to bypass the armor and just deal structural damage. It's known as "breaking the keel", and people try to avoid it by having no keel (like "I'll cut away my leg so nobody breaks it") or "honeycomb structure". Keelless is plain silly because it makes the ship tear apart even better. Honeycombs really will have no keel breaking, but the interior of the ship will be pretty cracked after a hit, as they lack stiffness. Triple keel is a thing used IRL, but not for that - it is just one of the methods of bilge design and small boat stability help.

People often imagine keel as a solid slab, as on a small boat; it isn't like that at all on large ships. Modern ship's keel is just another longitudinal, which has 20-50% thicker plates, plus has a transverse floor every frame as opposed to every web frame (usually every 4 normal frames) for normal longitudinals. The structure already holds by itself, the keel is just some reinforcement to take the highest loads occurring at the centerline.


A gun and its turret is not a 'much more' expensive launch platform; you have to take into consideration the cost of building the VLS platform, the fire mechanism and the missile itself.
Well, Britain used to build entire ships just to utilize spare naval guns and barrels when it became clear they won't be needed. A big naval gun is a very expensive thing to make. Expensive materials (titanium is just cheap crap compared to good barrel steels), very expensive tools, a lot of them expended in the process.
For comparison, a load of missiles together with VLS only takes about 15% of the ship's cost. Reloading VLS through a belt is a pretty strange thing to do, BTW. A "sixshooter" system is the most one could need; besides, single-missile VLS don't take considerably more space than reloadable ones, for same missile count. The only reason would be to save deck space for something, but, then, there's a lot of it already.


A Khan costs nearly a billion dollars to build (IIRC, the wiki page only lists the price in "rungs" for which no exchange rate is given, so it's not exact), whereas a shell of similar destructive power will cost you only a few thousand $s. Conclusions?
First of all, let's face it, NS world isn't RL world; unlike optimized, sold and bought RL designs, NS ones contain a lot of randomness.
The Khan is overpriced. Realistically it would cost maybe about $100 million if going serious. Missile cost is basically between $1-2 mln per tonne.
Second, even a normal battleship's shell cost, IIRC, about $10,000, when mass produced, converted to modern cost relationships. No guidance, rocket assist, uberxplosives, or whatever. Let's start for $100,000 for 30-32" shells. Fair enough, I hope? Upscale, mostly; still no guidance, just a modernized explosive; nothing more.
Now, to match the destructive power, however low it is prioritized on a missile, you need to lay at least a couple dozens of shells, considering armor taking most of the damage. Now, getting to hit probability. You won't get it too high without guidance, and so will have to again use a dozen shells per hit. That all sums up to a pretty sizable sum around $30 million.

So for realistic costs the difference isn't that radical. It was understood already when the first guided missiles were built. However, the gun is what will more than compensate for the cost difference.


eventually missiles are going to run out
One of the two: ships are going to run out as well. And, comparing numbers and the number sufficient to kill, I'd say the second way is more likely. Not completely, but it will happen sooner.

To go back to the example I used, the Kh-15A (made a mistake in the P designation, that's the wrong one), the warhead is 150kg. It needs double that to hit the KE of Yamato's shells when they leave the muzzle. Can we not assume that the left over fuel, casing, and guidance will go up to that?
There is no reason to do assume that, other than because it is convenient for your argument, so no, we can't.

Especially as a competent military isn't going to launch from extreme range and so there will be a large amount of fuel left.
So your hypothetical "competent" military would be quite happy to throw away the missile's range advantage, and also having thrown away this advantage, not designed missiles that try to burn all the remaining fuel to increase terminal velocity? Fuel isn't designed to add bulk - it's designed to be burnt as fuel. There are better ways to add bulk, such as added a tungsten penetrator in front of the warhead, as I do this on my missiles.

Put it another way, one can easily take the Kh-15A as a design basis for a missile with a 300kg penetrator to impact the deck at Mach 5.
Well, you would need a missile that can carry roughly double the payload to do that, so no you can't, actually. And the Kh-15A is far too short ranged to be of any use against a NS battlegroup, especially a battlegroup with an SD or supercap at its heart as you seem to be saying. My standard ASM (which is 8m long - longer than a Kh-15A with double the payload but otherwise identical stats) has twice the range and a much heavy payload. However, it moves at mach 3, not mach 5, and that is a huge difference in fuel requirements. It also doesn't go very high, rendering it detectable at much longer ranges than a sea-skimmer and thus vastly increasing the interception window. To get mach 5 on a seaskimmer with twice the payload of the Kh-15A at twice the range - what you're going to need to make this effective against what you want to engage with it - this missile is going to need to be about 10m long.

And this is using the wiki quoted range of 185mi. According to other sites such as this one (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kh15.htm), range is as low as 90mi. In fact, there seems to be little reliable information about this missile at all.

Back of the hand calc would put that missile, assuming an additional 150kg explosive warhead, at 3,600 kg. Not out of the line (an NSified Buccaneer or Intruder should be able to carry two after you strengthen the hardpoints and possibly move the landing gear around) but shows why I prefer shaped charges or torpedoes for SDNs. Still, assuming that AP penetrator, that's some 34 inches of deck armor that it can penetrate with 150kg available to blow up the innards. Not a threat to be taken lightly.
In addition to what is said above, a 150kg explosive will do little or nothing to an SD, even inside, unless it hits a magazine, which have multiple redundant layers of armour protecting them anyway. And that is assuming that your AP capabilities (which you seem to have just invented out of nowhere) are accurate.

And seriously, what's the point of bringing up the Khan other than to create a strawman? It's completely beyond any actual need. Or do you honestly think that you need a Khan to take out an SDN?
SDs are, like all battleships, designed to withstand a similar kind of firepower to their maingun armament. Your missile, along with all its other problems, does not even approach that.

Right, but when you're talking about defeating armor, KE is a relevant basis for comparison.

[quote]Also keep in mind that the KE from a missile is more than enough to disable a ship (as we've found out from tests with concrete warheads and Exocet's initial warhead unreliability, the missile that hit Sheffield never detonated for instance).
No it isn't. Ships can and have survived missile impacts in the past. Sheffield was sunk because spare fuel in the Exocet ignited and set fire to the ship's aluminium superstructure, not because of the all-consuming power of KE.

And how are you even supposed to bring an opposing fleet under your guns if they don't wish to? I'm more than willing to match a carrier group or fleet of mine against a comparable guns based force and watch you try and close to gun range. It should be highly amusing to watch your ships trying to close to gun range, something that's limited to about one hundred nautical miles at best (if for no reason other than time of flight, ERGM takes 5.5 minutes for 50nm), against a fleet that is just as fast or faster and has the capacity for highly accurate strikes over a thousand nautical miles away.
Nowhere have I said that I do not use carriers. At best, in your example, my fleet is no better than yours, but certainly no worse.

However, the fundamental assumption your argument makes is that I design my navy primarily to sink carrier battlegroups. I don't. I design it to defend my shores, and to impose blockades and launch invasions against other countries. In these examples, either you are coming to me (invading my country, bypassing blockades, Etc.), or I am attacking targets in your country that cannot move (port entrances, landing sites, Etc.). You are quite right that missiles (and torpedoes launched by submarines) are superior for use in running engagements on the open ocean with no fixed objectives, and I do use both carriers and missiles to fight such battles.

Why not use unguided missiles such as advanced versions of the nuke-tipped genie (hell, if you can use your godrods...) to create large damages (obviously, such a weapon would likely not be used over friendly turf) offensively against an enemy formation, base, or fleet?

Why not use unguided missiles such as advanced versions of the nuke-tipped genie (hell, if you can use your godrods...) to create large damages (obviously, such a weapon would likely not be used over friendly turf) offensively against an enemy formation, base, or fleet?

Because it is a nuke.

Because it is a nuke.

Convert it to a large-scale air-fueled weapon (and hey, a bunch of people use godrods which rhymes with godmods...and to me is on par with nukes) for use against such things as Axis Nova's "PMT" airships or naval groups.

Godrods are actually horrible against moving targets. A number of people have developed air to air or surface to air missiles with penetrators, which will be effective enough at damaging my airships.

Because the effects of nuclear weapons on large fleets isn't very much unless you're willing to get into megaton range and then you're likely to have your fleets and military ports nuked.

Well, if you deliver them to the target, a kiloton is more than enough to destroy any ship conceivable. High-power nukes are mounted IRL "just because we can" - to make one missile work against an entire fleet, not just a ship.

Still, contrary to the popular belief, monster ships don't take monster missiles to sink.

Yeah, a nuke will destroy anything that it scores a direct hit on, as long as aforementioned nuke is detonated upon contact.

Ros, no offense, but do yourself a favor and work on your reading comprehension. He said neither is better than the other, which means he uses both guns and missiles

Work on your own Scand. I said that they weren't equal and that missiles are far better.

There is no reason to do assume that, other than because it is convenient for your argument, so no, we can't.

Actually we can since it'd be damn stupid to assume that the casing and guidance and what not are that little.


So your hypothetical "competent" military would be quite happy to throw away the missile's range advantage, and also having thrown away this advantage, not designed missiles that try to burn all the remaining fuel to increase terminal velocity?

Seeing as how that's the practice of real life militaries, yes.


Fuel isn't designed to add bulk - it's designed to be burnt as fuel. There are better ways to add bulk, such as added a tungsten penetrator in front of the warhead, as I do this on my missiles.

Fuel also starts rather severe fires on enemy ships. Remember that Sheffield was lost, not due to the warhead, but thanks to the KE impact of the missile and the fire.


Well, you would need a missile that can carry roughly double the payload to do that, so no you can't, actually.

Yes you can. I said as a basis for design, sharing similar properties. Or did you completely fail to notice the fact that I went and did a back of the hand calc which ended up with a larger missile?


And the Kh-15A is far too short ranged to be of any use against a NS battlegroup, especially a battlegroup with an SD or supercap at its heart as you seem to be saying.

Actually its not. Your radar range drops to a pittance of its maximum values when its up against stealthy aircraft at low level with a large amount of jamming support.


In addition to what is said above, a 150kg explosive will do little or nothing to an SD, even inside, unless it hits a magazine, which have multiple redundant layers of armour protecting them anyway. And that is assuming that your AP capabilities (which you seem to have just invented out of nowhere) are accurate.

You know, I did lay out how I calculated stuff. Would it kill you to actually read those calculations? Furthermore, 150kg will disable a gun, start fires, set off stored missiles, and so forth. It's not fun. Larger explosives are good of course.


SDs are, like all battleships, designed to withstand a similar kind of firepower to their maingun armament. Your missile, along with all its other problems, does not even approach that.

RL rule of thumb was 20 hits from its own guns. You don't think that I can arrange that? I might also mention that following RL calculations for firepower kills, a one million ton SDN would suffer a firepower kill at 33 thousand pound bomb equivalents. That's only 22,000 pounds of HE. Put another way, that's 13.5 Shipwreck missiles.


No it isn't. Ships can and have survived missile impacts in the past.

And I denied that where? That has what to do with my statement?


Sheffield was sunk because spare fuel in the Exocet ignited and set fire to the ship's aluminium superstructure, not because of the all-consuming power of KE.

Sheffield wasn't built of aluminum. She was abandoned due to fumes from the fire which would have suffocated her crew otherwise and sank because of poor weather. Stark almost sank due to the water taken on to fight the fires when she was struck. Incidentally, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqF1Hv4nQXY) has some nice views of the damage that that solitary missile caused Sheffield.


However, the fundamental assumption your argument makes is that I design my navy primarily to sink carrier battlegroups.

The fundamental assumption that I make is that your navy is designed to seize maritime superiority over a foe and project power. Nothing more, nothing less.


You are quite right that missiles (and torpedoes launched by submarines) are superior for use in running engagements on the open ocean with no fixed objectives, and I do use both carriers and missiles to fight such battles.

Here's a scenario for you. I have a fleet of mine coming in to launch a raid on your mainland. My heavy bombers will launch approximately two thousand nautical miles away from the target, using long range air launched cruise missiles to strike it. Exactly how do your shells do anything to aid your defense? Conversely, how do your shells do anything to hurt my defenses if your trying to raid me?

I have an unrelated question. Is it possible to build a ship made out of carbon nanotubes? These are 60x that of steel. Or is that PMT?

Work on your own Scand. I said that they weren't equal and that missiles are far better.


I know what you said, pendejo. I wasn't addressing your opinion, I was addressing the fact that you were under the misapprehension that Prae thought one was better than the other.

Sheffield wasn't built of aluminum. She was abandoned due to fumes from the fire which would have suffocated her crew otherwise and sank because of poor weather.
True. Though flammable materials contributed to the fire, they are necessary.
And people still continue to build ships out of highly flammable, inextinguishable titanium, where single fire equals entire ship burned.


I have an unrelated question. Is it possible to build a ship made out of carbon nanotubes? These are 60x that of steel. Or is that PMT?
Partially. However, they aren't "60x of steel". Single nanotubes, which are invisible to eye, are chemically analyzed to have about 60 times the strength of construction steel blocks; more properly they should be compared to single crystals of steel. Real nanotubes are just a few times stronger. But - only in tension. They don't resist compression at all and need plastic for that. Practical carbon nanotube reinforced plastic is a perspective material, but not of much importance to ships. Besides, composites are very fragile and intolerant to damage, which makes their military use limited to ships with "it's down anyway if hit" concept.

True. Though flammable materials contributed to the fire, they are necessary.
And people still continue to build ships out of highly flammable, inextinguishable titanium, where single fire equals entire ship burned.

OOC: I used to sell ships with magnesium alloy because its lightweight allows me to build up armor thickness while saving money.

I no longer do that due to the fact that a few of my Homeland class Battleships burst into flame in foreign conflicts and became massive firestarters.

I should probably discontinue the use of aluminum and titanium in export designs. Or I can keep doing it to save money.

Lol. Just lol. The arguments on both sides are equally lol.

olo olo olo olo

A nice argument.

Do you know how pointless these arguments are? They've been had numerous times, with no conclusion, and because there's no conclusion the SD stays because nobody is persuaded not to use it. Well, I rarely use SDs anymore as I prefer carriers as attack launches, but quite simply an attack on a fully-sized NS fleet with the idea your fire and forget missiles and aircraft spam will win is suicidal. NS Air Defence is extremely advanced. Don't understimate it. Then again, don't underestimate the power of a determined nad well planned aircraft attack.

Quite.

Do you know how pointless these arguments are? They've been had numerous times, with no conclusion, and because there's no conclusion the SD stays because nobody is persuaded not to use it. Well, I rarely use SDs anymore as I prefer carriers as attack launches, but quite simply an attack on a fully-sized NS fleet with the idea your fire and forget missiles and aircraft spam will win is suicidal. NS Air Defence is extremely advanced. Don't understimate it. Then again, don't underestimate the power of a determined nad well planned aircraft attack.

And this is coming from the guy that designed the famous Hood :eek:

I know what you said, pendejo. I wasn't addressing your opinion, I was addressing the fact that you were under the misapprehension that Prae thought one was better than the other.

A misapprehension I was never under. I took issue with his treating them as equal, when in fact missiles are far superior.

From what I understand mini-CIWS systems are actually very ineffective in modern warfare -- since they use some kind of system in which the landscape can cause them to not be able to track incoming missiles.