Navy thread

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

An excellent selection of photos of navy ships and aircraft is available at https://seaforces.org -- it's become my go-to for ships and aircraft photos as long as it is Navy or Marine Corps. Any nations' navy.

I would assume you also use Jane's? We had copies on the ship and they were very accurate. We used them regularly.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

I would assume you also use Jane's? We had copies on the ship and they were very accurate. We used them regularly.

Jane's is too rich for me. I have a collection of the books but used to buy annuals that were several years old for $100-$200. The price for a new one is up to something like $2,000! Waaay to rich for me!

I've been looking for a newer Jane's Fighting Ships for a few years now -- my latest one is 2008-09. Even the five-year-old ones are awfully expensive, so I keep looking.

[Llarry]

The above post on the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force mentioned the ballistic missile defense capabilities of naval warships. There are at least three users of the AEGIS and RIM-161 Standard Missile SM-3 anti-ballistic missile defense (BMD) missile currently operational, with another two countries pursuing the capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_...Defense_System

The U.S. Navy has 5 cruisers and 28 or more destroyers equipped for the intercept of short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. There is a group of these ships based in Rota, Spain for defense of NATO against missile attack. A threat of concern is North Korea and at any given time a number of BMD-capable Navy ships are active in the Western Pacific.

There are also two fixed land-based AEGIS Ashore facilities in Poland and Romania with the radar systems and missile launchers. The U.S. has considered putting a similar land-based BMD capability in Guam, which has been augmented with additional military might in recent years; Guam has the potential to be a target for Chinese or North Korean missile attack. Guam does have a U.S. Army THAAD missile battery with BMD capabilities.

The other navy to have BMD capability is the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force, which has 8 destroyers with the required systems and missiles to defend against missile attack.

The Royal Netherlands Navy is in the process of equipping 4 frigates with BMD capability, and the Republic of Korea Navy is also pursuing missile defense capability for their AEGIS missile destroyers.

[Llarry]

Quite a photo: Three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in formation. Given the lack of aircraft on flight decks, I assume this was taken not far from Norfolk, Virginia.

[Llarry]

In the post above I introduced the RIM-161 Standard missile SM-3 used for intercept of ballistic missiles. Here's the background and history of U.S. Navy air defense missiles...

The first Navy surface to air missile was the Terrier (RIM-2), which was first test-fired in the early 1950s. It was a large two-stage missile with a booster rocket that would fall away and send the missile with warhead and sustainer rocket to the target. Given that it was the 1950s there was a nuclear warhead version designed to take out massed formations of aircraft attacking the fleet, but the majority of missiles had conventional warheads. Given the large size of the missile, a sizeable warship (cruiser-size) was needed to accommodate the twin-arm launcher and missile magazine.

To allow smaller ships to have missile capability a version without the booster was introduced that could be carried by destroyers and frigates. This was the Tartar (RIM-24). The launchers were both single- and twin-arm.

The Terrier and Tartar got the nickname of the "Terrible Ts" as the reliability was poor, but over the years improved.

Although the appearance of the missile was nearly identical, the above two SAMs were succeeded from the 1960s by the long Standard-ER (extended range; RIM-67) and the shorter Standard-MR (RIM-66) missiles; performance and reliability were further improved. Missile range was often quoted as 20 miles for Terrier and 10 miles for Tartar; these have improved dramatically over the years.

Several aircraft carriers were built with twin-arm launchers for the RIM-24/66, but the missile magazines were bulky and the missiles were soon removed. While the carriers depended on accompanying surface combatants for air defense, a more compact solution that could be mounted on the carrier for last-ditch defense was desired. The solution was to adapt the Sparrow air to air missile for use abord ship in a compact launcher; the result was the Sea Sparrow (RIM-7), which became operational in 1969. The latest variants still serve in the fleet today.

Just to give you a sense of scale, a Terrier or RIM-67 weighed 3,000 lbs at launch, while a Tartar or RIM-66 weighed 1,300-plus and a Sea Sparrow was about 500 lbs.

An even more compact missile was ultimately developed and is now widely used in the fleet: The RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile; RIM-116) is truly a last-ditch solution with a launch weight of just 160+ lbs. and a range of just a few miles. It became operational in 1993.

All the above missiles require a separate radar and fire control systems; given that in the heat of battle there may be issues with that, a self-contained unit called SeaRAM was developed with its own radar and fire control; as long as it has electrical power it is functional.

Meanwhile, the Sea Sparrow was improved; the original missile was 8 inches in diameter. By increasing the diameter of the rocket motor to 10 inches, additional acceleration and range were obtained. This is the ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile; RIM-162); it can be launched from the same launcher as the Sea Sparrow. This is now the longer-range defense option for aircraft carriers and can also be fitted to surface combatants.

The above-deck single- and twin-arm launchers were a perennial maintenance headache on surface combatants and in the 1980s an improved system was developed: Rather than a launcher for one or two missiles and a magazine storing reloads below decks, each missile had its own launch tube with a blast door above to provide protection, eliminating many moving parts and improving reliability. These vertical launching systems (VLSs) are now standard in U.S. and allied navies and the above-deck launchers have disappeared.

The Standard missile has been further developed into a series of ever more capable missiles. In 1998, the Standard-ER was introduced, but rather than the long booster of the 1950s, this missile had a short but larger diameter booster that increased range considerably.

The ultimate development of the Standard missile is the SM-3 (RIM-161) used to intercept ballistic missiles; this is covered in a previous post. The 10-mile range of the original Tartar has become 200+ miles in this latest iteration, despite the fact that the size and appearance of the missile is quite similar to its 1960s predecessor.

One additional brief note: If an attacking aircraft or missile manages somehow to survive the Standard missiles fired by escorting surface combatants and the ESSM fired by those ships or the carrier itself AND the RAM fired by those ships or the carrier itself, it still faces one final defense: The Phalanx close-in weapons system (CIWS) which uses a 20mm rotating-barrel cannon for targets within a mile or so. (The 20mm cannon fires a very heavy depleted-uranium 12.7mm bullet inside a jacket; the goal is to stop/break up the attacker.)

[Llarry]

The development of ballistic missile defense (BMD) by the Royal Netherlands Navy caused me to take a closer look at that service; I discovered that the RNLN is an excellent, though not large, navy with two disparate missions: NATO and the Dutch territories in the Caribbean.

The RNLN presently has two active Diesel-electric attack submarines of the Walrus class, plus a sister boat currently being upgraded. The lead boat of the class, the HNLMS Walrus has been retired and is used for parts support for the other boats. A replacement submarine is being planned for the 2030s.

The BMD capability of the RNLN resides in the four frigates of the De Zeven Provincien class. These look to me to be excellent frigates that do not use the U.S. Aegis system but have an excellent Dutch combat system/radar that gives them somewhat similar capabilities. They fire Standard SM-2 IIIA missiles from a vertical launch system, have a 127mm gun and accommodate a single NH-90 helicopter. Planning -- in cooperation with the German Navy -- is underway for replacements in the 2030s.

The largest ship in the RNLN is the HNLMS Karel Doorman, a multipurpose auxiliary that has replenishment-at-sea capabilities as well as amphibious assault capabilities. The ship has excellent and large helicopter facilities and can function in a roll-on/roll-off role for vehicles. In a unique arrangement, the use of the Karel Doorman is shared with the German Navy.

The RNLN also has smaller units, such as offshore patrol vessels, minehunters, etc. Typically it maintains a presence in the Caribbean while most of the fleet operates in European waters.

[Romo]

^ Th Dutch close range defense system is called "Goalkeeper"

Phalanx and Goalkeeper are the best systems around.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Romo

^ Th Dutch close range defense system is called "Goalkeeper"

Phalanx and Goalkeeper are the best systems around.

I think the frigates are being upgraded with a second Goalkeeper.

Goalkeeper is 30mm (versus Phalanx 20mm) and has better range; an excellent system.

[Llarry]

The Royal Canadian Navy, like the Royal Netherlands Navy, is split between two missions due to geographic factors. The Canadian Fleet Atlantic is an important part of NATO's maritime component, while the Canadian Fleet Pacific is geographically distant but an important counterweight to Russian and Chinese maritime power in the Pacific. The RCN has an excellent relationship with the U.S. Navy and cooperates closely with the USN on a wide range of maritime tasks. Recently in the news was the transit of the Taiwan Strait (over Chinese objections) by a U.S. destroyer and RCN frigate, for instance.

The RCN has a smallish submarine force that is concentrated in the Pacific; three boats are Pacific-based while only one is in the Atlantic. The boats are designated SSK, indicating an emphasis on antisubmarine warfare.

The RCN's Halifax class (or City class) frigates, on the other hand, are more numerous in the Atlantic; Of 12 FFHs, seven are Atlantic- and five are Pacific-based. These ships have undergone a mid-life upgrade; as denoted in the H in their designation, they have good helicopter facilities. The design for a replacement class is well underway with construction scheduled to start soon.

Speaking of helicopter facilities, the RCN invented the Beartrap system for the safe operation of helicopters from surface combatants in rough weather in the 1960s. This innovative system uses a link between helo and ship; once the two are linked the helo maintains power but is winched down to the deck by a cable and then secured to a device ("trap") that can then winch the aircraft into a hangar while maintaining the solid connection. The U.S. Navy adopted this excellent system many years ago.

Given the Arctic regions of Canada's coast, another interesting RCN ship is the new Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship. The first of class -- HMCS Harry DeWolf, is in service with a second ship under construction and further units planned. These have some icebreaking capability, though as OPSs they are not heavily armed.

The RCN has taken a different approach to underway replenishment by leasing a commercial vessel to perform this important task. The MV Asterix was converted to an unrep ship (a de facto AOR) and is under lease, with some RCN personnel embarked as well. Asterix operates in the Pacific.

Maritime aircraft are all operated by the RCAF. This includes both CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft as well as CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters flown from the decks of the Halifax class FFHs and the MV Asterix. The CH-148s are relatively new, having replaced Sea Kings, and the aging CP-140 is scheduled to be replaced by the Boeing P-8 Poseidon -- no doubt with a distinct Canadian designation.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

...the aging CP-140 is scheduled to be replaced by the Boeing P-8 Poseidon -- no doubt with a distinct Canadian designation.

While the U.S. has already approved the sale of 16 P-8s to Canada, I see that just today the informative website scramble.nl reports that Bombardier has not given up the fight to replace the CP-140 with a Global 6500 derivative. The struggle continues...

[Boomer 2019]

I'll bet the crews are going to weigh in hot and heavy for this one. Pretty spiffy place to spend those long patrols.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Boomer 2019

I'll bet the crews are going to weigh in hot and heavy for this one. Pretty spiffy place to spend those long patrols.

When pigs fly military aircrew will get such spiffy chairs. More like this P-3 aircrew seat. Vinyl upholstery and all. Wood trim? Carpeting? Forget about it!

[Boomer 2019]

I know that place. I have spent many hours in those seats. Though whenever possible I would be hanging out on the shelf behind the "drivers" in the cockpit.

[Llarry]

In my earlier post about U.S. Navy ship-launched surface-to-air missiles, I omitted the long-retired Talos missile. The RIM-8 Talos was a monster with a launch weight well over twice that of the Terrier/Standard ER. Like the smaller missiles it had development problems, but by the mid-1960s was fairly reliable.

The Talos was a two-stage missile, with a rocket booster to get it launched and accelerated, and then a ramjet to power it the rest of the way. Early models had a range of 50 nautical miles, but the later ones could reach out to 130 nm.

https://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-8_Talos

Only large cruisers had the space for a Talos installation. Three World War II-era heavy cruisers were reconstructed at great expense to be double-ended Talos ships with launchers both fore and aft. The Albany (CG 10) was the lead ship, followed by the Chicago (CG 11) and the Columbus (CG 12).

Not only were the Albany class double-ended, they also had twin-arm Tartar launchers on either side of the forward superstructure. Additionally, they had two 5-inch guns added as an afterthought. The Tartar launchers and the guns are tough to see in the clutter of equipment in photos.

They were converted in the early 1960s and served until around 1980. Of note, during the Vietnam war, there were a couple of occasions when a Talos-equipped cruiser shot down a North Vietnamese aircraft from well offshore.

I always thought the Albany class were among the most impressive-appearing cruisers with their very tall superstructures and tall macks (mast/stack combined).

[Llarry]

There were also four other Talos-armed cruisers in U.S. Navy service, but they had Talos launchers only on a single end: the aft part of the ship.

Three ships were converted from light cruisers and retained some 6-inch guns:
-- USS Galveston (CLG 3), which retained the two original 6-inch triple gun turrets forward but replaced the after 6-inchers with Talos.
-- USS Little Rock (CLG 4) and USS Oklahoma City (CLG 5), which had a similar Talos installation as Galveston but lost one of their 6-inch turrets forward and had enlarged superstructures. Both these cruisers served for many years as flagships, embarking the staffs of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and the Seventh Fleet in the Western Pacific and both were retired in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

One ship was the nuclear-powered missile cruiser USS Long Beach (CGN 9), the first nuclear surface ship. The Long Beach had two twin Terrier launchers up forward and a single twin-arm Talos launcher aft. Like the Albany class cruisers, a couple of 5-inch guns were added very late in the design process as insurance; it would not do to have the pride of the U.S. Navy run out of missiles and be sunk by a patrol boat! The Long Beach underwent an extensive modernization in 1980-83 which included removal of the Talos missile system.

I had a friend who served on the Long Beach and I visited the ship in 1984. The superstructure was so tall that there was a passenger elevator to get from below up to the bridge. I also visited the former Talos missile magazine spaces: They were huge and mostly empty and used as a very large compartment for basketball in port.

[Lady Jane]

Educate me Larry: What is the difference between a cruiser, frigate, destroyer etc...

[Boomer 2019]

https://www.slashgear.com/1335354/ty...ips-explained/

This is a good explanation of the differences between classes of warships though not overly extensive.

We rely on Llary to take us into the weeds.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Educate me Larry: What is the difference between a cruiser, frigate, destroyer etc...

The lines have blurred in recent decades, but traditionally:

-- Battleship: Largest surface warship, 14-16-inch guns, very heavily armored. None in service with any navy. None built since the 1940s.

-- Cruiser: Next size down from the battleship. In the USN, heavy cruiser with 8-inch guns, light cruiser with 6-inch guns. The last class of USN cruisers were the AEGIS ships, which were designed as very large destroyers and redesignated as cruisers before completion; they had 5-inch guns. (These are now being retired.) Very rare, though some of the most recent, most capable Chinese "destroyers" are cruiser-size, as are some USN destroyers that are building. Cruisers were historically numerous and many nations had at least a few. Cruisers were the smallest warships traditionally considered capable of independent operations.

-- Destroyer: Next size down from cruiser. Traditionally armed with 5-inch guns. The largest combatant with antisubmarine capability. Acts as an escort for larger ships or for merchant convoys, etc. A jack of all trades. Typically commanded by a Commander, whereas the battleships and cruisers are commanded by Captains. In recognition of the capabilities of the latest AEGIS destroyers (and probably also for personnel management reasons), the USN is putting some Captains in command.

-- Frigate: A lower-cost and smaller version of the destroyer. The line between destroyers and frigates has really blurred in recent years. Very few European countries have ships designated destroyers, but some of the more advanced frigates are quite destroyer-like, with very capable antiair missile capabilities, for example. The RCN's Halifax (or City) class is an example of a ship that equals the size of a previous destroyer but is designated frigate. Typically also commanded by a Commander. The USN retired all their frigates but is building new ones.

Corvette: A lower-cost and smaller version of the frigate. Typically not a warship designed for balanced capabilities in all warfare areas. For instance, perhaps armed with antiship missiles but with little ASW capability or vice versa. Typically commanded by a Lieutenant Commander. Neither the Canadian nor U.S. Navies have corvettes, though the waters have been muddied a bit by the USN's littoral combat ships (LCSs) which are frigate-sized but somewhat lightly (corvette-like) armed.

In the U.S. Navy, a successful surface warfare officer might have three ship commands in a career: a year or two as the CO of a frigate, a year or two as the CO of a destroyer and, after promotion, a year or two as CO of a cruiser. From there, it's the Pentagon () or command of a Destroyer Squadron or promotion to flag officer or out to pasture.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Educate me Larry: What is the difference between a cruiser, frigate, destroyer etc...

Let me use two Royal Australian Navy ships as an illustration:

-- The RAN has three fairly new AEGIS "Air Warfare Destroyers" based on a Spanish design. They displace 7,700 tons at full load and are armed with Standard missiles, a longer-range anti-air weapon, as well as Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Systems (ESSMS), a helicopter, a 5-inch gun, etc. Very capable ships with a crew of 202. The Spanish Navy calls them guided-missile frigates, despite similar capabilities. I suspect these ships could be given anti-ballistic missile capabilities if Australia desired. (The other contender for this contract was the U.S. design AEGIS destroyer -- 9,000+ tons and far more expensive.)

-- The RAN has eight helicopter-capable frigates (the same FFH designation used by the RCN's Halifax class FFHs). They displace 4,000 tons at full load. They are a bit older -- built in the 1990s -- but have been updated more recently. They do not have AEGIS and cannot fire the Standard missiles. They do have the same 5-inch gun and helicopter facilities and can fire shorter-range ESSMS. They embark a crew of 179.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Let me use two Royal Australian Navy ships as an illustration:

I'm going to bed less stupid tonight.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Let me use two Royal Australian Navy ships as an illustration

I found an even better illustration of the differences in surface warships: The Chinese Navy.

The PLA Navy's largest surface combatant is called a destroyer, but NATO and the U.S. consider it to be a cruiser. Eight Type 055 missile cruisers have been completed so far and eight more are under construction. They displace 12-13,000 tons full load and are powered by gas turbines. They are armed with a 130mm gun and several smaller guns for self-defense. The missile battery is impressive: 112 individual missile tubes for vertical launch. They operate two helicopters and have a crew of over 300.

The latest Chinese missile destroyer is the type 052D. 25 are in service and 11 more are building. It displaces 7,500 tons and has a combination gas turbine/Diesel propulsion system. The armament includes a 130mm gun and 64 missile launch cells. It accommodates a single helicopter.

The type 054A missile frigate displaces just under 4,000 tons and is powered by Diesels. The gun is a 76mm model and the ship has 32 missile cells and operates a single helicopter.

The type 056 corvette, of which there are 50 in service, displaces 1,500 tons and is also Diesel-powered. It has the same 76mm gun and has short-range missiles only. It has a helicopter deck, but no hangar.

The photos are in order from large to small.

[Llarry]

Having introduced the PLA Nay's surface combatants, I suppose I could cause eyes to glaze over with a more general look at the Chinese navy, which is now by some measures the largest in the world.

Submarines

The PLA Navy has 7 ballistic missile submarines in service, with several more building. As with other navies, these are strategic in nature -- probably the most survivable components of Chinese strategic nuclear forces.

There are 9 nuclear attack submarines in service, with at least 2 more under construction.

The conventional attack submarine force numbers about 100 boats. The latest Yuan class (17 boats and more coming) has an air-independent propulsion system added to its Diesel-electric powerplant; these are probably extremely quiet boats. The bulk of the force is Russian-built Kilo class submarines with about 65 units in service. Conventional submarines lend themselves well to operations in the Western Pacific and Chinese home waters.

Aircraft carriers

There are two older modified ex-Soviet design aircraft carriers in service. These operate Chinese-built J-15 Flanker fighters and helicopters. The Flanker is a large, heavy fighter and not ideal for carrier operations. These two carriers use a ski jump arrangement to launch the J-15s but have arresting gear for landings.

A new carrier is in the final stages of construction. It is far larger -- almost as large as the American supercarriers -- and has three catapults. The key advantage there is that this carrier will be able to operate other varieties of aircraft. The most important of these is probably the KJ-600 carrier-capable radar plane, which extends the radar horizon of the carrier/fleet and is being tested. A new J-35 fighter with some stealth characteristics is also in test.

I think most observers would guess that China will ultimately build nuclear-powered aircraft carriers on a par with those of the U.S.

Surface Combatants

Refer to the earlier post for cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes.

There are also some smaller defense-oriented craft such as fast attack missile boats.

Amphibious Warfare Ships

Given the concern over a Chinese attack on Taiwan, this is an important area, and the PLAN is building some capable amphibious assault ships, including large helicopter carriers and smaller landing ships. (Note, of course, that an amphibious assault of Taiwan would not require a long range attack.)

Auxiliary Ships

A well-balanced Navy needs a number of auxiliary ships to support the striking or defensive power of the fleet. One critical type is the underway replenishment ship to allow the fleet to remain at sea for sustained operations. The PLAN has several large UNREP ships; the Fuyu class displaces 45,000 tons fully loaded. They also have a number of smaller oilers and stores ships.

Chinese intelligence collection ships number about nine and have been seen operating off Japan and as far afield as Australia.

Supporting the submarine force are six submarine support ships and four submarine rescue ships. If press reports are to be believed, the PLAN has had their share of submarine disasters and the rescue ships have likely earned their keep.

Naval Aviation

In addition to the carrier-based J-15 fighters (and future carrier aircraft) mentioned above, the PLA Navy had a large number of other aircraft.

There are both large and medium helicopters. The large Z-8 helos are copies of a French design, and the medium Z-9 helos used on surface combatants are license-built Eurocopter AS365s used for antisubmarine and utility duties.

The PLA Navy Air Force also has land-based H-6 (Tupolev Tu-16-derived) aircraft with anti-ship missiles and various turboprop patrol and intelligence collection aircraft. Some land-based Flanker fighters are also Navy aircraft.

40-50 years ago, I kept track of all this professionally, but when I compare the PLA Navy of then to that of 2023, I feel a bit like I should be a retired Navy sailmaker or carpenter. The PLA Navy has come a very long way!