25-08-2005 01:38									#121
	Support Apolyton

quote: those who don't die in iraq

So you mean the 99.99999999999% of servie members?

	25-08-2005 01:40									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The flip side of any brag about being #1 in a military category is the fact that I believe it was Poland that was number one in numbers of horse mounted troops in mid 1939.

	25-08-2005 01:49									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Flubber That doesn't suprise me. Carriers are very noisy and right beneath one strikes me as a very desirable place for a sub to hide.

I'm on a Cruisier.

	25-08-2005 01:50									#124
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar No doubt. The RAN is very profiecent(sic). Incidently, we had a Chilean sub sink us when we were doing exercises right before deployment. Actually, it snuck up, raised it's periscope, took a picture of the fantail (it was so close you could read the name of the sailor smoking in the pic), went away for 30 min, then the Chilean sub skipper emailed the pic to our skipper.

Just wait until you meet the SWEDE. We build subs for the others (or at least the Aussies)

	25-08-2005 01:59									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar I'm on a Cruisier.

Do you have much of an antisub capability? Do you have accompanying anti-sub helicopters or screening vessels with specialized antisub capability?. Again, my understanding that being under ANY moving ship is a good place for a sub . Plus once they are anywhere near that close you have been tagged anyway

	25-08-2005 02:45									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I am on a destroyer.

We can shoot up to 16 missiles at a time at different targets. We carry up to 64 missiles. If you can find us by our selves, and in range of 64 shore based missile batteries, assuming they don't suffer the 50% failure rate most have and don't fall prey to a soft kill by chaff or our SLQ-32 V-3 which is 60% effective, and then make it through our two CIWS mounts that are 90% effective, then MAYBE you will hit us.

Of course the only country with the capability of doing even 10% of this is the United States.

It would be of note to those here that every Iranian anti-surface missle test conducted in the last 10 years has been a failure.

	25-08-2005 02:48									#127
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Do you have much of an antisub capability?

The cruiser has sonar and helecopters at its disposal. It also has Preairie/Masker.

We have our 53C hull mounted sonar, as well as a 5600ft towed array that we find our own nuclear submaries with may times. The Flight IIA destroyers have organic helos as well

At the Joint Maritime Course in Scotland last May, every one of the subs was unable to penetrate the escort screen around the HMS Invincible. That was against French, British, German, and Swedish subs.

	25-08-2005 02:49									#128
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Do you have much of an antisub capability?

Depends on the sub. We're unlikely to be playing against the varsity, though.

quote: Do you have accompanying anti-sub helicopters

Yes. Two.

quote: or screening vessels with specialized antisub capability?.

That would be us. There are no American Surface combatants that "specialize" in much of anything anymore

quote: Again, my understanding that being under ANY moving ship is a good place for a sub . Plus once they are anywhere near that close you have been tagged anyway

Course, a Carrier Strike group will often have a, anyone? anyone? Submarine accompanying it.

	25-08-2005 02:54									#129
	Support Apolyton

Usually two, one defending one hunting.

	25-08-2005 02:54									#130
	Suffering from ads?

There are also submarines patroling pretty much anywhere, and when an ESG or CSG move in the area those subs usually escort, even if the battle group doesn't know.

	25-08-2005 02:55									#131
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos It would be of note to those here that every Iranian anti-surface missle test conducted in the last 10 years has been a failure.

kinda like the pentagon's missile defense system, eh?

	25-08-2005 02:59									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: kinda like the pentagon's missile defense system, eh?

I assume you are talking about the anti-Ballistic missile system, which is of course a completly different thing. (which has a 90% successful test ratio btw)

But, to rectify your ignorance, the last four SM-3 ship launched anti-ballistic defense tests were astounding successes. So much so Japan has already designed their new Kongau-class upgrades around it, as well as their new class of destroyer.

	25-08-2005 02:59									#133
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Sava kinda like the pentagon's missile defense system, eh?

Except, Ballistics move much much quicker than big-standard cruise missiles. And we have no real trouble smacking those down.

	25-08-2005 03:04									#134
	Suffering from ads?

I have a rubber duck.

	25-08-2005 03:04									#135
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I have a rubber chicken.

	25-08-2005 03:06									#136
	Remove this text

I have a fried chicken. . . . well, I'm going to fry a chicken . . . part of a chicken . . . okay, parts of two chickens.

	25-08-2005 03:09									#137
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar Course, a Carrier Strike group will often have a, anyone? anyone? Submarine accompanying it.

I mentioned that in a prior post-- that some of the best sub hunters are other subs


So you are not as defenseless as you make out

	25-08-2005 03:12									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I mentioned that in a prior post-- that some of the best sub hunters are other subs So you are not as defenseless as you make out

Alright, I am now officially confused as to what we're talking about.

	25-08-2005 03:22									#139
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar Alright, I am now officially confused as to what we're talking about.

1. You talked about how a sub could play a marching band beneath you and you wouldn't hear it-- Subsequent posts revealed that there numerous resources to prevent the sub getting in such a position so you were hardly as defenceless as the first post would imply


2. You did an " anyone anyone" as if no one mentioned subs as a possible anti-sub measure with a carrier group-- as if no one had mentioned them-- I already had

	25-08-2005 03:28									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Flubber 1. You talked about how a sub could play a marching band beneath you and you wouldn't hear it-- Subsequent posts revealed that there numerous resources to prevent the sub getting in such a position so you were hardly as defenceless as the first post would imply

I was refering to that specific sub (Gotland)when we're out there more or less on our own during exercises. Deployment is a different story.

quote: 2. You did an " anyone anyone" as if no one mentioned subs as a possible anti-sub measure with a carrier group-- as if no one had mentioned them-- I already had

Sorry then.

	25-08-2005 04:02									#141
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar I was refering to that specific sub (Gotland)when we're out there more or less on our own during exercises. Deployment is a different story.

Just curious, does your cruiser itself carry those two anti-sub helos and if so, how do you think you would match up against the sub?



Second you commented earlier that you "are unlikely to play against the varisty however"-- Do you mean that you are at a disadvantage and the sub would handicap itself in some way??

	25-08-2005 05:03									#142
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Just curious, does your cruiser itself carry those two anti-sub helos and if so, how do you think you would match up against the sub?

Yes, and I think it depends on the make of the sub and quality of the crew.

quote: Second you commented earlier that you "are unlikely to play against the varisty however"-- Do you mean that you are at a disadvantage and the sub would handicap itself in some way??

No. I mean that, say, The PLAN doesn't have the world's greatest subs(or training) and we would "hear" them before they could close on us. Same with most other likely opponents.

	25-08-2005 08:33									#143
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Can we just discuss the Surface Navy?

	25-08-2005 08:55									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Discuss

	25-08-2005 09:37									#145
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Patroklos, your justifications for safety are based on a similar attitude to what got our military (versus civilian administration) in trouble with Iraq - they did not assume that Saddam was also engaged in planning a defense based on OUR weaknesses.

quote: If you can find us by our selves, and in range of 64 shore based missile batteries, assuming they don't suffer the 50% failure rate most have...

So we are going to assume that the most recent Soviet/Russian missiles have a 50% failure rate? Maybe some old Styx would, but I have serious doubts that their brand new missiles are that unreliable. Any stats specifically mentioning SS-NX-26 Yakhonts or the SS-N-22 Sunburn?

quote: ...and don't fall prey to a soft kill by chaff or our SLQ-32 V-3 which is 60% effective...

Again, which missiles are those numbers germane for? The Exocet, against it's contemporary defense systems, did very well. It sank the HMS Sheffield, and damaged the HMS Glamorgan even though it did not detonate. Also remember the USS Stark, and the fact that's it's radar never did pick up the Exocets - they weren't prepared, but if the Iranians launched, would they necessarily warn us, or would they try a surprise attack?

quote: ...and then make it through our two CIWS mounts that are 90% effective, then MAYBE you will hit us.

That is the only claim you make I will state is not applicable. Even the US Navy doesn't think the Phalanx is going to be that effective against those newer Soviet Missiles. Read this analysis of all the variables that produce your "90%" number - remember, you are staking your life on them! (warning - hightly technical paper). Also note there is no way that your 90% number would come from this - the variables necessitate a range of high to low. Is your 90% a best case scenario? What is the worst case one?

The Architecture of CAPE Models

Look at my earlier statement, "violent end stage maneuvers". Plus at mach 2-3 the Phalanx will only have seconds, and if there is bad weather, multiple targets, or prolonged periods of combat readiness...

My point is that our Navy is going to operating in an increasingly hazardous environment, and now that the Soviets are selling those damn missiles (and the Chinese may well improve them, and/or mass produce them), we may get a Stinger-Afghanistan scenario thrown right back in our laps. Neither Putin nor the Chinese will cry over US Naval losses, and those might well be as devastating as binTravkin posits.

	25-08-2005 10:30									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are projected to run $700 billion. (Good lawd). A Nimitz class carrier costs $5 billion to construct. I can only imagine what the operating costs for that thing must be.

All these carriers, and this reckless war are putting a huge financial strain on the American taxpayer. Something has to give. Cutting carriers only makes sense.

	25-08-2005 10:48									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar I have a rubber chicken.

I fried the chicken. It was delicious. Best I've ever done.

	25-08-2005 12:07									#148
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Look at my earlier statement, "violent end stage maneuvers".

Actually if one compares the speed of those Mach 2-3 (they might as well be higher mach after going through Chinese labs) missiles and the ones who are meant to intercept them it's clear the "end-stage" maneuvers might even not be as violent and still the missile would hit the ship.

Also large missiles might as well carry multiple anti missile-abilities like magnetic and thermal screens, tiny decoy missiles attached around their outerior and anti-radar (radar ray absorbing/reflecting at some different angle) measures.


And there are two formulas for calculating the succes rate - the public one and the real one.
The public one sums it up so it looks pretty positive, the real one multiplies it that it looks more negative with each iteration:

Say you have 2 percentages for 2 systems: 80% and 85%

The public one = min(80%, 85%) = 80%

The real one = 0.8 * 0.85 = 0.68 = 68%

As you see the difference is slight and it increases with each iteration (additional subvalue).

I've often seen officials using the above formula to show just how "good" their things are, don't be fooled by brainwashers.


Note also that noone can ever conduct wartime tests as there are no wars between opponents who could actually posess the needed technology to kick the other's butt. Modern wars are mostly agression by a technologically superior country against the inferior one and they tend to end exactly at the same moment the inferior country achieves some tech parity - look at NKorea for a good reference, they're puny but safe because they've got nukes.
My point is that all these "lab" tests cannot ever show any real values about all those nice shiny systems.
Plus the fact officials push the success percentages and other values up so that they look even more shiny and what you got is simply a childish boasting about "how good my new gun is but I'll never shoot with it because it could get scratched or something".

Most of you guys are gamers after all, you know that it's not so excruciangly hard to kill a powerful enemy if you have a cunning plan and execute it right.

quote: The flip side of any brag about being #1 in a military category is the fact that I believe it was Poland that was number one in numbers of horse mounted troops in mid 1939.

Yes, I remeber reading that the decision behind having so much horse squads was that they're "cheap and mobile" (they were actually compared to tanks).

	25-08-2005 13:21									#149
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Just for jollies, what did the Chinese do to the SS-N-2b Styx? Note, it is still an older, subsonic cruise missle so Patrolos comments about missile defense are more than likely accurate for that.

quote: China fields a number of variants of these missiles. The HY-1A replaces the HY-1’s conical scanning terminal guidance radar with an advanced monopulse system that is resistant to interference from ocean waves and various forms of jamming. It also incorporates an advanced radio altimeter and new auto pilot that allows the missile to fly at an altitude of 50 m. The HY-2 features a longer fuselage to carry a larger volume of propellant. The HY-2A features an infrared terminal guidance seeker.

Now the Styx SS-N-2c has an 85km range, and a 513kg warhead. The Silkworm HY-2 has a 95km range and a 513kg warhead. The modified version via North Korea that Iran currently is developing (of the Silkworm) has a 450nm range and a 500kg warhead. My point is that when other people get done with the newer Russian missiles, expect them to end up even deadlier.

	25-08-2005 13:25									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It goes without saying, the Russians still have alot of super high tech weaponry, that matches our own, and what makes it worse is that they are broke, so the incentive to sell this stuff to anyone with money is there.