WWII era US Pacific Fleet vs. Modern Day Pacific Fleet

[Howedar]

The TASM ended up being a missile in need of a role. The range really can't be utilized very well by such a slow missile fired at a moving target. Harpoon is far cheaper and is not significantly weaker IIRC.

[Stravo]

Say 67-68 around the height of the war for the Vietnam era fleet and how badly would the Vietnam era fleet fair against the Modern US Navy - you know F-4 Phantoms against F-14's. (Although a buddy of mine that served in the Navy as a Tomcat pilot, F-4's were once flwon against F-14's and it was pretty much a slughter. The aerodynamics are equivalent to slapping a jet engine on the back of a brick.)

[Sea Skimmer]

[quote="Batman"]
That range sounds useful, in reality its not. In all of history something like 800-1000 SSM's have been fired in action, mostly Exocets against Gulf shipping. Not a single one of those was an over the horizon shot. In every case the launch platform could see the target on its sensors.

The problem with the anti ship Tomahawk is targeting. Reaching its max range takes around a half hour. That is a lot of time for the target to move, in fact any significant course change could move the target outside the missiles seeker field of view when it reaches the area. Bingo, your million-dollar missile salvo just crashed into the sea after accomplishing nothing.

Then you have the problem of civilian ships. The sea is a big place, but ships tend to follow a few narrow paths that can get quite crowed, standard procedure is for warships to hide in these lanes. This also means you run a risk of your long-range missile salvo seeing some supertanker and deciding it engage it. Programmed waypoints and keeping the radar seeker off can get around this, but that all means you need even more planning time.

By the time you're done all this planning it suddenly looks faster to simply launch two F/A-18's with four Harpoons each. Or you could arm the scouting platform, the P-3 and S-3 both can carry Harpoons after all.

Really, even if we could fire a anti ship Tomahawk without needing to worry about any of that, there still very expensive and there are not many threats that even warrant a Harpoon sized weapon, most can be tackled with a Maverick or simply a laser guided bomb since they lack decent air defenses. And that’s what the USN does.

However, the next land attack Tomahawk upgrade does add an infrared terminal seeker with a man in the loop for terminal guidance. So in theory you could actually shoot it at a ship, and pick out exactly where you wanted to it. But you'd still need to plan waypoints and such, and find something worth shooting at.

[Lonestar]

Which, quite neatly, eliminates my reservations about SSMs against WW2 warships. Much obliged.

What's that about TASMs being converted to TLAM roles? I agree that with the demise of the russian empire there don't seem to be many targets which NEED a TASM to kill, but wouldn't the range advantage alone be in favor of keeping at least SOME TASMs?

When was the lasttime the USN used SSMs? Maybe during gulfwar one?

TASMs have been converted to TLAMs for the same reason we're tossing a bunch of CG's away....land attack is more important. The Valley Forge is only one year older than mine, yet it's being retired. Why? Because it isn't very profecient at land attacks. The TLAM has been used hundreds of times in the past 15 yrs, and the standard missile has been used...once. Against an Iranian airliner.

The case has been made, and it's a good one. The Navy is running with it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Say 67-68 around the height of the war for the Vietnam era fleet and how badly would the Vietnam era fleet fair against the Modern US Navy - you know F-4 Phantoms against F-14's. (Although a buddy of mine that served in the Navy as a Tomcat pilot, F-4's were once flwon against F-14's and it was pretty much a slughter. The aerodynamics are equivalent to slapping a jet engine on the back of a brick.)

The Modern USN would destroy its Vietnam era counterpart, but lose some aircraft and likely a couple ships to subs. Though the 688's should kill most of those and the Vietnam era fleet is fucked against Mk48's like everyone else.

Now as for the 1968 fleet against 1945, slaughter once more for the modern force. Though air attacks will have to be daylight and AAA would bring down some jets. However Shrike's will blow the fleets radars apart, and while Bullpup sucked against land targets it was ideal for sinking warships. Swarms of dive bombing jets and sub attacks will cut the major warships to peices and the destroyer and escort swarms won't last much longer. The 1968 fleet also has a number of decent gunships that could speed up the task. Its also has a vast number of SAM's all of which can be fired in the SSM role.

It also has a bunch of tac nukes on those SAMs and on its carriers and subs..

[Sea Skimmer]

When was the lasttime the USN used SSMs? Maybe during gulfwar one?

I'd don’t think the USN used any in that war. British helicopters with Sea Skua and A-6's with bombs sank most of the Iraqi "fleet" which was mostly fast attack craft and improvised minelayers. I've never seen any Harpoons or Standards listed as fired.

However a number of both Harpoons and SM-2's where fired during the tanker war, destroying several Iranian frigates and corvettes. Though they all had to be either bombed or hit with 5-inch gunfire before they would get around to sinking.

In one of those actions the USN was on the receiving end when the Iranian corvette fire a Harpoon (we sold them seven before the revolution) which missed by just 20 feet. Paint was actually burned off a destroyer by its rocket motor. Though I cant recall the names of the involved ships. Then of course there was the Stark.

and the standard missile has been used...once. Against an Iranian airliner.

Thats its only firing as a SAM. However it has been fired at least five times as an SSM. To do that you just have the director light up the warship target and the missile will home right in. The missiles solid rocket fuel makes worse fires then the jet fuel of a Harpoon and its more accurate. Though the warhead is much smaller.

This is why the USN pulled Harpoons off the newest Burkes to free up space, no missile shots have been made over the horizon and out to the horizon SM-2 works just fine as an SSM.

[Frank Hipper]

Enjoying yerself, Great Leader?

[Sea Skimmer]

Enjoying yerself, Great Leader?

Just crushing dissenting options, as if they'd dare to exist, and educating the masses.

[Batman]

Enjoying yerself, Great Leader?

Just crushing dissenting options, as if they'd dare to exist, and educating the masses.

Well, this here member of the uneducated masses found it both informative and entertaining.
My thanks to everyone involved.