It's time once again for our regular open thread. Talk about whatever you want, so long as it isn't culture war.
Apologies that this post was late in going up. Lord Nelson and I were busy interviewing prospective participants for a new 3MS:
As Naval Gazing is rapidly approaching its fifth anniversary, I am considering how to deal with overhauls. It is taking up an increasing amount of time with each passing year, and although I'm taking steps to reduce the amount of work added by writing less, there seems to be less to do on overhauls. Some of this is the aforementioned writing less, but a lot of it is also just that I've got a lot of the structure I want set up, so old stuff isn't getting new references. Not sure what the solution here is.
Also, I'm going to be in DC next weekend for another DSL meetup. The plan is for a group visit to Udvar-Hazy on Saturday, and any readers are also invited. Details are still a bit up in the air, but send me an email if you're interested.
2018 overhauls are Secondary Armament - Light AA, Going back to Iowa, The Washington Treaty, Survivability - Flooding, my review of LA Maritime sites and Falklands Part 7. 2019 overhauls are Dumb Bombs and LGBs, Riverine Warfare - China Parts two and three and Pictures - Iowa Officer's Quarters. 2020 overhauls are Naval Bases from Space - Hampton Roads, Military Sealift Command Parts one and two, The Midway Rant and List of Battleship Losses. 2021 overhauls are Pictures - Iowa Secondary Battery Plot, Norway Parts seven and eight and Types 82 and 42 - Procurement Follies.
Comments
Although we missed commemorating the US Navy's birthday, plenty of others didn't. Though, given the ships they used in their stock background art, one might wish that they had.
That happens weirdly often. Not sure why, but those news stations are in good company with, most notably, the Democratic convention (can't remember which year offhand.)
The way I see it, if the Russians can use our assets in their propaganda posters, we can use their assets in ours.
Is it strange that gun direction was almost completely automated by WWII, but throttle control was still done (iirc) by turning a dial that told someone to yell at a guy to yell at another guy to turn the wheel that let more steam into the turbines?
(Looking at your Iowa pics linked from the midway review)
Was there just more going on requiring local control in the engine room vs in the turrets?
There was, yes. The turrets were "point in a particular direction", while the engine system required quite a bit of manual control over how many burners were in the system and what the water level was doing. The Germans tried to automate more than the US did, and it didn't go well for them.
That's really interesting. Comparative engine design is something you kinda got into in the battleship range & speed comparison post, but I can't imagine anyone would be able to assemble enough sources to go deep into it.
My other guess was going to be that engineering simply had more clout to fend off centralized control than the gun crews did. Always wondered if there are any records of crews complaining about that.
A Carrier Air Wing in 1993 was 2 squadrons (VF) of 10–12 F-14 Tomcats 2 fighter squadrons (VFA) of 12 F/A-18 Hornets 1 squadron (VA) 10 A-6E SWIP/TRAM intruders 1 EW squadron (VAQ) of 4–6 EA-6Bs 1 ASW squadron (VS) of 8 S-3A/B Vikings 1 ASW squadron (HS) of 6 SH-3H Sea Kings 1 Detachment of ES-3A Shadow ELINT 1 detachment of C-2A Greyhound ------ About 83 aircraft including 63 fast jets
A modern Carrier Air Wing is 4 with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets each 1 EW (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers. 1 AWACS Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes 1 Helicopter Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks 1 Helicopter Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks
1 Fleet Logistics Support two C-2A Greyhounds;
About 74 aircraft including 52 fast jets
Question: Is there room on the carrier to operate another 10 fast jets? It's the same boats as 1993!
In theory, yes, and the difference is more stark because in practice about half of the MH-60Rs are going to be on the escorts and not on the carrier. In practice, the Navy doesn't currently have the extra airframes and doesn't seem particularly eager to get them. Some of that may be fiscal, but a lot is probably that it's easier to operate planes when you're not so cramped. But I haven't looked into this in detail.
It might be related to focusing on sortie generation rather than the size of an Alpha strike. The extra space may let you turn around the aircraft faster, but obviously you are able to put ~10 fewer jets into the air simultaneously.
Presumably turrets and engines are also dynamic on quite different timescales, in such a way that superhuman reaction times are of benefit to the former but not the latter.
I had the near-opposite thought: given that rudder servos have been a thing since the 1860s, why did it take so long to make an RPC gun mount?
I think what's happening here is that it was easy to make an automatic system where the output roughly and slowly followed the input, but hard to make it accurately and quickly do so, because simply turning up the control gain makes it oscillate. (Human operators are not immune to that problem, but it's plausible that a follow-the-pointer human would be more accurate than a naive attempt at RPC.)
By the 1940s, control theory was sufficiently understood that it was possible to make an automatic system that had better accuracy than a follow-the-pointer human, and/or that included processing on the complexity level of "enemy is here, moving that way" -> "aim there". However, this was difficult and expensive, so was only worth doing when having better-than-human performance was important. RPC gun mounts and auto-tracking radar were worth it, and may even have been a big part of where the general theory got worked out, though partly because there happened to be a big war when it was nearly there. Engine controls plausibly aren't worth it. (i.e. @Lambert: sort of yes, though as much about whether you care about the potential improvement as about whether it's physically capable of it.)
If you're trying to save costs by not (normally) having a human on watch in that space, you also have to consider what would happen if the automatic control fails, or an unusual situation it isn't designed to handle unexpectedly arises. (The mass of dials above the throttle suggest that its operator was expected to do more than just follow the engine order pointer.) On the other hand, humans also make mistakes.
I've seen it claimed, though without evidence (the pictures are of the bridge end, which looks the same either way), that nuclear ships still have essentially follow-the-pointer throttles.
Sorry, that may not have been very clear. I was trying to say that they probably could have made an RPC gun mount by 1910, but that it would have been inaccurate enough that they were right not to.
And that they could have made automatic engine controls by 1940, but that it would have been a waste of money.
More generally, there are probably many Xs across the history of technology with a non-trivial time period where technology X technically exists (by the definition of X that feels natural to us), but is too low-performance and/or too expensive to be worth using (for the task(s) that we think of as the normal use for X, and possibly for any task other than further development or showing off). Possibly leading to debate over whether "the inventor of X" should mean the inventor of technically-X, or the one who improved it enough to become actually-useful-X.
I really have nothing to add to what muddywaters has said on this. Bravo Zulu.
@Kitplane @Alexander: if the old air wings were big enough to be actively worse for some missions, it would make sense for carriers on those missions to leave some of their planes at home, so you might want to look for whether that was done.
However, it's very possible for there to be a moderately-crowded range, where the usefulness of additional planes is reduced but still positive. In this range, it may be a good idea to carry all the planes you already have, but a bad idea to buy more planes, because it would be more useful to spend that money on more deck space.
(Even the USN probably isn't big enough for 10 fewer planes per carrier to add up to enough money for a whole extra carrier, but you don't have to retire a carrier and commission its replacement in the same year, so you can have a non-integer number averaged over time. You could also make them slightly bigger.)
(Humour, not a factual claim: ) "you can call yourself a destroyer if you'll carry our ASW gear".
Webpage technical note: after posting a comment, my Chrome on Windows 10 broswer is redirected to the main page URL with an extra trailing / at the end (https://www.navalgazing.net//) instead of being returned to the comment I posted or the thread's own URL. Is this expected behavior?
@Ian Argent: it's been going to the main page for some time, and isn't specific to that browser/OS.
I think the comment still gets posted if you continue browsing without waiting for that (slow) page to load, but be aware that doing that might make you lose a comment that was rejected for other reasons (e.g. an expired or typoed captcha) that would normally send you back to the comment with the option to try again.
@muddywaters
There's also straightforward changes in how we operate planes, and even what planes we operate. It could easily be that to get everything you wanted in the late 80s/early 90s, you needed a full wing, while today, you can do the same with fewer planes. And it might well be easier to fly those fewer planes a lot, if you're trying to generate sorties (thanks, JDAM!) rather than alpha strikes.
@Ian
It does that to me, too. Not exactly desired, but it's not unexpected at this point.
I haven't lost a comment yet because of that; I'll file it under "behaves as expected" and move on with my life.
Oh, that's interesting. I always assumed destroyers (with hangers) had permanently assigned helicopters from a unit attached to the destroyer squadron. But they come from the carrier instead?
Where do destroyers not assigned to a cbg get theirs?
I recently watched a pretty odd video from Ukraine. The Charge of the Light Brigade is a pretty famous event from a previous war in that part of the world, but this appears to show almost the reverse, limbered Russian artillery charging (armoured) cavalry:
https://nitter.net/DemeryUK/status/1584011464167202816#m
Someone has blundered, and only a couple of days early for the anniversary.
It's kind of strange that the Russian mobilization is going as badly as it seems to. As I understand it, the Russian military relies on conscripts to fill out its units in wartime; the units are somewhat under-strength in peacetime. That means there needs to be a system for smoothly and efficiently calling up the reserves when necessary, equipping them, and providing quick refresher training. But the Russian system seems to be fumbling all three parts of that.
Accidentally deleted the following comment from Johan:
Perun has posted another video about the war in Ukraine, this time about the naval war. (link)
Conclusions: * The Russian Navy greatly outmatched the Ukrainian fleet on paper at the beginning of the war * The eary stages of the fighting included victories for the Black Sea Fleet * The details of the Moskva sinking are still uncertain -- but the implications are more clear * Russian navy plays a much more passive role now * Implications for the threat profiles of some systems -- and future technology * Renewed focus on training, maintenance, and full spectrum of readiess activities
Johan Larson:
Why would anyone expect it to go well?
Russia is in a war^H^H^Hspecial military operation that is pretty obviously not going well to the point at which a draft riot would probably seem more survivable than being sent to the front lines (Putin may eventually become desperate enough to take that chance).
@Anonymous:
Because the reserve and mobilization system is an important part of the Russian military, and Russia as a middle-income nation has the funds that would be necessary to make a reserve/conscription system work. If that system doesn't actually work, then we should wonder whether anything in the Russian military actually works well.
And I'm not just talking about whether the men show up. The system seems to be having real trouble equipping the men with basic supplies.
@Johan Larson The version of the story I've heard is that Serdyukov tried to dismantle the conscription system and build a professional army, and was half-successful.
Johan Larson:
Russia is in the kind of war at which military slavery works least well (not essential, extended, plus they're also suffering high casualties) and Russia has had a rather high draft dodging rate even during peacetime.
ADifferentAnonymous:
It doesn't look like his aims were quite that ambitious.
So, this is a Tell Me Why It's Impossible post.
The Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure with swarms of Shahed-136 drones have been widely reported. The Ukrainians have been countering them with all sorts of systems, from assault rifles on the ground to fighter planes in the air. One problem is these drones are quite cheap, cheaper than the air defence missiles available to shoot them down. It would be useful if military units had gear and doctrines that allowed them to effectively counter drones like this, and other low-end drones that can't be cost-effectively countered with more elaborate systems.
The thing is, the Shahed-136 is not that hard to shoot down. It's quite slow (115 mph), often flies low enough to be within rifle range of the ground, and at 11 feet long is quite a large target. The simple solution to countering such drones may be nothing more than training for machine gunners in engaging aerial targets, broad availability of machine gun mounts suitable for anti-aircraft use, and maybe some more tracer ammo.
But what about something more elaborate? What I have in mind is an elaborate radar-based sight that mounts on a machinegun. It has enough of a radar up front to pick out a drone out to maybe 1500m, enough computing power in the middle to calculate the ballistics needed to hit it, and it has a small screen on the back to give shows the gunner a modified aiming point that will let him hit the moving target. I'm imagining this thing as about the size of the early night-vision sights, which were often mounted on rifles.
So, why is a sight like this impossible to build or impractical in actual use or just not good value for money?
I don't know of any reason that would be impossible. I'm not sure how much radar you could fit into that, and you'd need a search sensor, but there's not a real problem, and I think the reason it doesn't exist (at least in wide fielding) is just the slowness of the general military-industrial complex and the lack of an urgent threat to make them work fast. This may be that urgent threat.
More broadly, I'd rather take the human gunner out of the loop. Build a system with a machine gun (or even something like a .50 anti-material rifle) on a robotic mount, a 360 radar and a computer. Mount on a HMMWV or the like. Park a couple around anything you're worried about these drones hitting. More expensive, but doesn't need a separate alerting/queuing system and is significantly less likely to leave spent rounds falling on stuff you care about.
Actually, thinking more, I do think the radar is likely to be the issue with the sight as you described. If we change the parameters slightly and just want a device to make a machine gun into a much better AA weapon, you need an itty-bitty range-only radar and the digital equivalent of the WWII Mk 14 sight. That's definitely possible. If you want to go a step higher and have the radar actually detect and track the target, you'd probably be better off removing the human entirely.
I guess my thinking was that this would be something small enough you could have one in every weapons squad in drone territory. And in future wars, there is going to be a lot of drone territory. Once this is an automated system mounted on a vehicle, it is going to be located rather further up the hierarchy. The Shahed would be on the upper end of the range of drones it might be used against, not the lower.
If the automated system mounted on a vehicle is a specialist item, probably. Could such an automated sighting system be bolted on to the existing gun on the weapons squad's IFV?
If it's just a glorified sight, do you need a full search sensor?
Like, could you have an antenna that at reasonable ranges and RCS gives enough resolution to say "aim up" or "lead left", assuming that the cueing and search would be handled by the operator or some kind of remote radar.
A 3m long target at 1000m seems relatively easy to pick up, even with a pure optical sight, and a constrained search radar could probably do well enough, especially with modern phased array wizardry.
The tricky part is what the tradeoff is on moving from 'add-on sight to manually aimed weapon' to 'automatic aiming', both in terms of weight and complexity. At that point you almost have a mini-CIWS, with all of the costs and complexity it entails.
Also seems like there is a transition from 'SAW add-on' for hand carried weapons or the sort of intermediate pintle mount solutions some of the others have mentioned.
If we go with the semi-automatic system I described (manually traversed, digitally sighted), the sighting system needs to be able to determine the distance to the target and the targets's speed and direction. To do that it needs to know how the system itself is moving, so it can compensate. That information could come from accellerometers within the device, but I suspect it would be cheaper and more accurate to get from something in the weapon's mount that determines current direction and elevation.
I'm not sure how useful a simpler system that just determined the distance to the target would be. But I think it would only be able to give differential elevation information to the operator.
Magnetometers are quite cheap and give you orientation and change in orientation. Like, this is iPhone level tech.
You don't get absolute position or velocity, but I don't think that matters insofar as (a) most of the time it's likely to be stationary and (b) at likely ground velocities if fired from a moving vehicle, you can resolve it as a change in relative velocity without having to understand the absolute position and velocity of either the weapon or the target.
I wonder how much you can miniaturize Doppler radars to get the velocity components.
Looks like the plan is to send the Ukrainians the VAMPIRE missile system for anti-drone use.
Why not give CROWS an optional mini-CIWS capability?
@JohanLarson @ADifferentAnonymous The Soviet Union did have the capability for effective mass mobilization. The RF had to dismantle it because it was incredibly expensive and unsustainable after the fall of the SU and the economic collapse. About the same happened in NATO countries too, though unlike the RF, this resulted in a stronger force because of their economic power. If Serdyukov had been able to complete his reforms, the RF might well have an army on par with the best Western armies instead of the paper tiger we are seeing.
For example, before 2014 (and allegedly even afterwards to finish it), Rheinmetall was building an army training center in Russia to NATO standards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulino(settlement),NizhnyNovgorodOblast
https://nitter.net/kamilkazani/status/1563894963917791233#m
However, the corruption and inefficiency Serdyukov was supposed to fight is too deeply entrenched. The 2014 embargos prevented the production of modern war equipment, and the 2022 embargos prevent all but the most basic war production.
@Johan Larson
This doesn't use radar, but looks like the sort of thing you are thinking of: smart-shooter.com
They have had a lot of recent interest, not unrelated to the use of drones in Ukraine. Bean's idea of a more automated system also sounds like something that either already exists, or soon will. You could even envisage something like a Predator with an M2 providing a cheap CAP if things like the Shahed 136 become a significant concern, but I'd expect more conventional cruise missiles to remain the more serious threat from better equipped enemies. Speaking of Shaheds, how are they guided? They are attacking targets a long way from their launch points. Do they use INS, TERCOM, GPS?
@Alexander Thanks for the link. Off-hand it looks like the system is purely optical, with just a camera, which I would expect just could not provide a full targeting solution. But I'll look through the site.
It looks like all the targets are either stationary, or slow moving, so it may not work against something you would have to lead. Maybe a laser range finder would let the computer make the shot, but it does seem like it would be tricky without radar. On the other hand, if you are near the frontline, walking about emitting seems like it could be unhealthy. Imagine some kind of ESM linked up with a mortar, or a scaled down anti-radiation missile. If a purely optical system can work, it would probably be preferable.
You can get surprisingly close with only an optical system. I again point to the WW2 Mk 14 sight, which was an angle-onky system that took care of leading the target for the gunner. It might be possible to have the camera estimate range from target size, but that shouldn't be strictly necessary.
The Mk 14 gunsight has gyroscopes and a manually set range, too. I'm guessing it's using the movement of the gun and the set range to calculate the aircraft speed, assuming the aircraft is moving at a right angle to where the gun is pointed. I think that's enough information to calculate lead and elevation accurately.
If we're reviving WW2 fire control for today, how about an old style optical rangefinder with a digital video camera at each end of the arm? Probably wouldn't need the mechanical adjustment, just the computer adjusting each image (focus on the camera lense?) until they match.
Speaking of Shaheds, how are they guided? They are attacking targets a long way from their launch points. Do they use INS, TERCOM, GPS?
Going by the guidance of the wise Binkov, the Shahed uses "multiple" gps type systems. So GPS, and TERCOM and INS etc. then combining the data to increase accuracy and reduce the effect of any one being turned off or distorted. They also have an inertial guidance system. So if they totally lose satellite contact, they can run on the inertial system until they either get satellite com back, or reach what they think is the target. And this is all done using commercial, consumer grade chips and circuits. So good luck stopping the Iranians (or any other competent foe) from being able to get the parts. And yes, we need to accept the Iranians are a competent nation when it comes to stuff like this. So are China, and North Korea. And in theory Russia, but they were distracted or something. I still wouldn't worry about Boko Haram putting together something this good,
@Johan
Not exactly. It calculates lead purely from angular speed, under the assumption that the bullets travel at a constant speed, so you're looking at a similar triangle regardless of range. Extremely simple, possible to implement in a surprisingly small box back then and probably well within the capability of an average smartphone today. Range is only needed to compensate for bullet drop, which you could handle one of several ways.
@Hugh
Not sure that you could get the precision you'd want from that. I'm bringing up the Mk 14 because it solves the basic problem Johan is proposing in the simplest possible way.
@bean
I don't think that's quite right. Check out this manual for the Mk 14 gun sight, specifically pg. 35, where they advise you to increase or decrease the range based on whether the bullet stream is arriving behind or ahead of the target aircraft. If the range knob had no effect on the lead calculation, that wouldn't work.
It's possible that the system makes some attempt to compensate for the slowdown of the bullets in flight, which would produce that effect, although I wonder if it's actually kind of an optical illusion. The observer can see the plane and the path of the bullets, but it's all in 2D. If the range is too high, the bullets will go over the plane, and because of that, they'll appear to pass through the trajectory ahead of it. If the range is too low, you get the reverse. You wouldn't explain it the way that manual does if you're talking to an engineer, but military manuals are not written for engineers. They're written for scared and homesick 19-year-olds, who need things in the simplest possible form.
Also, note that the full manual calls out only angular rates and superelevation as factors in the sight's calculations.
USNI Christmas Sale has started! Let there be rejoicing throughout the land!
How do you do, fellow kids?
About a week ago, the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force published a joint article titled "Uncle Sam Wants You for a Military Job that Matters" asking American young people to consider enlisting in the military. They've been taking some heat for publishing this article in the op-ed section of the Wall Street Journal, a place known to be frequented by literally dozens of young Americans.
Since the article is behind a paywall, I'm going to reproduce the text below.
An all-volunteer military has defended the U.S. for nearly 50 years. America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and guardians stand shoulder to shoulder with allies and partners to defeat tyranny, prevent war and defend the freedom that allows democracy and prosperity to thrive.
As the U.S. refocuses on rising challenges from China and Russia, the armed forces are confronting a generational recruiting shortfall. As global threats loom, our respective services face a shrinking pool of qualified and willing applicants. Military communities are increasingly isolated. A strong U.S. job market in which there are nearly two open positions for every person seeking work increases the difficulty of attracting recruits. But the nation needs defending, even when the job market is historically strong.
As the civilian leaders of the Army, Navy and Air Force, we join to ask every young American to consider serving in the U.S. military. If you seek a life of purpose and passion, if you hope to invest your talents in a cause bigger than yourself, if you want to belong to a community of people who also choose to serve, you can find that connection and more in the armed forces.
This is an exciting time to serve. Since the end of the draft gave way to the all-volunteer military in 1973, new technologies have emerged that shape how we engage with those who seek to do us harm. Today more than ever, the armed forces need data scientists, coders and engineers as much as we need pilots, submariners and infantry. If you join, you’ll get the chance to change lives, use technology and develop skills that the private sector can’t match. You’ll serve in every part of the world, protecting freedom and responding to crises with the skills to make a difference. Our goal is to recruit and build a force that looks like America, and so we are working to strengthen and support diversity, equity and inclusion for all who serve. Whether you serve three years or 20 years, there are ample opportunities for tailored professional and personal development. You’ll do work that matters.
We know that there are misperceptions about the military that might keep people from joining. We are providing unparalleled training and educational opportunities for our service members and investing billions of dollars in housing and quality of life, while also changing policies that are more in step with what this generation has come to expect from the best institutions. We are finding new ways to help young Americans meet our necessarily high standards.
To do all these things, we are counting on policy makers, schools, religious institutions, and families to reinforce the importance of service and the opportunities it provides. Members of Congress, we ask for your support as we work on solutions to the recruiting challenge. We ask civic leaders and educators to open your communities to active-duty military and veterans, especially in places where we haven’t adequately invested in the past. To parents and families, we ask that you give us the opportunity to share all that we’re doing to make the military even more of a place for the next generation to grow and thrive, including our unprecedented commitment to making the military a place where all who serve can be free from harassment, discrimination or abuse.
To our veterans, we ask that you tell your stories of service to the greatest nation in the world. Most of all, we ask young Americans to join us—and to write your own stories of service to our nation.
The military can and must do more to recruit and retain America’s finest, but we need America behind us. We must ask ourselves how we can help ensure that there is a new generation able and inspired to carry on the nation’s proud, selfless and distinguished legacy of service. You can write your own story of service to the country.
I'm vaguely surprised it hasn't already been posted here, but apparently the Ukrainians attacked the Russian naval base at Sevastopol with remote controlled unmanned surface vessels. The actual damage appears to be minimal, with the Russians reporting that the minesweeper Ivan Golubets suffering minor damage, but the video of the attack is quite impressive.
Similar triangles = same lead angle for the same actual relative speed at different ranges, not the same angular speed. Hence, manual sight deflection scales and sight rings are in knots not degrees/second, and calculating lead from measured angular speed does require a range, even neglecting drag and gravity. (This range was manually estimated on the original Mk14, or measured by radar on later systems.)
And yes, a fully automated system would probably be better per gun, but more expensive. The original Mk14 used ~5000 20mm rounds/kill against manned airplanes, while Phalanx is estimated at ~800 against (smaller) missiles. A system with radar ranges but manual aiming would presumably be somewhere in between.
Thinking this over more, you're right. It's clearly been too long since I took physics.
The Royal Navy used Integrated Electric Propulsion for their Type 45s. They’ve gone to CODLOG for the Type 26s. That seems like a reversion. So why the switch?
I’m aware of the Type 45s engineering problems, but I dont think they were caused by the IEP.
I'm curious about this, too. My best guess is that it has something to do with their role: the Type 26 needs to be quieter, since it's supposed to hunt submarines. But I would have guessed that the gas turbine on the Type 26 (with a gearbox coupling it to the screws) would be noisier than those on the Type 45 (which are not mechanically coupled to the ocean). And I imagine that most ASW takes place at lower speeds, at which both ships would be diesel-electric anyway.
This article goes into some detail about the Type 26's propulsion and the efforts involved in reducing radiated noise, but doesn't explain why they went with CODLOG.
I think it was a cost thing. Also possible that it was a bad decision in reaction to the issues on the Type 45.