pmaidhof

Jon, And in the end...how did it go? Pete

Thanks to Tony and his hometown Minnesota Twins for shipping Johan Santana to the Met's. After last year's debacle on the final day, we can at least look forward to spring training with if not MLB Pitcher 1a, then 1b.

Cost of LCS rises again Staff writer - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Feb 6, 2008 8:05:37 EST The price to buy each of the Navy’s first two Littoral Combat Ships has crashed through the $500 million barrier, and the final tab to deliver the ships is well over $600 million apiece, according to service budget documents released Feb. 4. Soaring cost growth has severely disrupted the program, which once envisioned the purchase of a series of relatively inexpensive, $220 million warships that would take about two years to build. Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics (GD) are building ships to very different designs in a competition to be decided in 2009. In January 2007, the Navy revealed that costs had exploded on Lockheed’s first ship. Service officials have never offered specific numbers for the new price tag, but repeatedly characterized it as “about $375 million.” Privately, sources have said for months that the costs for both competitors’ ships were well over $400 million. Now, Navy figures contained in justification documents submitted with the 2009 defense budget request show a “basic construction” cost for Lockheed’s Freedom (LCS 1) of $471 million; for GD’s Independence (LCS 2), $440 million. Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield, in response to a reporter’s query, explained that “basic construction cost is what has been previously used to baseline LCS cost.” The 2004 original baseline for the ships was $220 million. Further charges bring the “total end cost” for the Freedom to $531 million. Those charges include $15 million in change orders, $12 million for government-furnished equipment (GFE) and $33 million listed as “Other.” Similarly, the total end cost for the Independence is $507 million, including $20 million in change orders, $7 million in GFE and $40 million for Other. But the price to deliver the ships at their new homeport of San Diego will be even higher. The Navy notes that $75 million will be needed for final outfitting and post-delivery charges on the Freedom plus $25 million for final system design, bringing the total cost to $631 million. The delivery price for the Independence is higher, with $75 million for final outfitting and $54 million in final design and ship integration costs. “The amounts in the LCS budget represent the current estimates for LCS 1 and LCS 2,” Schofield confirmed, and explained that “total end cost is the amount traditionally used to report ship cost, and is comprised of the following: basic construction cost, plans, change orders, electronics/government furnished equipment, program management, technical support and certification and test costs.” The new cost estimates do not include the mission modules for the ships, which are expected to average around $100 million each. The modules — including weapons, sensors and manned and unmanned vehicles — are tailored for specific roles such as mine, anti-surface or anti-submarine warfare. The makeup and cost of the modules will vary according to the mission and the technology that is available. The Navy cancelled each of the competitors’ follow-on ships last year after failing to renegotiate construction contracts on a fixed-price basis and shift more responsibility for cost control to the contractors. Much of the cost growth on the first two ships has been due to design work continuing well into the construction process. Congress granted one ship in last year’s budget request, and the Navy is asking for two more in the 2009 budget, priced at $460 million each – the amount of a cost cap imposed by lawmakers. Lockheed expects to deliver the Freedom this spring, with General Dynamics following with the Independence late this year. Both ships will be evaluated by the Navy in 2009. The Navy hopes to buy 55 LCS ships through 2019. Find Navy Times article here.

In response to the Brahmos attack on one of their Type-956EM, PLAN has begun "planning" a retaliatory strike on an Indian Navy vessel, from a secret air base in the country formerly known as Burma. 4x JH-7A's, each with 4x YJ-82K (C802K), 2x PL-5, and a 720 liter drop tank, will launch and travel 300nm to strike the Indian SAG. At 200nm, the raid will drop to at least Low Altitude. Definitiely more to follow.

Apparently both the ROF of the SAMs is halved as well as the movement, which will take place in the subsequent 1st Movement Phase. Both constraints are due to the SAM's firing in the 2nd Fire Phase.

Hi Saladin, The couple of small trials was anticipation of doing the Operation Praying Mantis scenario. It was late 80's and OHP's were there. It, like this thread, was some time ago so, check to the third page of the CPX/MBX for the AAR. Your open statement on Perry's as gunboats, agreed not what they were designed for, but please expound. Welcome aboard, Pete

With some clarification from DaveShoe and the guys here on HG, I offer the following. 4x PJ-10 BrahMos launch at 100nm BhahMos speed: 1,650kts (6.875nm/Movement Phase, 13.75nm/Engagement Turn). Attack Speed: 2,310kts (9.625nm last Movement Phase). Stealthy RCS. Targets AS vs Stealthy Top Plate B: 12nm Positive-ME1: 4nm 1x 3min TacTurn, Range to target now 17.5nm. Engagement Turns Invoked. ET1 1st Move: Raid moves 6.875. Range to target now 10.625nm. 1st Fire – N/A 1st AA Resolution – N/A Detection: Range 10.625nm Top Plate B: Yes, using 60% pD, 2x PJ-10 detected. Positive-ME1: No 2nd Move: Raid moves 6.875. Range to target now 3.75nm 2nd Fire – 7x F(1)1 Yozh, 7x A(1)1 Yozh, and 8x SA-N-11 Grison launch (will only move ½ distance in next Movement Phase. 2nd AA Resolution – N/A ET2 1st Move: Raid increase speed to 2,310kts. SAM’s move 1/2. Yozh (8.25nm per phase *.5 = 4.125). @ 5 secs = 1.375nm. 2sec = 0.55 Grison (7.45nm per phase *.5 = 3.725nm). @ 5 secs = 1.242nm. 2sec = 0.5 PJ-10 (9.625 per phase). @ 5secs = 3.208nm. @ 2sec = 1.2832 The PJ-10 is swift enough that interception with SAM’s is at a range of just over 1nm. This range is below the min range (1.9nm) of the SA-N-12 Grizzlies so they are is disqualified. The 8x SA-N-11’s have a min range of 0.5nm and an ATA of 6.5. Defender (PJ-10) ATA = 0.5 (cruise msl) + 1 (speed >1,000kts) +1 (SSC vs SS) +2 (3rd Gen missile vs stealthy target). The rating differential is +2, which equals an Air Combat Percentage of 50%. 03, 26, 11, 58, 32, 02, 99, 03. Six hits. Rolled randomly, 5 vs 1 BrahMos, 1 vs another. The remaining two, though not detected by radar, would (I think) be detected by EO/IR so the CADS-N-1 30mm/54 Kashtan gets one burst. Short Range: pH 85% - 10 (target speed >1,000kts), -15 (stealthy target) = 60% Long Range: pH 50% - 10 (target speed >1,000kts), -15 (stealthy target) = 25% 2d10 = 94. Miss! 3rd Gen seeker vs 3rd Gen J&D: pH = 42 Rolls 05, 94. One hit. 50DP 149-50 = 99. Damage Ratio 50/99 = .50. d6 = 4 or 4 Critical Hits. 4xd10 = 5 (Sensor), 9 (Bridge/CIC), 5 (Sensor), 6 (Flooding). Sensor: one by random. 6 radar sets and 1 sonar set. 1d10 (8-9 re roll) = 6 Positiv-ME1 knocked out. Bridge/CIC: Ship continues its current movement orders for d6 tactical turns, 1d6 = 5 or 15min. Thereafter, it takes 1 full tactical turn to execute any change in course. Flooding: 1d10 for severity. D10 = 1. Minor. Ship will lose 2% of its original damage points (2.98) per Intermediate Turn (30mins) until flooding is isolated. Roll d10 each Plotting Phase 1-4 (-2%), 5-8 Isolated, 9-10 Flooding increases (-2%). For laughs, I rolled 1d10 = 8. Flooding was isolated.

6.4.1.1 Air Defense Guns discusses Electro-Optic (EO) direction. "...indicates that the gun system uses low-level light cameras, regualr TV cameras or IR sensors and ususally a laser range finderto provide all of the data that is necessary to correctly aim the gun. That then raises the when would the target be detected by the IR/Laser? Off to 4.6 Infrared Sensors. All IR Sensors have an 80% pD each Tactical Turn, and a 50% pD each Engagement Turn. IR Detection is dependent upon the sensor generation. Since the only indication of the CADS-N-1's generation is the 3rd Generation Kortik [sA-N-11 Grison] missile. So a 3rd Generation Sensor attempting to detect a supersonic missile is 10nm. Attacking missile speed, and Engagement Turn structure, is still a big factor as it still blows through the detection/engagement window before either the F/A(1)2 Yozh [sA-N-7b "READ:SA-N-12" Grissly] or CADS-N-1 (both gun and SA-N-11's) can technically engage. In situations like this, a second detection phase within an Engagement Turn could be argued for.

A slight question/correction/clarification came up yesterday discussion this on Harpgamer IRC chat. The H4.1 Data Annex lists the CADS-N-1's FC Modes as RA, EO, OP. It seems unlikely that this type of system, P/S (2xR)2 Kashtan [CADS-N-1], would have an OP Fire Contro Mode. In Remarks it also lists the mount as "A" Autonomous, which is described further in 5.1.2 Autonomous Weapons Systems. One of the take aways there is "...Some of the newer fire control systems , however, are fully automated, and can select the most threatening target, shoot at it, decide if it's been killed, and then fire again or select another, all without human intervention..." In regard to the undetected BrahMos, I will need to game out possible ESM detection of the missiles radar seeker, as well as possible CADs-N-1 fire control direction in EO mode. MTF. Questions or comments?

Correction the Rajput carries two mounts of 2, for a total of four PJ-10 BrahMos (SS-N-26). I did a quick strike today - not a tactical exercise, just to see what the BrohMos is capable of. An Indian SAG containing a PJ-10 equipped Rajput DDG is 100nm from its intended PLAN Sovremennyy DDG. A helo launched from the Indian SAG detects the target and the Indian commander designates it hostile. Rajput fires all four of its BrahMos missiles. These stealthy missiles fly at 1,650kts. I first ran a 3 minute tactical turn, closing the distance a whopping 82,5nm so the range is now 17.5nm. 30 second Engagement Turns are declared. In the 1st Movement Phase, the raid closes to a distance of 10.6nm. Detection ranges for the Sovremenny's Top Plate B and Positive-ME1 versus stealthy targets are 6 and 4nm respectively, so detection is not possible this turn. In the 2nd Movement Phase, the raid closes to 3.8nm. 2nd Engagement Turn: In the First Movement Phase, the missiles reach the target. Before impact, they pause for the CIWS to get in their shot. Since the raid is technically undetected, I allowed the two 30mm of the CADS-N-1 to get in an OP directed shot. The CADS long and short ranges , and their pH's are 1.8nm and 0.9nm, and 50% and 85% respectively. Air Defense Gun Hit Chance Modifiers lower the long and short chances to 12.5% and 30%, due to -10 target speed over 1,000kts, -15 Stealthy Target, and chance*0.5 due to OP directed attack. The CADS 30mm both miss. Two BrahMos strike the vessel and two are seduced by ECM, jammers and decoys or otherwise miss. Each BrahMos strikes home with 50DP each. One critical is rolled "Rudder". If not crippled, the destroyer is severely hampered. On the bright side, it took the shot, and all weapons systems are still a go. It would seem the best way to avoid this fate is to keep an eye on these equipped units and prioritize their destruction/neutralization before becoming a victim.

Just about.

Nice job Brad. The bad boy could use a well deck, and make it a truely useful ship. It is amazing how narrow the Strait of Gibraltar is. When I went through in 1990 on Saipan, it was somewhat overcast and very windy, but I could still see North Africa on one side and the Rock on the other.

Yes - single direction. No, not a true tactical exercise, just trying to gauge the effectiveness of the Harpoon since the discussion yesterday and realizing that there were only 8 ASuW weapons, RGM-84D's on the Bunker Hill Class CG. May try it again this weekend with all 8 harpoon, all sensors and your take on the likelihood of all vampires being detected. It will get worse for the 2 Brahmos equipped Rajput and SS-N-25 equipped Delhi take on the Type-956EM, although the BrahMos (SS-N-26 stats) may just get through, we'll have to see.

Thanks Brad, I'm all over the CADS-N-1 combo 30mm and SA-N-11. The issue here is that two components of a "raid" were initially detected. Around the point that those two missiles were intercepted and destroyed, a third component missile was detected, and subsequently engaged. I would understand that the ship and its sensors are now oriented toward and keyed into the threat sector. Now, from the smoke of the 3rd missile's destruction, screaming along is the previously undetected, solitary survivor of the four missile raid. It goes into its terminal maneuvers to plunge into the target. It was within a 30 second Engagement Turn, from the detectionand engagement, of the third missile to impact. Since the ships primary AS radar did not detect it, would the CADS-N-1, or any other CIWS, get that one shot. I suppose that I should be rolling for detection by all applicable AS and 3D radars on the ship. I got hung up using the Mineral-ME since it would have been the first to detect the raid. Also the other-than-radar methods of detection for the CADS-N-1. Thanks

Thanks for chiming in Tony. I am/was hesitant with the Kashtan CADS-N-1 systems since, I believe, its robotic, and the remaining harpoon was still undetected. I will have to go back to the data annex and see what other fire control it has. I'm still open-minded enough to be persuaded.

Does each missile of a "raid" need to be detected in order for it to be engaged? In this engagement I played it yes. 4x very small signature, sea skimming RGM-84D's fired at a detected Sovremenny Type 956EM Destroyer at a range of 60nm. Initially two were detected, by the Mineral-ME 3D radar, at a range of 9.0nm and engaged by both Yozh mounts in the 2nd fire phase of an Engagement Turn. I halved the ROF to 3 missiles each mount. I believe this to be wrong but wanted to give the Sovremennyy a fighters chance. In the very next Movement Phase the 6x Grizzlies engage and destroy the 2 detected Harpoons. Also 14 more, 7+7, Grizzlies launch from the Sovremennyy. The destroyer then detects one more, the third Harpoon. In the 2nd Movement phase, the 14 grizzlies happen to destroy the single detected Harpoon. The remaining Harpoon is never detected and as I see it, since it is undetected, it is not engaged by the point defense Kashtan CADS-N-1 systems. The Harpoon activated it radar and since the Sovremennyy is the only target, locks onto the destroyer. The small signature destroyer with 3rd generation J&D versus the 3rd generation seeker results in a pH 42%. The harpoon roll is exactly 42, inflicting 45 damage points and rolling for criticals. 5 criticals are then determined to be minor flooding, a major fire, and rudder damage. I understand the Larry stated that detection should now be considered automatic, but went with the old rule of pD 60% in engagement turns. Would the destroyers 3rd Gen ESM provide enough detection of the harpoon's seeker to engage? I wouldn't think so.

Interesting...I'll look at my stuff again tonight. I know that they can be used...but OTH...hmm.

Nicely done and on-topic. H4.1 Annex D lists: Tomahawk Block IIIA (BGM-109C): I&GPS Guidance. 1000nm surface range. 25nm minimum range. 475kts speed. VLow max. VLow min. Cruise trajectory. 454kg warhead. 91DP's. Stealthy signature. NOE capable (over-land, but we're talk ASuW). Would this be what I'm looking for? The Bunker Hill form lists Block III compliance. Doh! Harpoon Block III!

Nicely done and on-topic. H4.1 Annex D lists: Tomahawk Block IIIA (BGM-109C): I&GPS Guidance. 1000nm surface range. 25nm minimum range. 475kts speed. VLow max. VLow min. Cruise trajectory. 454kg warhead. 91DP's. Stealthy signature. NOE capable (over-land, but we're talk ASuW). Would this be what I'm looking for? The Bunker Hill form lists Block III compliance.

So TASM no more?

hmm...would that require getting well within the defensive SAM envelope...will have to look at that. Guess that means employing some more offensive jamming. Off-hand has Moving Target JDAM's appeared yet in H4? I do not recall so, now I'll have to breeze through my Naval Sitreps again.

I have some BrahMos missiles on my refitted Indian Rajput DDG. Look out PLAN Sovremennyy Type 956EM! Plan to game out the missile engagement only of BrahMos vs Sovrem over the next day or two, dependent upon when I can get down into the basement unimpeded.

Thanks a lot Brad. So feeling my way through this... What would be the US/Western Nation ASuW weapon of choice in a medium to high intensity naval conflict, should one come to pass in the next 20 years or so?

Pardon ignorance on this subject, but were tomahwak cruise missiles ever intended for the ASuW role? Recent history has played out its virtues in the land-attack mode. Is the TLAM phraseology indicative of its main, designed, purpose or just its more prevalent role? The question arises from my recent compilation of various ship data forms representative of the 1/2400 and 1/6000 models I currently have. For example, the Slava CG appears to be quite well protected with SAM's and other air defenses. The Bunker Hill (Tico VLS) has a boatload of tomahawks but only 8x Harpoons. Did a presumed 1990's conventional east-west naval engagement envision tamahwaks in an ASuW role? How was then the "take down" of Soviet surface combatants envisioned? I know its a long, long time ago, but I keep thinking of the movie Midway and the countless airstrikes being butchered. Can that plan be "ported" over to the early twenty-first century and a conflict with Russian designed, as well as indiginously deveolped Chinese vessels? Thanks for humoring me.

Correction, all of the above is regarding the EL/M-2238 STAR.