Questions on Terran Federation Tech

runsforcelery wrote:
And, I might point out, that comments on the stupidity of Honorverse computers notwithstanding, you haven't said anything here that contradicts my point about a Mikasa with Aegis fire control somehow miraculously defeating an Iowa with the Mark 38 fire control system and the Mark 8 Rangekeeper.

Mikasa is still on the bottom of the Pacific in record time, no matter what electronics fit she has.

...Please look at one post above the one you just answered to.

Ill even quote myself:

Dilandu wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:
Second, it doesn't matter how good your computers are if you are both slower than and hugely outranged by your opponent (which the Federation would be). Or are you suggesting that fitting the Mikasa with 2018 fire control and radar but without changing its armament or its maximum speed would somehow magically allow it to prevail over a poor, pathetic Iowa with state of the art 1946 radar and fire control?

(Shrug) Easily. Using 2018s ECM equipment to absolutely confuse the "Iowa"'s 1946 radar, and old-fashioned smoke screen to block the "Iowa"'s optical directors. After that, the situation would be just the reversal of "Iowa" vs "Yamato" discussion; "Iowa" suddenly found herself absolutely unable to even find the target, while the target is pounding her with fire. And after a few 12-inch hits, the "Iowa" central fire control would go out completely.

1940s naval warfare was fire control, fire control and fire control. The "Iowa" was the best battleship of World War 2 exactly because her computers - yes, those electromechanicals computers - were the best available, and could maintain fire solution basically in any situation. And theoretically-superior in therms of weaponry and protection "Yamato" was so inferior in therms of fire control, that basically could not use her advantages outside of specific situations.

So thank you for the example that ideally demonstrated my thesis, mister Holmes)

Dilandu wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:
And, I might point out, that comments on the stupidity of Honorverse computers notwithstanding, you haven't said anything here that contradicts my point about a Mikasa with Aegis fire control somehow miraculously defeating an Iowa with the Mark 38 fire control system and the Mark 8 Rangekeeper.

Mikasa is still on the bottom of the Pacific in record time, no matter what electronics fit she has.

...Please look at one post above the one you just answered to.

Ill even quote myself:

runsforcelery wrote:
Second, it doesn't matter how good your computers are if you are both slower than and hugely outranged by your opponent (which the Federation would be). Or are you suggesting that fitting the Mikasa with 2018 fire control and radar but without changing its armament or its maximum speed would somehow magically allow it to prevail over a poor, pathetic Iowa with state of the art 1946 radar and fire control?

Dilandu wrote:(Shrug) Easily. Using 2018s ECM equipment to absolutely confuse the "Iowa"'s 1946 radar, and old-fashioned smoke screen to block the "Iowa"'s optical directors. After that, the situation would be just the reversal of "Iowa" vs "Yamato" discussion; "Iowa" suddenly found herself absolutely unable to even find the target, while the target is pounding her with fire. And after a few 12-inch hits, the "Iowa" central fire control would go out completely.

1940s naval warfare was fire control, fire control and fire control. The "Iowa" was the best battleship of World War 2 exactly because her computers - yes, those electromechanicals computers - were the best available, and could maintain fire solution basically in any situation. And theoretically-superior in therms of weaponry and protection "Yamato" was so inferior in therms of fire control, that basically could not use her advantages outside of specific situations.

So thank you for the example that ideally demonstrated my thesis, mister Holmes)

Didn't see this post, but even if I had, I wouldn't share your conclusion.

I disagree about the ability of Mikasa to generate smoke screens sufficient to block Iowa's visual fire control, especially when she has less than half the speed to hold the range open long enough for her pretty pitiful 12" guns (all four of them!) to take down a ship with twice her armor, as well. I will grant you the probability that her ECM will futz up Iowa's radar, but Mikasa still has to close to 15,000 yards to score a hit, even with the best fire control in the world, and one of Iowa 16" shells is pretty much going to gut her when it lands, given her size and armoring scheme. Precisely how is she going to survive to close to a range a which she can hurt her opponent --- or keep Iowa from maneuvering to gain a clear shot --- unless her fire control can also control wind direction and speed and prevent Iowa from knowing even roughly where she is?

I also question how successful her grafted on ECM would be at flat out blinding Iowa's radar, which is what she'd have to do. Nor do I think "a few 12' hits" from 1905-era shells filled with Shimose are going to take Iowa's fire control totally off line, given how dispersed her visual rangefinders are and how heavily armored her plotting systems are. A collection of golden BBs might accomplish that, but now you're talking about something else your modern fire control can't produce on order.

To be honest, the only way I can see Mikasa even making Iowa work up a sweat is to have visibility conditions so poor that she can't be spotted visually (without smoke screen) at a range of 7 or 8 miles (Iowa's visual sighting radius was about 17 miles in perfect conditions; about 12-15 under average condition, which creates a visibility "bubble" 24-34 miles across) and somehow manage, despite her inferior speed, to work herself into a position in which Iowa comes to her all unawares and she manages to open fire at a close enough range to score a mission kill in the interval before Iowa can return main battery fire. A . . . formidable challenge and, by definition, not something she can rely on accomplishing. Mind you, as the author of a work of fiction, I could make it work --- probably --- although kzt would ream me out for making Iowa's skipper throw the match.

I reiterate. No way is Mikasa taking Iowa without huge upgrades in her offensive firepower as well as her electronics.

runsforcelery wrote:

Didn't see this post, but even if I had, I wouldn't share your conclusion.

I know.

I disagree about the ability of Mikasa to generate smoke screens sufficient to block Iowa's visual fire control,

May I inquire about why exactly you consider smoke screens ineffective? As far as I know, even 1945 "Iowa" did not have IR or UV sensors (which Japanese navy actually have, for example)

I will grant you the probability that her ECM will futz up Iowa's radar, but Mikasa still has to close to 15,000 yards to score a hit, even with the best fire control in the world,

...Okay, I'll tell you the old Russian secret of adding a few extra miles to gunnery range.

Just flood the side compartments. The ship would start to list, so your guns would have the additional angle on one side) Proven to be workable during "Slava" clashes with German dreadnoughts - and "Slava" haven't got sophisticated fire controls.

and one of Iowa 16" shells is pretty much going to gut her when it lands, given her size and armoring scheme.

So the whole point is NOT being hit)

Precisely how is she going to survive to close to a range a which she can hurt her opponent --- or keep Iowa from maneuvering to gain a clear shot

So you mean that "Iowa" must actually went to point-blank range. In smoke screen. Against enemy with greatly superior sensor, better short-range battery and torpedoes.

The risk of mutual destruction is pretty good.

--- unless her fire control can also control wind direction and speed and prevent Iowa from knowing even roughly where she is?

Yes, her fire control, ECM systems and smoke screens could do exactly that.

I also question how successful her grafted on ECM would be at flat out blinding Iowa's radar, which is what she'd have to do.

Blinding? Please, you are insulting the ECM techs. The old-fashioned range & direction decoy jamming would work much better.

Nor do I think "a few 12' hits" from 1905-era shells filled with Shimose are going to take Iowa's fire control totally off line, given how dispersed her visual rangefinders are and how heavily armored her plotting systems are

"South Dakota" lost all fire control from much less powerfull 8-inch shells. With all respect to vacuum tubes, mechanical differentials and optics, but they are MUCH less shock-resistant than microchips and fiber-optics.

Dilandu wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:

Didn't see this post, but even if I had, I wouldn't share your conclusion.

I know.

I disagree about the ability of Mikasa to generate smoke screens sufficient to block Iowa's visual fire control,

May I inquire about why exactly you consider smoke screens ineffective? As far as I know, even 1945 "Iowa" did not have IR or UV sensors (which Japanese navy actually have, for example)

I will grant you the probability that her ECM will futz up Iowa's radar, but Mikasa still has to close to 15,000 yards to score a hit, even with the best fire control in the world,

...Okay, I'll tell you the old Russian secret of adding a few extra miles to gunnery range.

Just flood the side compartments. The ship would start to list, so your guns would have the additional angle on one side) Proven to be workable during "Slava" clashes with German dreadnoughts - and "Slava" haven't got sophisticated fire controls.

and one of Iowa 16" shells is pretty much going to gut her when it lands, given her size and armoring scheme.

So the whole point is NOT being hit)

Precisely how is she going to survive to close to a range a which she can hurt her opponent --- or keep Iowa from maneuvering to gain a clear shot

So you mean that "Iowa" must actually went to point-blank range. In smoke screen. Against enemy with greatly superior sensor, better short-range battery and torpedoes.

The risk of mutual destruction is pretty good.

--- unless her fire control can also control wind direction and speed and prevent Iowa from knowing even roughly where she is?

Yes, her fire control, ECM systems and smoke screens could do exactly that.

I also question how successful her grafted on ECM would be at flat out blinding Iowa's radar, which is what she'd have to do.

Blinding? Please, you are insulting the ECM techs. The old-fashioned range & direction decoy jamming would work much better.

Nor do I think "a few 12' hits" from 1905-era shells filled with Shimose are going to take Iowa's fire control totally off line, given how dispersed her visual rangefinders are and how heavily armored her plotting systems are

"South Dakota" lost all fire control from much less powerfull 8-inch shells. With all respect to vacuum tubes, mechanical differentials and optics, but they are MUCH less shock-resistant than microchips and fiber-optics.

I'm not interspersing quotes because it's getting too complicated. However, in response to your points:

I specifically said "smoke screens sufficient to block Iowa's visual fire control." I should perhaps have expanded further in that sentence, but I felt that my subsequent comments made it clear that I was talking about not simply producing smoke, nor arguing that Iowa's optical systems could magically see through it, but of a 15-knot vessel being able to generate a smokescreen and keep it between itself and an opponent more than twice as fast as its own maximum speed given typical wind and sea state conditions. Smoke screens are subject to wind, and that would dictate the only directions in which Mikasa could move while keeping the smoke between herself and Iowa. This would be easier — note that I said easier, not easy — if she is adopting a totally defensive posture, but I would argue that if she finds herself in a position in which the only posture she can adopt is totally defensive, then she is rather self-evidently tactically inferior to her opponent. I should probably also point out, vis-à-vis smokescreens, that the hypothetical matchup is between a Mikasa which has had only its electronics updated and an Iowa which hasn't been updated at all. The reason I mention this is that so far as I'm aware, Mikasa wasn't equipped to generate chemical smoke, which means she'd have been capable of producing a "smokescreen" using only her funnel smoke. That would tend to nail down a focal point for Iowa's pitiful optic sensors pretty damn quick. Just saying.

I might also point out that in those moments when Iowa can see Mikasa, in a broadside duel (outside the range of their secondary batteries), she'll be firing 18 16" rounds per minute (48,600 pounds total weight of metal) to Mikasa's 4 12" rounds per minute (3,400 pounds total weight of metal). Even if Iowa is headed bow-first into Mikasa's broadside, it becomes 12 rounds per minute (32,400 pounds of metal) versus Mikasa's 4 rounds and 3,400 pounds. Put another way, the older ship's entire broadside is only about 26% heavier than a single shell from her opponent, and her guns fire half as quickly. So each 12" tube is putting 13% as much metal in the air as each 16" tube per unit of time.


About flooding Slava's side compartments to increase range. I'm aware of that practice. I'm also aware that it was utilized in the Baltic, not in typical Atlantic or Pacific sea states, where Mikasa's relatively lower freeboard (vis-à-vis Iowa) would make the practice far riskier. Unless we are now going to stipulate that in addition to chemical smokescreen generators, the skipper of the Mikasa possesses the power to control the weather and sea state on the day of our fateful encounter and the skipper of the Iowa can't, thus allowing Mikasa to rely upon mill pond wave states. And unless Mikasa wants to induce a 30° list (which would promptly cause her to capsize even in calm weather) she still can't match Iowa's designed elevation. She could clearly increase her range beyond 15,000 yards, and with the upgraded fire control system, could probably count on obtaining a high percentage — I'll even give you a very high percentage — of hits at the extended range. She could not increase her range to match Iowa's, but assuming the sea state allowed her to employ this strategy and she was able to generate a sufficient smokescreen (without those chemical generators she doesn't have) and keep it between her and Iowa, she would indeed have a significant tactical edge. Whether it would be sufficient to offset Iowa's higher speed (i.e., ability to close the range), greater size, and vastly superior armor (in both thickness and placement) would be another question entirely, however, and one that I think would not work out in Mikasa's favor. I expect Iowa would be much more heavily damaged if Mikasa was able to achieve the "Goldilocks" conditions of wind and weather required to make this work (and had those chemical smokescreen generators), but I also think she'd still win in the end.

Apropos what happens if Mikasa gets hit. I understand that the entire point of the exercise may be to avoid being hit. The best laid plans frequently go astray, however — as I am arguing above is all too likely to happen — and and assuming that Iowa does land a single main battery hit on Mikasa, it's going to ruin Mikasa's whole day. It's certainly going to hurt her one hell of a lot more than being hit by a 12" shell weighing less than a third as much and charged with Shimose's picric acid instead of Composition D is going to hurt Iowa.

If Iowa effectively goes to "point-blank" range — which is not what I said in the passage you quoted, where I was referring to Mikasa's challenge in maneuvering to prevent Iowa from generating an unblocked firing angle by relying on funnel smoke in average wind conditions — the consequences for Mikasa would be disastrous very quickly, and her secondary battery and torpedoes (please!) aren't going to change that. We already looked at the disparity between their main battery rates of fire and weights of metal. Secondary batteries, in a broadside duel (which is basically the only kind of exchange in which Mikasa could actually use her casemate-mounted 6" guns; Iowa would have limited but superior fire ahead and astern from her double-tiered twin turrets) would pit seven 6"/40 against ten 5"/38. That's roughly 28 6" shells per minute versus 190 5" shells (or 2,800 pounds of metal versus 10,469) and the armor protecting the weapons and vital systems of Mikasa's opponent is vastly superior. As far as Mikasa's 12-pounders are concerned, they'd be outnumbered approximately 40-to-1 by Iowa's 40 mm, which would chew up Mikasa's superstructure like a chainsaw. And about those torpedoes, are you serious? We're talking 18" weapons launched from submerged tubes with a maximum range of under 4,500 yards at 23 knots (even assuming that we are using the purchased Whitehead "B" version) and a 209-pound bursting charge of picric acid against a ship whose designers assumed a bursting charge of 700 pounds of TNT. And so far as I am aware, no battleship torpedo launched from a submerged torpedo tube ever hit another ship in combat except for the possible hit Nelson is credited with achieving against a nearly stationary Bismarck while she and King George V pounded their opponent into a wreck, and not even that hit was ever confirmed. So, yeah, I've got to really, really like Iowa's chances in a "point-blank" action. And, no, the "risk of mutual destruction" is not "pretty good." The risk of painful damage to Iowa may be much higher, but that's a very different proposition from "mutual destruction."

You are dreaming if you think that all the ECM in the world is going to completely defeat optical systems in the real world where there are things like wind and waves to disperse smoke or blow it in an . . . unfortunate direction, even assuming that, unlike the Mikasa stipulated in my original example, your version has chemical smoke generators. And even if she has chemical smoke generators, they aren't going to have infinite endurance. All Iowa has to do is to follow you (or run away in front of you) while maintaining a range at which she can take you under fire if you aren't using up your generators' endurance — which her superior speed will allow her to do easily — and wait you out. Sooner or later, you're gonna run out of smoke, at which point you get smoked by those old-fashioned optical systems that ECM cannot defeat.


And, finally, South Dakota did not lose "all fire control" at the Battle of Guadalcanal. She lost her radar and suffered a temporary loss of power to her rangekeeper, which took her plot off-line very briefly. And because radar was what she had been relying on as her main sensor feed at the time, her optical fire control systems — although they remained remained fully functional, were inadequate to sort out the situation under the visibility conditions that applied, with a relatively green crew seeing ship-to-ship action for the first time, and with ships already on fire and multiple banks of smoke to confuse the the human eye. And before you say anything about "Aha! See, they were inadequate!" I have been consistent in acknowledging that if a 15-knot Mikasa can work its way into attack range of a 33-knot Iowa in the middle of the dark or a dense fog, 21st century fire control will definitely trump 1945 fire control. I have also been consistent about pointing out that without the direct assistance of God (or authorial fiat), the skipper of the Mikasa better not count on being able to do that. Especially since, if I am the skipper of the Iowa, I really don't care if what your ECM techs are doing is decoy jamming me or not. As soon as my radar picks up anything that I can't identify coming at me in the dark and I know that your Mikasa with superior electronics is out there, I am putting my stern to you and staying away from you with my superior speed until dawn breaks or until the weather clears. And don't forget, my oil-fired boilers and geared turbines will let me maintain a 25-30-knot speed of advance for as long as my fuel holds out, whereas your coal-fired, hand-stoked boilers, and reciprocating engines won't even be able to maintain 15-knots for any great length of time. So you can't catch me until I've decided visibility and weather conditions favor me sufficiently to overcome your sensor advantages and funnel smoke.

As I said. End of exercise: Mikasa exploring the Marianas trench firsthand.

runsforcelery wrote:As I said. End of exercise: Mikasa exploring the Marianas trench firsthand.

Yeah, yeah. "Smokescreen should not be sufficient", "Iowa would just wait on safe distance until you run out of smoke" (so, now she must knew in advance all enemy capabilities? Just splendid.), "optical fire control are invulnerable to damage" (really? ), "ECM could not do anything with optics" (someone forbade the anti-optical lasers?)...

Ok, I'll stop right here, because if I press more it would probably be a quarrel, and I hate to quarrel with peoples I respect (even if it's obviously not mutual). Have a good day!

Dilandu wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:As I said. End of exercise: Mikasa exploring the Marianas trench firsthand.

Yeah, yeah. "Smokescreen should not be sufficient", "Iowa would just wait on safe distance until you run out of smoke" (so, now she must knew in advance all enemy capabilities? Just splendid.), "optical fire control are invulnerable to damage" (really? ), "ECM could not do anything with optics" (someone forbade the anti-optical lasers?)...

Ok, I'll stop right here, because if I press more it would probably be a quarrel, and I hate to quarrel with peoples I respect (even if it's obviously not mutual). Have a good day!

The Iowa can sail rings around the Mikasa (ie. kite it), a smokescreen wouldn't help. And if you use a smokescreen I'm afraid lasers would be attenuated by the smoke.
And you can always use the Mark I Eyeball and ranged shots to bracket the Mikasa.

Dilandu wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:As I said. End of exercise: Mikasa exploring the Marianas trench firsthand.

Yeah, yeah. "Smokescreen should not be sufficient", "Iowa would just wait on safe distance until you run out of smoke" (so, now she must knew in advance all enemy capabilities? Just splendid.), "optical fire control are invulnerable to damage" (really? ), "ECM could not do anything with optics" (someone forbade the anti-optical lasers?)...

Ok, I'll stop right here, because if I press more it would probably be a quarrel, and I hate to quarrel with peoples I respect (even if it's obviously not mutual). Have a good day!

Dilandu, I'm assuming that both sides know all of the other's capabilities. And I didn't say optical fire control was invulnerable. I said the rangefinders are dispersed and the plotting room is very heavily armored and therefore will not be taken out with a couple of 12" hits. I don't think I said they couldn't be degraded, and I thought the implication that they could be taken out by multiple 12" hits was fairly clear. As for the LaWs, I don't think it's in general service at this time (far as I know the Army only got its first similar prototype in 2017 and the Navy only announced deployment of its first two prototypes (except for the experimental one they sent to sea aboard the Ponce in --- what? 2015? Late 2014?) in January of this year, so I don't think it's currently at sea and I hadn't included it in the calculus. Frankly, I don't know how it would affect 1945-era rangefinders (or the human optic nerves behind them) at typical engagement ranges. I don't think it could physically disable the hardware (since it's a lot more robust than radar systems or other electronics), but it is certainly probable that it could blind (temporarily or permanently) someone looking at the emitters through high-powered lenses, which would constitute a mission kill on the system.

To be honest, I wouldn't have included the laser in "ECM" in my thinking if I'd considered it at all. I mean, it clearly falls under that rubric, I just would have been thinking of it as more under the Electronic Warfare label rather than the Electronic Countermeasures heading. If we crank it into the mix, then your argument in favor of the Mikasa does get a lot stronger. I'd like to know more about effective ranges and terminal effects on the system before I run up any white flags, though!

And I'm not sure why you think I don't respect you. I don't argue with people I don't respect! I ignore them because they aren't worth arguing with. Oh, okay, I may whack them once and then ignore them, but you and I (and kzt, over on the Honorverse) have gone a lot of rounds with each other because you're both some of the few guys out there willing to get down into the weeds with me on this kind of stuff!

Joat42 wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:As I said. End of exercise: Mikasa exploring the Marianas trench firsthand.

Dilandu wrote:Yeah, yeah. "Smokescreen should not be sufficient", "Iowa would just wait on safe distance until you run out of smoke" (so, now she must knew in advance all enemy capabilities? Just splendid.), "optical fire control are invulnerable to damage" (really? ), "ECM could not do anything with optics" (someone forbade the anti-optical lasers?)...

Ok, I'll stop right here, because if I press more it would probably be a quarrel, and I hate to quarrel with peoples I respect (even if it's obviously not mutual). Have a good day!

The Iowa can sail rings around the Mikasa (ie. kite it), a smokescreen wouldn't help. And if you use a smokescreen I'm afraid lasers would be attenuated by the smoke.
And you can always use the Mark I Eyeball and ranged shots to bracket the Mikasa.

Don't know that she could "kite" the Mikasa; I just think she could take advantage of the wind and position herself so that the only way Mikasa could remain covered is to run directly away from her. And as I said in my most recent post to Dilandu, I hadn't been including directed energy weapons in my thinking when he was talking about "blinding" Iowa's optical systems.

You're right about the smoke screen degrading the lasers, but if Mikasa had enough LaWS mounts (and a gutsy enough captain) and could use a decoy system to fool Iowa's less capable radar into significantly over-reading the range, she could maneuver so that Iowa had to pursue into her smoke, stop making smoke of her own, slide into the clear, where her lasers would have full effect, and go for a short-range shootout to take down Iowa range finders, then turn away behind fresh smoke. Be difficult to pull off with only 15 knots' speed to play around with, but it wouldn't be flat out impossible, by any means.

I'm still not at all convinced Mikasa could win, even with the laser cranked into the equation, but I willingly admit that adding that capability would give her one hell of a lot better chance than I thought she'd have! Might only need authorial fiat on her side and not God, too!

Joat42 wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Yeah, yeah. "Smokescreen should not be sufficient", "Iowa would just wait on safe distance until you run out of smoke" (so, now she must knew in advance all enemy capabilities? Just splendid.), "optical fire control are invulnerable to damage" (really? ), "ECM could not do anything with optics" (someone forbade the anti-optical lasers?)...

Ok, I'll stop right here, because if I press more it would probably be a quarrel, and I hate to quarrel with peoples I respect (even if it's obviously not mutual). Have a good day!

The Iowa can sail rings around the Mikasa (ie. kite it), a smokescreen wouldn't help. And if you use a smokescreen I'm afraid lasers would be attenuated by the smoke.
And you can always use the Mark I Eyeball and ranged shots to bracket the Mikasa.

Running rings helps but the Mikasa can always turn within the Iowa. Keep running upwind of wherever it is now and the smoke screen will work. And a smoke screen will stop a Mark I eyeball.

It will do nothing about the radar, though--once the Iowa is within range it will be taking fire. Thus the issue becomes whether the Mikasa can disable the Iowa before it gets too close for the smoke screen to offer protection.

Best use for that putative smokescrean generator is more likely to be to (minimally) degrade the Iowa crews performance by making them wear breathing gear.