Questions on Terran Federation Tech

Loren Pechtel 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!

Joat42 wrote: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.

If the wind is blowing south and Iowa can get north of Mikasa, the older, slower ship can only hide behind the smoke for however long it takes Iowa to run her down (accepting, of course, that if she has radar that works and Iowa doesn't, she ought to be registering at least some hits while that happens).

On the other hand, of course, if the wind speed is greater than 15 knots (which is only about Force 4 on the Beaufort scale), then as long as Iowa is upwind of her, the smoke will be blowing away from her faster than she can move to stay concealed by it. Under those circumstances, her concealment from optical fire control will be . . . problematical, at best. More likely, she'd end up mother naked and the only thing that could save her in those circumstances would be Dilandu's suggested blinding/dazzling use of the laser I didn't include in her original electronic suite. (Having the smokescreen roll away downwind too rapidly to conceal a slow ship happened on more than one occasion to merchant convoys during World War II, so there's no reason it shouldn't happen to Mikasa as well, which is why I kept harping on wind and sea state in my earlier comments on this thread.)

For the purposes of our argument here, however, let's assume that the combination of windspeed and Mikasa's speed through the water is sufficient to allow her to remain thoroughly hidden in the smoke while she heads away from Iowa at her own best speed. In a running engagement, she'll probably be firing end-on (since she'll need to keep her stern to her pursuer), which limits her to only two 12" guns with a rate of fire of one round per minute each. So if we assume her speed is 15 knots and she can sustain it (questionable if Iowa has been pressuring her for a while, her stokers are tired, and her grates are foul); that Iowa's is 33 knots (an 18-knot speed advantage); and that Mikasa begins firing at her maximum range of 15,000 yards (heeling the ship to increase effective elevation won't help in a stern chase situation), it will take Iowa roughly 25 minutes from the instant she's taken under fire to reduce the range to zero (she probably wouldn't need to get quite that close before she could at least roughly define the zone in which Mikasa must lie from observing the pattern of the smoke screen). Assume she does have to close all the way to zero range, however. That gives Mikasa a total of 25 shots per gun (assuming no misfires). At extreme range, even with 2018 fire control, her 12" guns' hit pecentage is going to be low; as the range drops, it will get better and better. Iowa could probably reduce the percentages a bit by salvo chasing, even against 2018 fire control, but that would slow her overtake and stretch out the time she'd be taking fire without returning it. If we assume that the older ship averages 30% hits from the beginning of the pursuit, then she'll score 15 hits. However, her 850-pound shells couldn't penetrate Iowa's belt beyond about 3,500 yards and probably couldn't penetrate both armored decks at all (they'd be landing at far too oblique an angle for such light shells to penetrate). She'd do better using HE and trying to tear up Iowas upper works, smash her optical rangefinders and directors, and inflict the sort of mission kill Dilandu is suggesting.

Bottom line, though, and remembering how hard the Brits found it to sink Bismarck (whose armoring scheme and armor were inferior to Iowa's) with the combined fire of nine 6" and ten 14" guns (and even the 14" shells weighed 87% more than Mikasa's 12"; Nelson's 16" shells were 2.4 times as heavy) with far better fusing and more stable bursting charges), I'm not sure Mikasa could actually sink Iowa, at all. Tear up her topsides a bunch, sure. Take down her funnels and reduce draft to slow her, yeppers. Eventually knock out her range finders, yep. Cripple her secondary guns, sure, with enough hits. But take out her engines or main battery? No, because she couldn't get to them. And Iowa's turrets incorporated their own rangefinders which were linked to her plot and fire control computers by cable runs below the armored deck. So if Iowa's gotten close enough for Mikasa to penetrate her armor (or have any hope at all of hitting her with one of those submerged torpedo tubes of hers), then it's gonna take a hell of a smoke screen to keep the 16-inchers from engaging her over "open sights." (And, by the way, the only way the range will get that short is if Iowa chooses to press in to quarters that close, given the difference in their speeds.) That's what I meant about Mikasa being able to hurt her a lot more than I'd originally allowed for if she has the new laser and if its "dazzle' effect performs in action as well as it has in tests (which, as has been pointed out above, it can't, until the ship is clear of her own smoke screen).

We had a similar discussion on here a while back about how would a modern destroyer go in a gunnery duel with a WW2 Battleship like Iowa. Some couldn't understand that a 5 inch (no matter how high tech) just couldn't do more than superficial damage, even if all their magazine hit. Make a mess of the superstructure, but one 16 inch hit and goodbye. Makes much more sense to use missiles and possibly helicopter launched torpedoes in bad light.

runsforcelery wrote: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!

Sincerely glad to hear that.

Dilandu, I'm assuming that both sides know all of the other's capabilities.

Hm, I could agree with your assumptions about the weather & ocean conditions, but not with that. Knowing exactly all the enemy capabilities is incredibly rare in warfare.

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.

It may be robust, but the optic have the unfortunate ability to focus the incoming beam. Basically, the optic system - which essential goal is to concentrate and focus the incoming light - is helping laser to kill itself by providing the beam a direct conduit toward vulnerable parts (eyes or sensors) and helpfully focusing the incoming radiation.

(As far as I knew, in theory well-directed searchlight could also render optical directors of WW2 era inoperable, but here I'm not completely sure that some anti-flash measures weren't implemented to protect eyes from, for example, magnesium flashes).

But despite how fun was this comparison, I'm afraid, the point is missed a bit. Because in "Iowa vs refitted Mikasa" scenario, both sides are forced to rely on unguided weapon. While the initial comparison was "Honorverse vs Terran Federation" - i.e. space-based warfare - and the majority of weapon used by both sides are guided.

And in guided weapon warfare, the general rule is "the smarter the better". Modern missiles aren't necessary faster or have a longer range than their half-century old counterparts. For example, modern "Patriot" have comparable range and dynamic with late-1950s "Nike-Hercules". But "Patriot" is incredibly smarter; more accurate, more precise, enormously better in data processing, jamming resistance and decoy discrimination.

True, SOME characteristics of primitive weaponry may be even better than of more sophisticated. For example, X-22 "Burya" (AS-4 "Kitchen") anti-ship missile still hold the world speed record among anti-ship missiles; more than 4,5 Mach. Problem is, she is dumb as brick, with very primitive seeker head and her only attack mode is "rush toward target at high altitude and then dive on target".

In comparison, P-700 "Granit" ("Shipwreck") is incredibly smart missile, with some AI elements in her control system. She was designed to be smart, approach target at low terminal altitude, analyze the targets, use the onboard jammers and decoys and use inter-missile data exchange in salvo to defeat jamming, and formulate an attack pattern by themselves. True, "Granit" is not as fast as "Burya" - merely 2,5 Mach max speed. But it is incredibly more clever.

In defense therms its even more important. For example, the weapon components of Aegis systems aren't actually the best in the world. The 127-mm gun is pretty average, the "Phalanx" system is inferior to "Goalkeeper", the SM-2 missiles have less range & kinetic energy as S-300F/S-400F missiles. But Aegis could make much more effective use out of all abovementioned components due to excellent coordination between data processing, decision making & weapon control.

So, if we are talking about the "Honorverse vs Terran Federation" situation, it could be better described by such model:

* Honorverse: main ASM - X-22 "Burya", main SAM - RIM-8 "Talos". And also Honorverse's ships are twice as fast as opponents.

* Terran Federation: main - ASM P-700 "Granit", main SAM - Aegis-based SM-6 ERAM. And also Terrain Federation ships are stealthy at least as "Zumwalt"-class destroyers.

Who would won the duel?

Daryl wrote:We had a similar discussion on here a while back about how would a modern destroyer go in a gunnery duel with a WW2 Battleship like Iowa. Some couldn't understand that a 5 inch (no matter how high tech) just couldn't do more than superficial damage, even if all their magazine hit. Make a mess of the superstructure, but one 16 inch hit and goodbye. Makes much more sense to use missiles and possibly helicopter launched torpedoes in bad light.

Well, if we took "Sovremenny"-class destroyer (project 956)...

She have two dual 130-mm (5,1-inch) mounts with ROF about 80 shells per mount (40 per gun), and ballistic range about 23-26 km. Basically it's the max range on which battleships gun could actually hit the enemy ship.

So, in duel with World War 2 "Iowa"... The "Sovremenny" would firstly jam her fire control radars with MP-407 ECM suite. Then she would use PK-2 and PK-10 decoy rocket launchers to create a wide smoke screen. Then she would close, under the smoke screen to 15 km distance, and pound her for a minute with 160 5,1-inch HE shells under perfect radar control. Then, she would launch her SET-65 electric torpedoes with non-contact fuses (yes, they are anti-submarine, but Soviet Navy always considered ASW torpedoes as secondary anti-surface armament also).

So the "Iowa" would have her superstructure demolished, her fire control stations and secondary armament gone, widespread fire & leaks on her ends. And then she would be hit with two-to-four torpedoes with 240-kg warheads, detonating under her keel. All this without probably even firing one salvo back, because both her radar and optical fire control would be disabled by jamming and chemical smokes.

You just need to chose your destroyer right.

Loren Pechtel wrote:
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.

If you are running upwind and making smoke, then the smoke trail is behind you, you are at the lead end of the smoke cloud, and therefore visible. If you run downwind and the wind is faster than your cruising speed, you are inside the smoke cloud. Of course, this is soft coal smoke, so opaque.

I have the vague impression that the Mikasa was short of AA weapons, due to aircraft mostly not having been invented at the time (nitpickers will note Hiram Maxim), while at least some battleships carried float planes, leading to possible additional challenges for the Mikasa.

phillies wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:
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.

If you are running upwind and making smoke, then the smoke trail is behind you, you are at the lead end of the smoke cloud, and therefore visible. If you run downwind and the wind is faster than your cruising speed, you are inside the smoke cloud. Of course, this is soft coal smoke, so opaque.

I have the vague impression that the Mikasa was short of AA weapons, due to aircraft mostly not having been invented at the time (nitpickers will note Hiram Maxim), while at least some battleships carried float planes, leading to possible additional challenges for the Mikasa.

Actually, if you're running down wind and the wind speed is greater than your speed, you are not inside the smoke. The bow of your ship may be, but everything aft of the aftermost funnel is exposed because the smoke is blowing ahead of your ship, not staying with it. That's why I specified that Iowa would have to use her speed to get upwind of Mikasa and stay there.


Scond, your comment on Mikasa's lack of and anti-air defense is a very good one, and one I had forgotten to allow for. The USN did an enormous amount of development of aerial spotting for battleships in the interwar years, and without AA weapons, Mikasa would be unable to drive any spotting aircraft off. (I can see a lot of similarities here with Ghostrider, now that you mention it. ) Accuracy would be substantially poorer than with direct visual observation or radar rangefinding data, but it would work, and the American ship would only need a very few hits to completely incapacitate her opponent. Especially if they were delivered at long range and ripped straight down into Mikasa's vitals rather than simply tearing up superstructure. For that matter, Mikasa's 21st century fire control and electronic suite would be at least as vulnerable too shock and blast damage as Iowa's 1940s systems. As Norman Friedman points out, the big difference between 1940s designers and 21st century designers is that the 1940s guys assumed their ships would be hit and designed them to remain in action anyway.

And I'd like to return to two earlier points in passing.

First, I said that I decided to assume that true AI was unachievable in the Honorverse, not that they were incapable of building systems which would have been truly sentient had it been possible. In other words, I imposed a hard limit on the tech available in that universe by assuming (because that was what I wanted for story purposes) that true AI was impossible. It follow from that that it isn't a simple matter of architecture or software/hardware interface that's preventing it, and I would argue that means that the basic platform of Honorverse cybernetics would be a lot closer to that of Safehold's Federation than people may assume. I realize this was deliberately set up to be an apples-to-oranges comparison, but logically, if they're in the same universe the same physical laws have to apply.

Second, to Dilandu's point about each side knowing the other's capabilities. At no point in my original analogy did I specify that this would be the first meeting between the two sides. In fact, I assumed from the get go that both sides would know at least generally what the other's capabilities were, since the entire point of the discussion was to consider which navy's hardware would win a war and not just a single battle.

runsforcelery wrote:First, I said that I decided to assume that true AI was unachievable in the Honorverse, not that they were incapable of building systems which would have been truly sentient had it been possible. In other words, I imposed a hard limit on the tech available in that universe by assuming (because that was what I wanted for story purposes) that true AI was impossible. It follow from that that it isn't a simple matter of architecture or software/hardware interface that's preventing it, and I would argue that means that the basic platform of Honorverse cybernetics would be a lot closer to that of Safehold's Federation than people may assume. I realize this was deliberately set up to be an apples-to-oranges comparison, but logically, if they're in the same universe the same physical laws have to apply.

.

Then we have a problem: no compairson could be possible. If one universe's laws allow AI and the other did not, then in any kind of possible "meeting" the software of one side would fail absolutely. Or both sides. We could not have a situation in which BOTH sides software could function, if the difference is fundamental constant of their Universes.

(and I still did not persuaded that Honorverse computers are especially good. Considering the crew sizes, and the fact that even having FTL high-capacity datalinks no one tried to get rid of the crews completely - the other is more likely.

Just recall the battle of Cerberus, when the Havenite computers weren't scanning for infrared signatures because no one ordered them. This is NOT consistent with any complex software. And the fact that Honorverse missiles systematically could not say where exactly their launching warship is - thus allowing jamming of their command guidance - also did not correspond with complicated software)

If I remember rightly. It's not that they weren't scanning, it's that nobody was monitoring them. At least, not seriously or closely.

Which I suspect is that no AI to monitor those scanners bit.

Annachie wrote:If I remember rightly. It's not that they weren't scanning, it's that nobody was monitoring them. At least, not seriously or closely.

Which I suspect is that no AI to monitor those scanners bit.

With all respect, but computer should be able to do threat analysis without being told to do that. And should be able to at least give a noticeable warning about such anomalies. Even 1960s air defense computers (like parts of SAGE system) could do that.