Rupert replied to me:
> > If four mounts engage four time-on-target missiles, there
> > is a 35% chance of at least one leaker. That assumes all
> > four mounts can bear, or that there are even more mounts
> > (four per broadside?).
> >
> The usual pattern is two for a non-carrier (or even only one for a small
> frigate), giving full coverage and some overlap on the broadsides. IIRC
> the US carrier mount them in pairs, but I can't remember how many. If
> it's four, you get a pair each side.
I wonder if CIWS system were ever 'mature technology' -- they
were fairly new when the Cold War drew to an end, and nuclear
carriers didn't wear out all that fast. The Nimitz-class is
from the late 70s, and only newer models have four CIWS. The
new Ford-class seems to have four, too, plus missiles.
> The primary issue was always the control systems - until Aegis even the
> big 'volume defense' systems could, at best, control two missiles per
> launcher-radar system, though at least if both were fired at one target
> because they were command + SARH they could be retargetted if the new
> target was close to the old one. Note also that LoS is an issue, though
> in the case of a carrier group the Hawkeyes orbiting should remove this
> as a consideration in most weather/sea conditions.
I doubt that AWACS could designate for many SARH SAMs, they're
more for mid-course corrections of homing cruise missiles. But
then I'm explicitly talking about the post-AEGIS case here.
Let's try some classic Clancy:
* Blue Force consists of CVN-68 Nimitz, CV-60 Saratoga, R 99
Foch, CG-47 Ticonderoga, eight F-8 Crusaders, and assorted
small fry (the remainder of the air groups are decoyed).
* Red Force are three regiments of 27 Backfires each, with two
AS-6 Kingfish missiles per plane. Another three regiments of
Badgers have managed to draw the CAP away, then they were
out of the picture. Some Backfires had to abort, so there
are 70 bombers launching 140 missiles at 100+ miles. Then
they turn away and escape.
* The Kingfish has a 2,200-lb. conventional warhead, call it
820mm small SAPHE (weight matters more than diameter). The
seeker to detect a SM+12 ship at 150 miles against the
surface clutter (or smaller ships at shorter ranges) will
be around +21, depending on operator skill, so call it an
80-lb. ARH seeker. The FAS web page calls it BARHMU, so the
seeker is 85 lbs. and $2,040,000. That leaves 6,515 lbs. for
the motor.
The speed is a bit of a problem. Clancy says 900 mph, but
Wikipedia gives it as Mach 3.5. Did the writer guess wrong,
was it Soviet deception, or are we talking about different
models?
According to Vehicles, the engine could maintain 1,250 yps
for 425 seconds, for almost exactly 300 miles range. This
falls into the range given by Wikipedia. 450 yps would be
possible for 1,600 seconds. That sounds more like a real
cruise missile.
* According to Wikipedia the Tico has two Mk 26 launchers with
88 SM-2. Clancy makes it 96 missiles, but the FAS says each
unit has 44 rounds, too. I could find no other data on RoF,
so I'm going with Clancy's RoF of less than 8 seconds per
Rail.
Googling accurate stats seems to be difficult. A diameter
of 340mm and a modest HEPF warhead are 160 lbs., which is a
bit high but within tolerances. The guidance seems to be
BSARHMU, and skill is hard to determine since I don't know
when the missile switches over from command guidance to
SARH. Call it skill 15 for a 25 lbs. and $420,000 seeker.
That leaves 1,370 lbs. for the motor. A speed of 1,300 yps
would give an endurance of 100 seconds and a range of 75
miles. Sounds approximately OK.
The best approximation for the Mk 26 seems to be two 375mm
fast autoloaders rated for 2,200 lbs. in the same mount, but
probably not technically linked. RoF is 2*1/7.
* Published sensor range figures and nominal GURPS Vehicles
ranges have little in common -- standard SM+4 targets on
a clear day vs. an EW-heavy battlefield.
So start with the rated power, which is supposed to be 6 MW
(presumably for all four antennas). That would be 6,000 mi.
nominal range, and 60 tons of radar gear, a bit high.
So the v0.1 missile writeup would be
Weapon Weight Volume Cost Power WPS VPS CPS TL
AS-6 - - - neg. 8,800 176 $2,700,000 7
SM-2 13,200 264 $340,000 neg. 1,560 31.2 $570,000 7
Weapon Warhead Guid. Type Damage Spd. End. Max. Skill
AS-6 SAPHE BARHMU cr. 6d*133(0.5) 1,250 425 531,250 21
plus exp. 6d*5,743[12d]
SM-2 HEPF BSARHMU exp. 6d*410[24d] 1,300 100 130,000 15
Changing the seeker won't affect speed and range all that much,
but it will greatly change the price.
PS - By the rules of VE65, a full fire suppression system is a
better version of the fire extinguisher system. But from
the color text, I wonder if that SHOULD be the case. If
fire extinguishers include pumps and hoses for water,
while full or compact fire suppression systems are just
gas or foam with a limited number of uses, suddenly it
makes sense to have fire suppression in a tank or plane,
and fire extinguishers in a ship.
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
