Close in SAG on SAG Action

Hello all,

I was wondering what would be a good TL/scenario for a Surface Action Group to engage an opposing Surface Action Group without using missiles. They should be "fleet sized" units such as FFG or DDG. I was thinking along the lines of gun duels and torpedo runs.

Perhaps a FFG under EMCOM operating in a storm in restricted water sees an OPFOR ship at close range. Would that be realistic for a Captain to engage with guns/torpedos given the close range?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I think by the time you had the concept of SAGs you'd have to have missiles, man. I can think about it...but it definitely probably wouldn't be between American and the Soviets.

It wouldn't be as interesting, anyway.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hello all,

I was wondering what would be a good TL/scenario for a Surface Action Group to engage an opposing Surface Action Group without using missiles. They should be "fleet sized" units such as FFG or DDG. I was thinking along the lines of gun duels and torpedo runs.

Perhaps a FFG under EMCOM operating in a storm in restricted water sees an OPFOR ship at close range. Would that be realistic for a Captain to engage with guns/torpedos given the close range?

As soon as the ships involved have the "G" in the designation, you will get missiles involved. They are just too lethal. Even a SM-X will do a lot of damage to a a light unit, as well as start one hell of a nice solid rocket fuel fed fire.

With RIM-116 and the naval version of the Russian Tor (3K95) I think to can engage a surface contact at around 1500 meters, and the U.S. Sea Sparrow is about the same range. That mean the ships can hit you with SAM used in the surface attack role out to, and beyond the engagement range of their deck guns.

As a BTW, the USS Saratoga accidentally hit a Turkish Smith class DM (the destroyer/mine layer version of the Sumner class DD) with two Sea Sparrows in 1992. The damage rendered the ship beyond salvage. SAMs are serious anti-surface weapons against DDG and smaller targets.

The only way you get gun fights w/o missiles if if all the ships involved have shot out their inventory.
 
However, if SAM can be used in ASuW, can't the enemy's SAM engage the on coming SAM?

I guess I should rephrase my original question; would there be a likely scenario where a modern FFG/FFH would need to engage another surface contact with torpedo like during the Battle off Samar.

Thanks again for all your responses :)
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
However, if SAM can be used in ASuW, can't the enemy's SAM engage the on coming SAM?

I guess I should rephrase my original question; would there be a likely scenario where a modern FFG/FFH would need to engage another surface contact with torpedo like during the Battle off Samar.

Thanks again for all your responses :)


Very few surface warships carry torpedoes that are really meant to engage surface ships any more. Most are from 3rd World fleets that still operate WW II era ships, although some Russian ships are still equipped with 533mm tubes that could carry the Type 53. Usually ship board torpedoes these are are 324mm designs with warheads between 100 & 150 pounds.
 
What about in a night littoral action with lots if rocks and small islands so that initial contact takes place at a couple of km? Perhaps then the initial contact is done with guns and the ASW torps, which have a secondary AShW role, get fired at the very close quarters. I`d be interested to see how a CWIS goes in such an engagement.

Do shipborne missiles have a minimum engagement range, the time it takes for the radar to gather up both missile and target and arrive at a solution?
 
In Ride of the Valkryries by Stuart Slade, the presence of nuclear SSMs in less then optimal conditions (both political and operational) forces a gun battle between Japanese and Indian naval forces, which the Indians win.
 
What about in a night littoral action with lots if rocks and small islands so that initial contact takes place at a couple of km? Perhaps then the initial contact is done with guns and the ASW torps, which have a secondary AShW role, get fired at the very close quarters. I`d be interested to see how a CWIS goes in such an engagement.

Do shipborne missiles have a minimum engagement range, the time it takes for the radar to gather up both missile and target and arrive at a solution?

I was thinking along these lines as well, littoral environment with restrictive ROE requiring positive identification of the vessel and clear hostile intent.

Although SAG v SAG it is unlikely that you would allow yourself to lose the capability provided by a SSM. A counterbalance would be using your ship's helicopter to conduct a visual ID of the vessels in question.

In order to achieve this what if, it is much easier to have a SAG v SAG comprised of FACs in a littoral environment. Similar to the regular skirmishes between the ROKN and the North Korean Navy.

Just some ideas.
 
Politics might allow it to happen. SAGs from two nations in a Cold War situation are shadowing each other or both off the same neutral port when word of war comes or something happens that leads to a shooting incident between the SAGs. Be presumably messy since neither side will be expecting battle and most missile era warships aren't designed with close action in mind.
 
Once anti-ship missiles are developed (IOTL just after WW II for SSMs) they will be used; they have a longer reach than artillery, are more accurate, and just about every surface combatant has them.

If the ranges are short enough most frigates and larger ships mount one or more fully automatic 5" guns, with ROF around 60 RPM. An incoming shell every second will very quickly put most ships out of action; such engagements would be short and deadly.

Few surface vessels carry torpedoes these days, and any torpedoes which are carried are almost certainly anti-sub weapons. Usuable against ships too, of course, but not particularly efficient for that purpose.
 
Top