Shore-based naval artillery and/or antiship missiles
-
Shore based naval artillery and/or antiship missiles on mobile platforms....feasible for Singapore?
Our air defence consist of both land and sea based weapons systems and since we are an island nation having land based sea defence does makes sense.
By the way are our artillery trained to engage sea based targets? Do we have the right kind of rounds for this purpose?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silkworm_missile
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html -
if i'm not wrong, there's no additional training required for arty to target seaborne targets.
maybe do a linear mission? -
Actually, we do not really have shore-based weapons for engaging ships come to think of it.
Do we have land-based anti-ship guided missiles?
Otherwise, the best things I can think of are our tanks, anti-aircraft guns, ATGM's etc.
The Brits in Falklands engaged an Argentine corvette with 84mm RR. Didn't do much damage but that ship got quickly out of range.
We practice infantry company line costal defence live firing and our biggest weapons are 84mm direct fire and 81mm indirect. Against smaller targets, I think, not a corvette. And the 81mm is really only effective as a source of illumination.
How effective are 155 howitzers at engaging shipping? -
Well, the best range for a 155mm (6inch) is 80km with the right ammunition from S. Africa.Originally posted by chino65:Actually, we do not really have shore-based weapons for engaging ships come to think of it.
Do we have land-based anti-ship guided missiles?
Otherwise, the best things I can think of are our tanks, anti-aircraft guns, ATGM's etc.
The Brits in Falklands engaged an Argentine corvette with 84mm RR. Didn't do much damage but that ship got quickly out of range.
We practice infantry company line costal defence live firing and our biggest weapons are 84mm direct fire and 81mm indirect. Against smaller targets, I think, not a corvette. And the 81mm is really only effective as a source of illumination.
How effective are 155 howitzers at engaging shipping?
But... Naval guns tend to opt for heavier rounds and I believe the range is pretty short. This website claims 15 miles: http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/6ingun.html
However, I believe countries like Russia employ shorebased anti-ship missiles. -
I'm not sure how helpful shore based AShM would be around here. We really do have rather cluttered sea lanes. We don't wanna sink anything by mistake.
-
Naval guns are more or less direct fire weapons, right? I know the old naval guns still "lobbed" their shells (instead of it flying straight like a tank gun), they have flatter trajectories than a 155mm howitzer, right?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Well, the best range for a 155mm (6inch) is 80km with the right ammunition from S. Africa.
But... Naval guns tend to opt for heavier rounds and I believe the range is pretty short. This website claims 15 miles: http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/6ingun.html
However, I believe countries like Russia employ shorebased anti-ship missiles.
Though I know you can point a howitzer at a target and fire but this is a last ditch emergency measure and probably very short range.
Furthermore, a howitzer normally fire HE and cause damage with shrapnels. How effective would that be against shipping if your round did not score a direct hit? And it is no point lobbing AP rounds - if they exist for howitzers - at a moving target?
Dunno much about arty fire. Please enlighten me. -
Forgive me but...dont the presence of visible enemy naval craft off-shore means all our PVs kenna sunk?!
Anyway, we should have close-range air support (i doubt it would be F-16s though)
Regarding Artillery - there are "smart" programmable rounds out there that attune the shell to detonate above the surface to create a sharpnel cone of death from above. Accuracy is well---as accurate as it possible on a sea without points of reference i suppose.....(Poor fishies kenna make into Otah paste also dont know why
)
I dont know whether we have Ashms but like mentioned, we have too many ships off shore to actually risk a mis fire.
Direct Anti-tank weapons like 84 RR 106 RR Law Milan?? Or TOW may play a part instead. HEAT rounds make not do much damage to a ship's hull but do i wont stick around if i get hit by one of those either.
Oh yeah dont forget HMGs and AGLs with air burst munitions to create a hell of a racket and HEDP to break some windows! The longer a hostile craft is near our coast the more things and time we have to bring a party to it. So they will most likely be quite a distance off shore. We can always equip our colibris with rocket pods and jump them. -
Actually, Naval Gunnery is not much different from land based Artillery. The Gun barrels are after all identical. So they are indirect weapons, except for the lower caliber guns.Originally posted by chino65:Naval guns are more or less direct fire weapons, right? I know the old naval guns still "lobbed" their shells (instead of it flying straight like a tank gun), they have flatter trajectories than a 155mm howitzer, right?
Though I know you can point a howitzer at a target and fire but this is a last ditch emergency measure and probably very short range.
Furthermore, a howitzer normally fire HE and cause damage with shrapnels. How effective would that be against shipping if your round did not score a direct hit? And it is no point lobbing AP rounds - if they exist for howitzers - at a moving target?
Dunno much about arty fire. Please enlighten me.
However, Naval Guns are expected to lob heavier shells for armour penetration which one does not need on land. Hence, they have to elevate their guns at the right angle to score a shot. An example would be the AP round the US used in WWII which weighed 1225 kg. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16%22/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun. With shells this heavy, one must definitely account for the parabolic trajectory. I suspect these weapons have a reinforced frontal tip possibly similar to anti-tank projectiles back then. After all, battleship armor was simply lots and lots of steel.
The shore defence guns are of the same type as the naval guns as well.
Actually a 14" and above gun will be overkill. I mean, any destroyer now will sink probably even before the shell explodes
-
An example where 155mm guns which is usually used for land based artillery can be used as naval guns on ships as well.
www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=913 -
Not related. I wonder if the RSN would upgrade the guns on the Formidables as the gun placement allows the installation of a larger calibe gun. 127mm perhaps ?
-
land based artillery 155mm are effective against naval targets.
rounds can be denonated above the waters for more damage.
accuracy wise, its the same as engaging land targets.
Of course it's only for defence.
missiles are the most effective.
another effective weapon is the minopus, human size octopus carrying mines, that will attached themselves to enemy ships.
the last is a joke. -
Although mainly a sales pitch, still a great eye-opener. Thanks for the link!Originally posted by tankee1981:An example where 155mm guns which is usually used for land based artillery can be used as naval guns on ships as well.
www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=913
I always thouht the more or less standard little 76mm naval guns to be pretty pathetic. A bigger gun when possible is always welcome. -
There is a possibility that the enemy air attacks with sophisticated Russian ASM can sink or disable a few of our naval ships thus weakening our naval defence.Originally posted by CM06:Forgive me but...dont the presence of visible enemy naval craft off-shore means all our PVs kenna sunk?!
But, enemy can also come from an unexpected direction where defenses are weak.
Or enemy can come from many direction simultaneously and SAF has to guess which is the main thrust and which is the diversion.
Or a successful diversion can be exploited and turned into the main thrust.
So many ways to skin a cat that we have to consider all possibilities.
Of course you're right, if all goes well we won't need to resort to land-based arty.
But a potential enemy coming from the North need not mount a full-scale naval assault. They just need a lot of little assault boats to cross the straits (ala WW2) and depend on their land-based arty and their AF for fire support.
That's why coastal defence of the North, East and West are so important because there will be no big naval convoy for you to spot and sink before the enemy is upon us. -
The old 203 mm guns used on land incidentally are of the same caliber as the old 8 inch guns commonly used on WWII cruisers. It might be shorter however.Originally posted by chino65:Although mainly a sales pitch, still a great eye-opener. Thanks for the link!
I always thouht the more or less standard little 76mm naval guns to be pretty pathetic. A bigger gun when possible is always welcome. -
Of course you're right, if all goes well we won't need to resort to land-based arty.
That is what decent militaries do best. Scenario planning. You can be rest assured that these probabilities are taken into account. If naval guns are needed, they will be there.
But a potential enemy coming from the North need not mount a full-scale naval assault. They just need a lot of little assault boats to cross the straits (ala WW2) and depend on their land-based arty and their AF for fire support.
That's why coastal defence of the North, East and West are so important because there will be no big naval convoy for you to spot and sink before the enemy is upon us.
You can`t amass the number of troops you need to launch against a mass attack against Singapore without we knowing it beforehand. There is only so many guises you can put on when dealing with an island the size of Singapore. I really doubt we will even take the risk to assume it is a diversion when the enemy is willing(plausible) and able to come ashore.
Being big has its advantages and disadvantages. Being small has its advantages and disadvantages. -
I don't think SAF would acquire land based anti ship missiles..
Do you think USA has any?
No.
It is better to use Forkkers or Seahawks for anti-ship defence.