• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,579
Points
1,140
No idea what CSC has. Its still being designed. So CPF.

As for armaments.... we'll have some. Bonn does not. Defensive CIWS and NRWS only. It has no effectors nor should it have any.
Just curious because to a lay person like me, if we're building a ship that has such a robust combat damage control capability that the intent of this ship is to be an area where it may be in harm's way, and as a result, it would have the related defensive capabilities.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,068
Points
1,040
Just curious because to a lay person like me, if we're building a ship that has such a robust combat damage control capability that the intent of this ship is to be an area where it may be in harm's way, and as a result, it would have the related defensive capabilities.
You rely on your escorts to protect you and they rely on you to keep them going in the fight longer.

As for robust, it's still a floating service station with ammunition behind the counter. The DC is there to ensure a minor incident doesn't become a major incident. It could get out of control real fast if you don't have good DC.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,544
Points
1,090
Just curious because to a lay person like me, if we're building a ship that has such a robust combat damage control capability that the intent of this ship is to be an area where it may be in harm's way, and as a result, it would have the related defensive capabilities.
The "Battle Tanker" is just a figure of speech. In a real shooting war, the AOR will be in a safe as place as possible.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,068
Points
1,040
The "Battle Tanker" is just a figure of speech. In a real shooting war, the AOR will be in a safe as place as possible.
Yep. "The Battle Tanker" must be said with extra emphasis (for glory) or in hushed tones (like it might hear you).

The reason it's different than other AORs is that it's expected to be directly supporting a task group itself in a rougher neighborhood. Whether it's employed like that or not we will see, but it gives some options to the AO commander that other AORs will not be able to provide.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,899
Points
1,160
It's a good call because a smart enemy will kill the AOR's first, plus I believe that every ship should be able to contribute to the task force defense, even if only at close ranges.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,068
Points
1,040
It's a good call because a smart enemy will kill the AOR's first, plus I believe that every ship should be able to contribute to the task force defense, even if only at close ranges.
CIWS doesn't contribute to TG defence, its self defence only from a kinetic perspective. However, JSS does contribute to defense using its sensors and data sharing.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
CIWS doesn't contribute to TG defence, its self defence only from a kinetic perspective. However, JSS does contribute to defense using its sensors and data sharing.
Hence the Sea Giraffe, I'd imagine. I wondered about it's inclusion, but I guess it contributes to overall RMP.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,899
Points
1,160
CIWS doesn't contribute to TG defence, its self defence only from a kinetic perspective. However, JSS does contribute to defense using its sensors and data sharing.
In decade from launch you might see more systems on her that can extend the self defense bubble. Did they every sort out the issue with the CIWS locking onto nearby ships, such as they did in GW1?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,068
Points
1,040
In decade from launch you might see more systems on her that can extend the self defense bubble.
Perhaps. Ideally, the JSS will be so far inside the defensive bubble she won't need to worry about that.

Did they every sort out the issue with the CIWS locking onto nearby ships, such as they did in GW1?
CIWS is incapable of locking onto nearby ships so if this was the case before then it isn't now.

Hence the Sea Giraffe, I'd imagine. I wondered about it's inclusion, but I guess it contributes to overall RMP.
The SG-AMB was selected just as much for our own aircraft control/detection as it was for the overall RMP. As the frigates are moving to AMB the commonality was too much of a good idea to not do it.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,899
Points
1,160
Go to "Second event" midway missile attack on battleship USS Missouri

Using the LINK system, HMS Exeter notified the other ships that a probable missile was inbound. USS Missouri fired off SRBOC rockets to distract the presumed threat. The SRBOCs came down inbetween the battleship and USS Jarrett, quite close to the frigate, which had already set its Phalanx to auto-engage. The Phalanx immediately slewed to starboard, locked on to one of the SRBOC chaff clouds which it mistook as a threat, and fired a 220rds burst in the direction of the chaff cloud. A moment later, USS Missouri‘s next SRBOC chaff volley detonated in the sky, this time nearly directly on top of USS Jarrett. The frigate’s Phalanx again started firing to starboard, however this time a sailor aboard USS Jarrett shut the weapon off mid-burst, after 100 rounds had been fired.

This sequence and the placement of the ships resulted in a nearly straight line-of-fire 2¾ NM long from USS Missouri, through battleship’s chaff clouds, to USS Jarrett.

In almost all versions of the event, it is said that 20mm rounds from USS Jarrett‘s Phalanx impacted USS Missouri. The most commonly quoted number is 4 individual rounds, which (even given the dispersion field at the extreme end of the Phalanx’s range) seems very low given the hundreds fired by the frigate. One round penetrated a 3/8″ steel plate and one internal bulkhead into a bunking area. The most commonly repeated location is “…by the plaque” (the deck marker where WWII ended, starboard and slightly aft of the B 16″ turret). If so, the spot could only be compartments #1-74-1-L or #1-78-3-L which are actually directly under the plaque, and after the 1980s refits were junior officer living spaces. Less the captain’s stateroom (#1-89-1L) any other compartment is not a bunking space, not in that area, or under massive armor. At least in the unclassified realm, there is no known photo of the actual damage.

Another round apparently hit a piece of equipment stowed on deck, slightly injuring one sailor via a shard of flying plastic – although sometimes the injured sailor is recalled as being inside the ship, struck by shrapnel from the round that penetrated the bunking spaces. Other accounts mention 20mm rounds “bouncing off” which would likely mean hits to the belt or a 16″ turret.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,068
Points
1,040
I honestly can't talk about how CIWS works. It doesn't lock onto ships though. Basically impossible.
 

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
273
Points
880
Top