Irrelevant. If you can hit them with anything, they can hit you with anything. It might not be artillery; it might be missiles, with ranges that approach dozens, if not hundreds, of kilometers. And CIWS isn't much help against swarms of missiles, as the Reid and Stark proved.
A battleship may survive an Exocet. It may even survive a Sunburn. But can it survive a barrage of Sunburns?
How many missles in a swarm? For me a swarm means 5 or more. I dont think any modern warship has been attacked by a swarm of missles so we honestly dont know. Mabye even the vaunted Aegis class ships would not be able to stop them. Providing gunfire support ashore is a dangerous job, I do not deny that in the least. Thats why I feel the BB's have something to offer even if in a limited role.
Im not sure what you mean, so because a BB cant stop a swarm of Sunburns does that mean its inferior to a smaller ship in the role of an NGS platform? Im not critizing, Id just like some clarification.
Wrong. It may be out of the fight, but you can use it for the next one. And it's still cheaper than having to build a new one.
I stand by my feeling that a ship knocked out of combat is essentially the same as sinking it. ( In todays conflicts ) Mabye I need to clarify a little. The Princeton and Tripoli were hit by mines. They lived to sail again that is good, I think you and I agree on that, but they were no longer a factor in the war. My point is that the BB will be able to sustain a few hits and keep fighting.
With the latest in defensive systems, they just might be possible to shoot down.
Do have any source on this? Even if it was true, I believe gravity bombs fall at a slower speed than shells, so this holds true for them too.
Again, speculation on what sort of hits a battleship can or cannot survive are largely irrelevant. As soon as you put your new battleship into service, someone will build a weapon that can kill it. The best way to survive is to avoid being hit.
If Religion and Politics were characters on a soap opera, Religion would be the one that goes insane with jealousy over Politics' intimate relationship with Reality, and secretly murder Politics in the night, skin the corpse, and run around its apartment wearing the skin like a cape shouting "My votes now! All votes for me! Wheeee!" -- Lagmonster
Irrelevant. If you can hit them with anything, they can hit you with anything. It might not be artillery; it might be missiles, with ranges that approach dozens, if not hundreds, of kilometers. And CIWS isn't much help against swarms of missiles, as the Reid and Stark proved.
A battleship may survive an Exocet. It may even survive a Sunburn. But can it survive a barrage of Sunburns?
How many missles in a swarm? For me a swarm means 5 or more. I dont think any modern warship has been attacked by a swarm of missles so we honestly dont know. Mabye even the vaunted Aegis class ships would not be able to stop them. Providing gunfire support ashore is a dangerous job, I do not deny that in the least. Thats why I feel the BB's have something to offer even if in a limited role.
Im not sure what you mean, so because a BB cant stop a swarm of Sunburns does that mean its inferior to a smaller ship in the role of an NGS platform? Im not critizing, Id just like some clarification.
I know this is Cold War thinking, but imagine a standard flight of 6 Tu-22M3 bombers that can carray as many as three anti-ship missiles, or a single one of the powerful Kingfisher. Or imagine a standard Russian missile boat, capable of carrying up to 6 missiles, including the Sunburn. Or for that matter, a flight of even MiG-21s capable of carrying two Exocets or Slikworms each. Hell, you can even have a towed ground launcher, which is what the Iranians and Iraqis used against the Reid and Stark. Let's just say it's 10 missiles. There's a good chance the Aegis will get them all, because it can track 13 missiles simultaneously. However, the Iowa relies only on its CIWS and chaff. If it doesn't have an Aegis escort, there's a good chance it may be taken out of action, or even sunk.
If a BB cannot stop probable opposition, then yes, it is inferior in the NGS role. A BB can only engage with guns and Tomahawks. An Aegis can engage with guns and Tomahawks, but can also engage air targets if necessary, and has (marginally) superior anti-sub capabilities. In addition, an Aegis carries far more Tomohawk missiles. Finally, the Mk. 45 may even have superior range to the 16 inch Mk. 7, and advances, such as RAP (rocket assisted projectile) can translate to excellent penetration.
Wrong. It may be out of the fight, but you can use it for the next one. And it's still cheaper than having to build a new one.
I stand by my feeling that a ship knocked out of combat is essentially the same as sinking it. ( In todays conflicts ) Mabye I need to clarify a little. The Princeton and Tripoli were hit by mines. They lived to sail again that is good, I think you and I agree on that, but they were no longer a factor in the war. My point is that the BB will be able to sustain a few hits and keep fighting.[/quote]
Many people here have already talked about that. I have a photo of the Missouri during the Gulf War near a mine that was quickly destroyed. If the Missiouri is as invulnerable as you claim, why would they bother?
With the latest in defensive systems, they just might be possible to shoot down.
Do have any source on this? Even if it was true, I believe gravity bombs fall at a slower speed than shells, so this holds true for them too.[/quote]
Real the THEL thread. I believe someone told of an Isreali version capable of intercepting AP shells.[/quote]
::sig removed because it STILL offended Kelly. Hey, it's not my fault that I thing Wedge is a::
irrelevent, why would a bb be without airsupport anyways. I would figure it would be easier to gaurd a speicalized ship to do bombardments, than have the a carrier consantly reloading bombers to go do the job.
b52's are only practical if you can position the reloading base near the conflict. otherwise the number of bombers you need to keep up a sustained fight is astronomical.
In the type of third world conflicts we are going to have, helicopters can be impractical due to shoulder launched missles, but they can still hold up a figth at the shore or possibly at a coastal city. the best way to give consistant support is trhe battleship, which can ghave its range extended up to 100 miles on shore. thats a huge operational area to work with.
200 million to make an Iowa seaworthy? 180 million to run for 1 year? Where are these numbers from? In 1988 it cost something like 450 million to refit an Iowa, and the tab was 35 million a year for each one. Also, a carrier or any other ship would not be able to fire any weapons during an unrep (refueling), that would be an instant mass conflagration, better than any plane could hope for with one bomb.
What a world, what a world! Who would have thought that a little girl could destroy my wickedness?
Hmmm, some inaccuracies. The Stark was hit by one Exocet from a Mirage, not a swarm of Exocets, and not from a ground launcher. The CIWS on that would have done just fine had it not been tagged out for maintenance, and facing the wrong direction. Bad idea to give a ship only one R2-D2.
BBs carried more Toms than Tico-class Aegis did, not less-32 versus 16. BBs in the 80's did not have Sea Sparrow, another claim I saw in this thread. It was 16 Harpoon ASMs. BBs did, however, take on an army Stinger detachment for additional point defense.
BBs are no faster than any other modern ship, or at least not by much. The advantage of boilers over gas turbines is durability and endurance. GTs can accelerate like a sumbitch though, and for the way we maintain our boats, their durability is just fine, I'm sure.
As far as outrunning escorts, even if you did, it doesn't matter because when combat steaming you rarely see any picket ships. Besides, there are enough ships out there that you'll always run across your own and allies, and since a BB will have senior standing in most cases, the captain can re-assign someone if he has to.
As far as "triple-hulled", I don't know in what alternate timeline BB this would be. The BBs do have a nice armored box, with the 12.1" belts on the sides and an 11.5" bulkhead up front, somewhere aft of the chain locker (under the foc'sle). I don't know the thickness of the after plate, my suspicion is 10 or 11 inches. In the Wisconsin's case, the forward plate is 14.5" instead of the 11.5" of the other 3.
We have spare armor plates, but who knows how many or which plates.
BBs had a towed sonar array, almost laughable though considering the massive vibrations from the engines and all.
They also didn't have their own helos, but these would be part of the picket, from other ships, for ASW and whatnot. Most useful for bringing you pallets of soda, considering that once a modern torp gets under an Iowa, you'll be using your white hat as a flotation device.
Aluminum armor is probably no less effective than steel, at least perceptibly, with modern missiles. I don't know, as I'm not a naval engineer. Al has the advantage that you can cut through it with a plasma arc cutter to rescue trapped crewmen if need be, although I wouldn't really call that a consideration. More important than the molecular behavior of the metal, is the ability of the crew to set material condition (which goes in tandem with good compartmentalization) quickly, fight fires, patch holes, and deliver ordnance faster than the other guy. One Exocet stretched the Stark's crew to their limits. One more would, in this case, count as a "swarm". BBs have wood decks, and missiles create fires, so with one missile you get this wonderfully giant class-ABD fire and half the crew, which are outdoor workers--guns and 15 or so guys in signals--have to fight this conflagration. So some guns may have to cease firing to fight this conflagration. A second missile and the ship's done. Half the crew will be dead, the other half will be firefighting. It's very bad. I may be overstating, but it's still very bad. A 3rd missile would kill any chances of escape. So a BB can take MAYBE 1 more missile than an OHP.
As an aside, it's only the superstructures of modern ships that are made of Al. The hulls are steel, and the Al parts are explosive-bonded to the steel parts. Armor throughout is about as thick as the armor on an Iowa's 5" mounts.
Don't forget the Sammy B. Roberts getting mission-killed by a single mine. Ended up getting carried to the States on a Dutch heavy lift ship.
There's CIWS but don't count on the Phalanx hitting anything. It might, I could even say it would, but you wouldn't count on it. You'd just kinda kiss your ass goodbye and thank God if the thing hit the missile. It's nice to talk abt RAM this and CIWS that, but come on, if you need it then you're in some shit. It's better to be trained well enough to keep anyone coming close enough to launch a Silkworm at you. Any missile is a threat, even to a BB. You don't know if that Stinger or whatever is going to hit you in such a way as to kill the guys aiming at the launcher and set you up for the kill.
The lifeboats are all soft, as the concussion from the guns has this way of deploying the rigid canister kind. These would be all shot to shit if you had to abandon ship.
You can accomplish more with 3 Aegis boats, which combined still cost less to build and run than a single BB. If we need to land a division (do we even have a division to land?), the carrier and helos will do it so much better. Which reminds me, it takes 2 carriers running 12 hours of continuous flight ops, to deliver as much ordnance on target as a single Iowa can in 30 minutes.
The torpedo bulges may let you survive a single torp long enough to abandon ship. But you left your escort behind so you could close in on the coast and shore-bomb, and now you're getting murdered on the deck. Which would be on fire.
What a world, what a world! Who would have thought that a little girl could destroy my wickedness?
Let's just say it's 10 missiles. There's a good chance the Aegis will get them all, because it can track 13 missiles simultaneously. However, the Iowa relies only on its CIWS and chaff. If it doesn't have an Aegis escort, there's a good chance it may be taken out of action, or even sunk.
I dont think anyone is advocating that the BB's would operate alone. In the Gulf war on of the BB was attacked by 2 Silkworm missles. 1 missed entirely and the other was shot down by an escorting British ship. I dont see the BB's operating without an escort like the Burke class destroyers or mabye even a Tico class.
BTW: I think 13 missiles is a pretty good definition of a swarm.
If a BB cannot stop probable opposition, then yes, it is inferior in the NGS role. A BB can only engage with guns and Tomahawks. An Aegis can engage with guns and Tomahawks, but can also engage air targets if necessary, and has (marginally) superior anti-sub capabilities. In addition, an Aegis carries far more Tomohawk missiles. Finally, the Mk. 45 may even have superior range to the 16 inch Mk. 7, and advances, such as RAP (rocket assisted projectile) can translate to excellent penetration.
Why does everyone insist the BB would operate alone. BB's operate like Carriers, they bring escorts with them.
The 16" guns on the Iowa's will also outrange the 5" guns on ships like the Burke and Tico class. Any munitions improvements made to the 5" range could be made for the 16" round.
The last time the navy surface warefare forces were in a conflict was in Desert Storm and it was the Battleships that bombarded targets in Kuwait.
They had the armor to survive countery battery fire, they had the range to make the shells reach shore since the Navy had to hang back do to the mine threat.
Another thing I find interesting is nobody is in anyway addressing the issue that the Marines want more NGS. They dont believe the navy's 5" guns can do the job.
The BB will never be without AA support. In the Gulf war, the Wisconsin was part of a joint CV/BB BG with the Saratoga, and the Air Boss was a Tico-class ship. At one point an airliner came within ten miles before it turned back from the Wisconsin's airspace. The BB would not have shot it down, of course, but the CO would order another ship to nail it.
I urge you not to believe me, I don't know what I'm talking about in the slightest.
What a world, what a world! Who would have thought that a little girl could destroy my wickedness?
A specialized ship for fire support of course would be nice.It would be also nice to have a couple of additonal carriers battlegroups(and the people to man them),many more C 17s,more resources to prevent pollution,more for scientific research,a decent space station and much more(welfare state and help to third world countries for example but I suppose that this is a heresy here).
Resources are scarce.Thus you need to make choices.
A carrier,or some B52s, is not the equivalent of a battleship to provide fire support. However there are a lot of destroyers with empty cells that could fire LASMs,and many 127 mm guns that could fire ERGMs.Thus is more efficient to spend money on that instead of four battleships,when one or maybe 2 at the best would be available for any given moment.Without mentioning that the marine corp apparently does not support them(they have different requirements for fire support),a point that usually battleships fans settle saying "they will get what is available" mmm...
200 millions of dollars is the average sum of money which is required to restore each battleship to its 1991 status.Without any significant improvement,which means that the ABLs will be just that,empty boxes,since the cruise missiles are being reconverted for the VLSs.Outdated electronics and poor point defence.
I suppose that maybe the Winsconsin may cost less.
Some genius ordered,in the mid nineties,the demilitarization of the New Jersey.Her 16 inches turrets training mechanisms were welded.To make them operational again it will be necessary to remove the main turrets
to make the repairs.
The Iowa is still damaged from the explosions and is estimated that repairs would not be easier than for the New Jersey.
The Missouri is a museum.
Any improvement will cost you additional money.
The superstructures of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers are made of steel.
This discussion reminds me of one over in rec.arts.sf.science about land battleships. The LB advocate claimed that they would be fully self-containd and -sufficient environments, contain mining and refining equipment, shrug off all but direct hits from nuclear weapons, and, if they thought they were losing, could simply flee to the safety of orbit. Needless to say, he needed a lot of handwaving to justify his conclusions.
Of course, no one could dispute that they were cool.
I suppose that maybe the Winsconsin may cost less.
Some genius ordered,in the mid nineties,the demilitarization of the New Jersey.Her 16 inches turrets training mechanisms were welded.To make them operational again it will be necessary to remove the main turrets
to make the repairs.
The Iowa is still damaged from the explosions and is estimated that repairs would not be easier than for the New Jersey.
The Missouri is a museum.
Any improvement will cost you additional money.
I had not heard about welding the turrets. That sounds like typical a typical bureauracy based idea.
I think one of the battleships is up in Benecia at the mothball fleet. I dont remember which one. There are plans to put it on display at Alameda next to the USS Hornet.
I totally agree with your point about spending. It all comes down to the mighty dollar. We have to make choices. I read someplace last night that someone is proposing putting an 8 inch gun on navy ships. This might be a reasonable compromise. It would offer shore bombardment capabilities and would work with the existing ships in use. If I can find the link, I will post it.
As to steel superstructures, you are correct. Steel was chosen because if offers better protection than Al and a few other characteristics of Al made it a bad choice.
I should have been more precise, I was referring to the Al of the "last wave". I said "It's only the superstructure of modern ships that's aluminum," I didn't mean that to sound like "modern ships only have aluminum superstructures."
What a world, what a world! Who would have thought that a little girl could destroy my wickedness?
Raxmei wrote:This discussion reminds me of one over in rec.arts.sf.science about land battleships. The LB advocate claimed that they would be fully self-containd and -sufficient environments, contain mining and refining equipment, shrug off all but direct hits from nuclear weapons, and, if they thought they were losing, could simply flee to the safety of orbit. Needless to say, he needed a lot of handwaving to justify his conclusions.
Of course, no one could dispute that they were cool.
It actually sounds like a Bolo
::sig removed because it STILL offended Kelly. Hey, it's not my fault that I thing Wedge is a::
Raxmei wrote:This discussion reminds me of one over in rec.arts.sf.science about land battleships. The LB advocate claimed that they would be fully self-containd and -sufficient environments, contain mining and refining equipment, shrug off all but direct hits from nuclear weapons, and, if they thought they were losing, could simply flee to the safety of orbit. Needless to say, he needed a lot of handwaving to justify his conclusions.
Of course, no one could dispute that they were cool.
Again, speculation on what sort of hits a battleship can or cannot survive are largely irrelevant. As soon as you put your new battleship into service, someone will build a weapon that can kill it. The best way to survive is to avoid being hit.
We don't need to speculate. The USN publish figures a decade ago. Six MM38 exocet missile strikes were expected to destroy an Iowa, with a 60% chance of it sinking.
Do have any source on this? Even if it was true, I believe gravity bombs fall at a slower speed than shells, so this holds true for them too
The Sea Wolf demostrated an ability to shoot down a 4.5 shell, only problume is a the gun fires ten times faster then any Sea Wolf ship can engage.
It also has ten times the ammunition of even a Type 23.
As for shooting down bombs. If your point defence system is that good then your going to be able to down the attacking bomber, unless it attacks from very high, which is quite unlikely.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Azeron - Currently there is no way to build a ship that could withstand a sizable barrage of anti-ship missiles and torpedoes and keep on fighting, at least not in a matter more cost effective than a Carrier. Case closed.
Yes, Battleships more efficient at bombarding coastlines than Carriers are but that's it. And Carriers can carry out strike missions from a farther distance. Face the facts: Carriers can accomplish all sorts of things that a similarly-costing battleship cannot. 3 AEGIS cruisers can. The new DDs and Monitors will be able to. So yes, battleships are obsolete.
Admiral Piett wrote:I can understand you desire to trash non american equipment,but seawolf is even the name of a british SAM.
Shhh! Don't just tell him that there's a world outside America's borders. You have to break the news to him slowly, in small doses, so that he doesn't go into shock.
First, you try to explain to him that Canada and Mexico aren't the last two American states. Then, you slowly, gently break it to him that South America is a completely distinct entity from the Southern states. Carefully let him know that Asians virtually own a hemisphere, and aren't just confined to Chinatown in New York. And then, slowly, very slowly, tell him that Europe did not become the property of America after World War 2.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Originally posted by Darth Wong
And then, slowly, very slowly, tell him that Europe did not become the property of America after World War 2.
No American would never believe that.
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
Azeron wrote:6 exocet missles? no point defense, no air cover? think an aegis can beat that?
Seawolf is a sub, not a surface ship. I don;t think it has any way to intercept a missle or a shell.
Ahh you self promoted intellectual superiority fails, not entirly unexpected, I might add. Seawolf as reffered to here is the British SAM system, first used in combat in the Falklands. This missile has shot down a 4.5 inch shell.
First, you try to explain to him that Canada and Mexico aren't the last two American states.
You wish, hoser. If you guys had anything more interesting than snow up there, we'd have annexed you years ago.
Mexico is rather dirty though. I don't think we want it.
Then, you slowly, gently break it to him that South America is a completely distinct entity from the Southern states.
South America doesn't get to be a state until they make their Indians ditch those butt-flaps and put on some damned clothes.
Carefully let him know that Asians virtually own a hemisphere, and aren't just confined to Chinatown in New York.
I don't get it. They throw their baby girls into the sea, and yet still they breed like Tribbles. That powdered yak-penis potion must really work.
And then, slowly, very slowly, tell him that Europe did not become the property of America after World War 2.
Yes it did.
If Religion and Politics were characters on a soap opera, Religion would be the one that goes insane with jealousy over Politics' intimate relationship with Reality, and secretly murder Politics in the night, skin the corpse, and run around its apartment wearing the skin like a cape shouting "My votes now! All votes for me! Wheeee!" -- Lagmonster
Forgive me for being semi-off topic, but this WAS in the original post...
Azeron wrote:And yes the Leopard 2A6 is inferior to the M1A2 SEP
Why is this? I'm curious...
And if it's true, the Leopard 2 is still SEXIER, AND its Deutsche Qualität...
*ahem*
No really, Id like to know, AFAIK there more or less equal apart from that the Leopard's diesels were more economical and less flammable (but the Abrahams engines were easier to replace).
Last edited by Pendragon on 2002-07-31 01:30pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Perfect. It's everything a girl could hope for: Expensive, explosive and phallic."
- Critical Maas
