 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
What about small tactical nukes ? I guess that that will take more than a little paint to repair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Though it was many years ago, when I was last in Wilmington N.C. they were giving below decks tours of the USS North Carolina. Do they only give the above deck tour of the Wisconsin because they have hopes of one day taking it out of mothballs?
They could ask New Orleans if they'd like to have her.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If people are throwing nukes around we've got bigger problems. |
Not nessecarily - there are a difference between tactical nukes and stratetic. Last one will be "bigger problems", but the other - even US may decide to use them first.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
I thought her and the Wisconson were staying on the inactive list.
I have two battleship sailors in my division, and they love talking about these ships. Alot of good stories.
The thing could take 20 exocet hits and all you would have to do is paint over the black spot. Modern anti ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor since modern ships don't use armor. And with an Aegis defender their would be no chance of getting a penetrating bomb on it, they are way too slow.
It is pretty much invincible except for torpedoes. |
I'm calling BS, and this is why reactivating the ships isn't worth it.
While the anti-ship missiles may not be able to entirely penetrate the deck armor, the various missiles can shred the ship's superstructure, severely compromising the ship's capabillites and causing enourmous casualties in the process.
Furthermore the ship would have to deal with the fuel fires set by the anti-ship misssiles which can do enourmous damage. The fuel used to power these missiles is not your typical car gasoline and is extremely volitile stuff. These fuel fires can get hot enough to melt steel and can damage various electronic and mechnical elements of the ship with their heat. They can also warp portions of the ship's hull with localized heating causing further damage. An Iowa that takes 20 Exocut hits might not sink, but it would be in extremely bad shape.
Aegis technology doesn't do much good unless the ship also has a bunch of missiles to intercept incoming weaponry with. However if you put those missiles in the ship's hull like typical US VLS cells, you've just cut a couple nice square holes in the ship's armor for enemy anti-ship missiles to go through.
Furthermore, while it would take quite awhile and be extremely expensive to bring even one of the battleships back in service, it would be relatively easy for most of the US's potential adversaries which the Iowa could be justifiably needed against to research new warheads for their existing anti-ship weapons. There are already existing designs to penetrate tank armor, and with the existing supersonic anti-ship missiles it would merely be a matter of adding a hardened tip to the missile along with a delayed fuse to create an effective battleship killer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Aegis typically uses automatic cannon to shred incoming missles, not anti-missle missles. These weapons are typically set up on deck where they only present an opportunity for warheads coming in from above. |
Simply almost entirely false, and this suggests you don't really understand the point of Aegis. Aegis is about detecting the missiles and or aircraft at long range and therefore being able to take them out with missiles from a distance. It does have the ability to track alot of targets at once even at close range, but this is a rather minimal aspect of the overall system. In fact, the current Phalanx Close in Support Weapon which is used in the various US ships utilizing the Aegis system, presumably the automatic cannon you were refering to, actually operates independantly and doesn't really take advantage of the Aegis capability at all.
The Phalanx is meant merely to catch any "leaker" missiles that get through the primary defenses. It can only deal with so many at once, and it also fires its weapon so quickly that the weapon can quickly run out of ammo and become useless if enough missiles get close enough to the ship even if anti-ship missiles are not effectively coordinated. Actually the current US line of though is that the Phalanx is becoming of increasingly limited value and the better option for the moment is to equip new ships with the RAM Missile for the in close point defense work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mordoch
Simply almost entirely false, and this suggests you don't really understand the point of Aegis. Aegis is about detecting the missiles and or aircraft at long range and therefore being able to take them out with missiles from a distance. It does have the ability to track alot of targets at once even at close range, but this is a rather minimal aspect of the overall system. In fact, the current Phalanx Close in Support Weapon which is used in the various US ships utilizing the Aegis system, presumably the automatic cannon you were refering to, actually operates independantly and doesn't really take advantage of the Aegis capability at all.
The Phalanx is meant merely to catch any "leaker" missiles that get through the primary defenses. It can only deal with so many at once, and it also fires its weapon so quickly that the weapon can quickly run out of ammo and become useless if enough missiles get close enough to the ship even if anti-ship missiles are not effectively coordinated. Actually the current US line of though is that the Phalanx is becoming of increasingly limited value and the better option for the moment is to equip new ships with the RAM Missile for the in close point defense work. |
You're correct that I confused phalanx with aegis. Why would you assume that a BB would be retrofitted to be part of the obsolete aegis system? It's likely to be deployed in its own task group with a couple of small escorts and not doing battle on the high seas where it's a lot easier to detect threats from a distance. The BB would be screened and protected by more modern warships in transit against submarines / air / missle threats and would be used for shore bombardment where it might be marginally useful. It's too old, loud, and slow to do much else. I love BBs, but they should be retired permanently.
As for the ditching of the auto-cannon I hope they don't do so completely. They are placing a lot of hope that the anti-missles (which AFAIK have never been proven in combat) are capable and will remain so constantly. Cannons aren't glamorous but they are solid, missles and anti-missles seem to be in a constant state of measure / countermeasure development. It would suck to be caught at an inopportune time in the development cycle, zigging when you needed to zag.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mordoch
I'm calling BS, and this is why reactivating the ships isn't worth it.
While the anti-ship missiles may not be able to entirely penetrate the deck armor, the various missiles can shred the ship's superstructure, severely compromising the ship's capabillites and causing enourmous casualties in the process.
|
I was under the impression that the superstructure was armored as well. Also, most antiship missles are designed to hit at or just above the waterline. The Iowa class BB's could certainly weather 20 exocet hits with minimal damage. Even the Chinese silkworm missles, which carry a mich larger payload would probably not cause much damage with a direct hit. You must remember that these ships were designed to keep fighting and win even after taking multiple hits from very large caliber weapans at fairly close ranges. They are excellent candidates to be in a modern missle war from a defensive stand point.
The problem is, as you rightly point out, that they are extremely poor offensive platforms in the modern concept of naval warfare. To retrofit them as missle platforms would cause them to loose some of the defensive capability they have and thus reduce their main value as an asset.
Finally, it is cheaper to build a snaller ship with excellent offensive capability than it would be to retrofit the Battleships for the modern navy mission.
In conclusion, you are correct that they should be retired as they do not fit the mission of the current navy. However, I take great issue with you dismissing the defensive value of the platform. In the Bikini Atoll test, less armoured battleships took Direct airburst hits from H-bombs and did not sink. Yes, they had massive damage, but stayed afloat. They had to be torpedoed to be sunk. The Iowa class can certainly mover right through most missles that are in use today and maintain a full fight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Most of the armor on a battleship is in a belt above and below the water line. This belt does not extend the entire length of the ship, it just covers the vital areas, as water tight compartmentalization protects the less vital ends. Many battleships also have a sort of standoff hull below the water line to seperate the main armor belt from the point of impact of a torpedo with the idea of causing the torpedo to detonate outside of the armor belt in the hopes that the armor belt will remain intact. I don't know if the Iowa class feateured this. Above decks the turrets are armored and there may be a belt thinner than the main belt this belt is placed internally, and is usually sloped. I don't know the details of the Iowa class's secondary armor.
IIRC the upgraded battleships do indeed have 20mmm autocannons for close in air defense. They also carry cruise missles and a variety of air defense missles. I believe they were equipped with Aegis type missles located in vertical launch tubes in their decks. Their size is a particular advantage for certain missions. Their sheer size give them the capacity to carry truly sustained attacks. They potentially could carry more weaponry than several cruisers and still retain some of their main guns for close in bombardment.
I'm surprised that they still require such a large crew. Surely many of the functions that were once manual are now automated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
While the anti-ship missiles may not be able to entirely penetrate the deck armor, the various missiles can shred the ship's superstructure, severely compromising the ship's capabillites and causing enourmous casualties in the process. |
The armor of the battleship is designed to ward off 14"-16" armor peircing shells, each one with more explosive power than 10 exocet, and still be in fighting shape. You are simply wrong on this one. It would take nothing less than a modern laser guided 1000lb bomb to know out just one 16" turret. You might shred the radars/antennas and the newer weapons like the Tomahawk launchers, but as far as rendering it impotent, very unlikely. As far as casualties, how do you suffer casualties if you can't even penetrate the skin of the ship.
Also, almost all modern surface ship missiles are wave skimming, which happens to be where none of the weapon systems/sensors are and where some of the thickest armor is.
quote:
Furthermore the ship would have to deal with the fuel fires set by the anti-ship misssiles which can do enourmous damage. The fuel used to power these missiles is not your typical car gasoline and is extremely volitile stuff. These fuel fires can get hot enough to melt steel and can damage various electronic and mechnical elements of the ship with their heat. They can also warp portions of the ship's hull with localized heating causing further damage. An Iowa that takes 20 Exocut hits might not sink, but it would be in extremely bad shape. |
Wrong, but you are unaquanted with shipboard firefighting so I can see why you would come to this conclusion. Fuel is one of the most destructive things about a missile hit, but it depends on where it is. In the Falklands and on the Stark, the fuel was so damaging because the missile pentetrated the skin and poured the fuel into the interior. Fuel burning on the weatherdecks would be bad, but would most likely not render the ship incabable of combat.
And how much heat do you think it takes to melt through a foot, in most places two, of steal? Assuming of course they didn't activate their topside sprinklers...
quote:
Aegis technology doesn't do much good unless the ship also has a bunch of missiles to intercept incoming weaponry with. However if you put those missiles in the ship's hull like typical US VLS cells, you've just cut a couple nice square holes in the ship's armor for enemy anti-ship missiles to go through. |
I didn't say anything about giving BBs Aegis, I said give it an Aegis defender. One of the things that a BB has going for it in the modern age is that the greatest threat to its safety before was plunging armor peircing shells. There is not a single anti-ship missle today that plunges, they would all smack harmlessly into two feet of steel. So weakening the deck armor doesn't really matter.
Of course the reason why Arliegh Burke DDGs and Ticonderoga CGs don't have armor is Aegis makes it pretty much impossible to get a missle to them anyways. So how does combining armor and Aegis make for a worse platform?
quote:
There are already existing designs to penetrate tank armor, and with the existing supersonic anti-ship missiles it would merely be a matter of adding a hardened tip to the missile along with a delayed fuse to create an effective battleship killer. |
You find me a tank with 2 feet of armor anywhere. Of course it is possible to make a missile that could do it. It would probobly be very expensive and not worth it when most of the other combatants have no armor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dis
It's still not a good idea to start throwing tactical nukes around. Even if they are measured in kilotons. Hiroshima was measured in kilotons, and look how much damage that caused. It basically lets the genies out of the bottle for all out war. |
Didn't say it was a good idea, just asked what it would do to such a ship.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
One of the things that a BB has going for it in the modern age is that the greatest threat to its safety before was plunging armor peircing shells. There is not a single anti-ship missle today that plunges, they would all smack harmlessly into two feet of steel. So weakening the deck armor doesn't really matter. |
You clearly know very little about modern anti-ship missiles, and this appears to be the case for many people in this thread.
A large portion of modern anti-shipping missiles may be sea skimming for most of their flight, but at the last moment it can be set to execute a "pop up" manuever where it suddenly rises in altitude.
quote:
It may be programmed to perform one of several possible attack modes, such as hitting the target vessel at the waterline, or performing a "pop up" attack to dive vertically into its deck. |
http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb9.html
Missiles with this capability include the Harpoon, the Exocet, the Moskit, and the Otomat among others.
It is precisely the deck armor which is vulnerable here, and that's one of the weakest armored areas on the battleship. People should read up on modern antiship missiles before making too many additional assumptions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
I believe they were equipped with Aegis type missles located in vertical launch tubes in their decks. |
You remember incorrectly on this point. Why they did have Tomohawk Missiles, they were not the VLS variety and were above the deck so that the deck armor was left intact. The only air defense the battleship itself had was the Phalanx with its 20mm ammunition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
I was under the impression that the superstructure was armored as well. Also, most antiship missles are designed to hit at or just above the waterline. The Iowa class BB's could certainly weather 20 exocet hits with minimal damage. Even the Chinese silkworm missles, which carry a mich larger payload would probably not cause much damage with a direct hit. You must remember that these ships were designed to keep fighting and win even after taking multiple hits from very large caliber weapans at fairly close ranges. They are excellent candidates to be in a modern missle war from a defensive stand point. |
The superstructure is not armored, this is part of the US Battleship design of the time philosophy of "all or nothing armor." It was a actually a great idea at the time, but today against sophisticated weapons which can hit their targets with far more precision than unguided shells from long range it doesn't work so well. I believe the superstructure is designed so that armor piercing shells would actually pass right through it without detonating, anti-ship missiles are triggered much more easily though.
Key parts of the superstructure such as the sensors and communications equipment simply can't be protected too heavily by steel armor and still work. These elements of the ship are highly vunerable to any anti-ship missile and losing these elements greatly reduces the capabilities of an Iowa Class Battleship. These elements are also expensive to repair. The Iowa Battleships are extremely tough to actually sink, but the reality is they would tie up alot of naval assets to protect without giving enough capability in return. The bombardment support role is its only real justification and that can probably be fufilled with some of the DDX ships coming down the pipeline which may feature smaller guns, but these guns have a substancially greater range.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2005 01:37
|