User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:51:37 PM EST
[#1]
Quoted:You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. Except we haven't parked a ship in a harbor since the 1800's. 
Why knock down the entire city when you can take out their military and it's infrastructure? We simply don't have the balls to knock down a city any more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:54:01 PM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
Could 1 Burke take out the entire WWII German or Jap navy? Toss in an E-2 Hawkeye and I would say yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:56:29 PM EST
[#3]
Quoted:
If you have to invade a beachhead again, wouldn't big guns be a good way to shell the coastline to soften it up? The hovercraft style landing craft have turned the 5% of suitable beaches into a factor higher of beaches. We no longer have to take on the tough beaches, we take on the easy ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:01:15 PM EST
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Could 1 Burke take out the entire WWII German or Jap navy? Toss in an E-2 Hawkeye and I would say yes. No way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:14:27 PM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
We don't build battleships anymore. But it's worth noting that the Navy still maintains an inventory of 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 barrels, along with lots of shells and propellant. The Navy knows that *IF* they decide to put a battleship back into service, the means to manufacture such items is no longer available. Retooling would have to occur, which would take a lot of time and $$$, a luxury that you often don't have when pressed into war. They'd be better off pulling the turrets out of the Iowa's and installing them in something built from scratch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:19:55 PM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
We don't build battleships anymore. But it's worth noting that the Navy still maintains an inventory of 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 barrels, along with lots of shells and propellant. The Navy knows that *IF* they decide to put a battleship back into service, the means to manufacture such items is no longer available. Retooling would have to occur, which would take a lot of time and $$$, a luxury that you often don't have when pressed into war. They'd be better off pulling the turrets out of the Iowa's and installing them in something built from scratch.
Why would anyone want to do that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:20:52 PM EST
[#7]
Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while. Lasers on navy ships would be pretty damn silly when you consider that lasers only work line-of-sight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:25:35 PM EST
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while. Lasers on navy ships would be pretty damn silly when you consider that lasers only work line-of-sight. Think in 3 dimensions. A FEL on a ship would be an extremely useful asset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:28:24 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We don't build battleships anymore. But it's worth noting that the Navy still maintains an inventory of 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 barrels, along with lots of shells and propellant. The Navy knows that *IF* they decide to put a battleship back into service, the means to manufacture such items is no longer available. Retooling would have to occur, which would take a lot of time and $$$, a luxury that you often don't have when pressed into war. They'd be better off pulling the turrets out of the Iowa's and installing them in something built from scratch.
Why would anyone want to do that? They wouldn't. The argument was to reactivate for the sake of using the 16" for NGFS. In fantasy-land where this would be called-upon, it would probably just be easier to pull the turrets and put them on some modified commercial ship rather than get a 65 year old steam powered BB up and moving. You don't need the armored belt since nobody is shooting back, and if they did, all that armor wouldn't matter. I call it a "sporterized" battleship;D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:28:38 PM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in i Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r no way our modern DDG's CG's have the ability to take the punishment a BB can. I's so easy to mission kill a DDG, CG. they are like a fighter with a glass jaw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:29:39 PM EST
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while. Lasers on navy ships would be pretty damn silly when you consider that lasers only work line-of-sight. Think in 3 dimensions. A FEL on a ship would be an extremely useful asset. Not following.... I missed that issue of Popular Science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:31:26 PM EST
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while. Lasers on navy ships would be pretty damn silly when you consider that lasers only work line-of-sight. Think in 3 dimensions. A FEL on a ship would be an extremely useful asset. Not following.... I missed that issue of Popular Science. AAW and point defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:31:33 PM EST
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The battleship of the future - the Arsenal Ship. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/arsenalship.jpg http://i972.photobucket.com/albums/ae208/navybrat85/arsenal_72.jpg That is an OOOOOLD project, that has been long since canceled. Died with Boorda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:34:18 PM EST
[#14]
The LCS would make a great spec ops platform or drug interdiction unit. Definitely not a true replacement for anything we have in our fleet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:34:51 PM EST
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while. Lasers on navy ships would be pretty damn silly when you consider that lasers only work line-of-sight. Think in 3 dimensions. A FEL on a ship would be an extremely useful asset. Not following.... I missed that issue of Popular Science. AAW and point defense. gotcha 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:34:53 PM EST
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in i Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r no way our modern DDG's CG's have the ability to take the punishment a BB can. I's so easy to mission kill a DDG, CG. they are like a fighter with a glass jaw. "take the punishment" is kind of a silly misnomer. BBs are sitting ducks. Their armor is worthless against modern threats. DDGs and CGs are designed to deal with those threats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:36:51 PM EST
[#17]
I see that nostalgia is getting in the way of reason, here.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:37:22 PM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in i Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r no way our modern DDG's CG's have the ability to take the punishment a BB can. I's so easy to mission kill a DDG, CG. they are like a fighter with a glass jaw. "take the punishment" is kind of a silly misnomer. BBs are sitting ducks. Their armor is worthless against modern threats. DDGs and CGs are designed to deal with those threats. True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:40:55 PM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
I see that nostalgia is getting in the way of reason, here. No, after working on an Aegis platform for my entire career, I know our modern ships limitations. The BB is past her prime too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:41:50 PM EST
[#20]
Quoted:
I see that nostalgia is getting in the way of reason, here. It always does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:42:29 PM EST
[#21]
Quoted:
True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill. I guess you and I have different definitions of easy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:47:57 PM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill. I guess you and I have different definitions of easy. Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:55:34 PM EST
[#23]
Hell yeah!
What we need are pump action battle ships built by Glock. When we rack the slide entire nations would shit bricks. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 8:23:48 PM EST
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Could 1 Burke take out the entire WWII German or Jap navy? Toss in an E-2 Hawkeye and I would say yes. How many missiles on the Bourke, and what type? How many missiles will be needed to take down each ship? On another forum someone made a reasonable argument that a single FFG-7 could take down the Bismark without getting as much as a scratch in return. The Mk-13 missile launcher on the FFG-7 could fire both SM-1 anti-aircraft missile and Harpoon antiship missile, and the magazne had a capacity of 40 missiles. Go with a minimal load of SM-1's and the rest are Harpoons. The FFG also has onboard helos to locate Bismark, Get the FFG within 25 or so miles and let loose with the Harpoons. That's still well beyond the Bismark's gun range and the helos can alert the FFG to any course changes the Bismark makes to stay outside gun range. The missiles have a longer range than 25 miles but if you get closer than their max range any unburned jet fuel in the Harpoon just adds to the fun at the end. You could get the Bismark burning from bow to stern and with the Harpoon's pop-up/dive-down attack profile you should be getting some of them through the Bismark's main deck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 8:26:58 PM EST
[#25]
We should be building these...
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 8:27:46 PM EST
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory. Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 8:28:40 PM EST
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. Except we haven't parked a ship in a harbor since the 1800's.
Why knock down the entire city when you can take out their military and it's infrastructure? We simply don't have the balls to knock down a city any more. Because this doesn't always work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:15:55 PM EST
[#28]
Quoted: Revell-Monogram.....Chinese Trumpeter...Airfix,they still make Battleships.....huge fleets of them too. Tell me about it. Avoid disruptive camouflage ones.     |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:28:49 PM EST
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. Except we haven't parked a ship in a harbor since the 1800's.
Why knock down the entire city when you can take out their military and it's infrastructure? We simply don't have the balls to knock down a city any more. Because this doesn't always work. +1 There is going to come a day when total war will once again reign on the planet. War fought between nations and ideals, not the the skirmishes and "police actions" we have been fighting for the last 50 years, but war to conquer and destroy. WW2 was the last big one, but anyone who knows history knows it will come again and when it does, are we going to have the firepower to rain destruction on the enemy? Can an aircraft carrier or a missile destroyer really carry as much destruction as a battleship? Artillery rules the battlefield, because it is effective and CHEAP. In WW2, there were tens of thousands of artillery pieces firing millions of shells. Our carrier aircraft can hold what, 4-8 bombs each? Which is far less than a single salvo from a battleship? I don't think we should keep the existing battleships in service, but I do think it would behoove the Navy to consider the fact that if the SHTF and we do go to war with a near peer, we are going to be running out of the high tech and expensive weapons we are so dependent on.. Remember, as is often the case in war, what is old becomes new again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:33:06 PM EST
[#30]
The GraF Spee wasn't really a battleship - more along the lines of a small, slow battlecruiser.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:34:44 PM EST
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or just the new littoral class fast but wimpy? Was watching a show last night on Hitler's Admiral Graf Spee battleship, and got me thinking about ours today. We still have them and subs protecting our carriers right, but are all of our battleships ancient, or do we have any new ones being built? Someone post some pics of cool ones if you got them, or point me to an old thread as I'm sure this has been covered.  Graf Spee was not a battleship, per se. It was more of the battlecruiser type (lightly armored, heavily gunned, fast). Think of it along the lines of the HMS Hood... I would say closer to our Alaska class.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:39:49 PM EST
[#32]
Quoted:
Big gun ships became obsolete when aircraft became the primary means of destroying other ships. The range of the guns will not outreach the range of the airplane. Hence by the '30s some sailors figured out that the big gun ships were doomed to a secondary role to the aircraft carrier. While battleships were still useful to fight other battleships, to provide fire support for amphibious operations and to act as anti-aircraft platforms to protect the aircraft carrier, the battleship reached its zenith in 1944 and then forever lost its importance as a weapon in the naval arsenal. Interestingly, in 1945-46 Britain finished her last battleship that the Royal Navy would ever have, the HMS Vanguard. She was a good ship, but her armament dated back to WW I with her eight 15" guns mounted in four turrets. They were the same type of guns mounted on the WW I Queen Elizabeth or Royal Sovereign class battleships or the HMS Hood or HMS Renown & Repulse class battle-cruisers. Battleships can still be useful for amphibious operation and nothing is scarier than 16" shell that can flatten an entire city block, but we've other armaments that can do the job with greater precision and less collateral damage. Sadly, the day of the big gun ships are over. I suspect that with newer aircraft the days of the carrier may also be approaching its end. Radar and the proximity fuse rather tilt the playing field back the other way.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:45:15 PM EST
[#33]
Quoted:
"Genocide and depredation" will never be instruments of national policy. In fact, they never were. Native Americans and Southerners in the path of Sherman would strongly disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:48:06 PM EST
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or just the new littoral class fast but wimpy? Was watching a show last night on Hitler's Admiral Graf Spee battleship, and got me thinking about ours today. We still have them and subs protecting our carriers right, but are all of our battleships ancient, or do we have any new ones being built? Someone post some pics of cool ones if you got them, or point me to an old thread as I'm sure this has been covered. Graf Spee was not a battleship, per se. It was more of the battlecruiser type (lightly armored, heavily gunned, fast). Think of it along the lines of the HMS Hood... Graf Spee was not fast, something like 26 knots. She was a glorified commerce raider that was meant to give the impression that Germany had captial ships. Any contemporary battleship or an even older battlecruiser would have run her down (29 to 32 knots), gunned her down (13 and 15 inch guns-versus 11 inch) and eaten her alive. In reality, she was chased and hounded into port by two light cruisers and one heavy, three ships that combined she should have outgunned. yep, hell pretty much all the german "battleships" spent most of their time holed up in port scared to face allied sea power, and frankly hitler had no idea how to use a navy. and concerning graf spree the ship had stupidly thin armor, only thing that gave her any speed. I mean christ something like an iowa class ship would have chewed her up. Given Germany's situation, preservation of a "fleet in being" was the best use they could make of what they had, and tied up massive amounts of allied naval and air units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:53:18 PM EST
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in i Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r no way our modern DDG's CG's have the ability to take the punishment a BB can. I's so easy to mission kill a DDG, CG. they are like a fighter with a glass jaw. "take the punishment" is kind of a silly misnomer. BBs are sitting ducks. Their armor is worthless against modern threats. DDGs and CGs are designed to deal with those threats. Like the USS Cole did? Sometimes, there is no substitute for face-hardened armor, and lots of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 10:08:17 PM EST
[#36]
Planes out range guns, it's that simple. Planes with ATA and AGM missiles make it even more lopsided. If an enemy is close enough to your carrier to fire on it with guns or for you to use guns on them someone has REALLY FUCKED UP. AA in 20mm and 30mm is meant for shooting down incoming missiles, it is pretty doubtful they will ever be used on enemy planes much less ships.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 2:38:49 AM EST
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory. Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such. Yes. This was thought of and specifically dealt with by modifying attack profiles of missiles during their terminal flight profile to attack from above into the lightly armored decks and upper decks. All that armor and torpedo blister don't do squat against that kind of threat. BB armor was designed to resist AP shells coming in at a 45 degree angle. A straight on attack makes it more vulnerable and the Iowa class had approx 11 in of deck armor compared to 18 in on the side plate and turrets. Remember you don't always have to have a complete kill to take a ship out of the fight. You only have to do enough damage to CNC or power plants to take a ship out of immediate action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:19:45 AM EST
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory. Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such. Yes. This was thought of and specifically dealt with by modifying attack profiles of missiles during their terminal flight profile to attack from above into the lightly armored decks and upper decks. All that armor and torpedo blister don't do squat against that kind of threat. BB armor was designed to resist AP shells coming in at a 45 degree angle. A straight on attack makes it more vulnerable and the Iowa class had approx 11 in of deck armor compared to 18 in on the side plate and turrets. Remember you don't always have to have a complete kill to take a ship out of the fight. You only have to do enough damage to CNC or power plants to take a ship out of immediate action. I think there was a study that showed that subsonic missiles in a pop up mode or otherwise.wouldn't penetrate the armor, supersonic was another story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:49:04 AM EST
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r no way our modern DDG's CG's have the ability to take the punishment a BB can. I's so easy to mission kill a DDG, CG. they are like a fighter with a glass jaw. But those DDG's and CG's don't need to be in range of those missiles, and if they are they actually have a way of defending themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:51:28 AM EST
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory. Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such. A modern missile is going to cut through that armor like a hot knife through butter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:57:40 AM EST
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:00:19 AM EST
[#42]
I do wonder however if one modern Ticonderoga class cruiser with it's anti air, anti submarine, and anti surface capability could in fact defend itself and actually sink say the entire Japanese Navy of WWII (assuming it had a resuply ship to rearm).
Obviously it would be able to see the Japanese ships and planes long before they could see it. The Tomahawk and Harpoon missles would prove devistating (even if they didn't use nukes) but without other assets their range would be limited. The big question is could these missles actually penetrate and sink a heavly armored battleship? My guess is that they would not be able to do so at least not without using up a ton of missles so resuply would be critical or the battleships might well close to firing range and they could blast the modern Aegis cruser out of the water - but then the crusier could out run these ships and it wouldn't need to refuel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:05:33 AM EST
[#43]
In my opinion, this is the future naval ships design.
You can't hit what you can't see or hear. One of the problems is that it is reported to be way over budget. Taken from wikipedia Zumwalt class destroyer The DDG-1000 is planned to feature: a low radar profile; an integrated power system, which can send electricity to the electric drive motors or weapons, which may someday include a railgun[7] or free-electron lasers; 
Stealth Despite being 40% larger than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer the radar signature is more akin to a fishing boat and sound levels are compared to the Los Angeles-class submarine. The tumblehome hull reduces radar return and the composite material deckhouse also has a low radar return. Water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces thermal emissions.[26] The Advanced Gun System is a 155 mm naval gun, two of which would be installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced 155 mm gun and the Long Range Land-Attack Projectile.[32] This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 lb and has a circular error of probability of 50 meters. This weapon system will have a range of 83 nautical miles (154 km) and the fully automated storage system will have room for up to 750 rounds.[32][26] The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating and allows a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. The combined firepower from a pair of turrets gives each Zumwalt-class destroyer firepower equivalent to 18 conventional M198 field guns.[citation needed] Artist rendering of the Zumwalt class destroyer Class overview Name: Zumwalt Builders: General Dynamics Operators: United States Navy Preceded by: Arleigh Burke-class destroyers Cost: US$3.3 billion (Navy estimate for lead ships; others give higher projections[1]) In service: April 2013 (forecast)[1] In commission: March 2015 (forecast)[1] Planned: USS Zumwalt, USS Michael Monsoor, DDG-1002 Cancelled: 4–5 General characteristics Class and type: Zumwalt Type: Multi-mission destroyer, emphasis on land attack Displacement: 14,564 long tons (14,798 t)[2] Length: 600 ft (180 m) Beam: 80.7 ft (24.6 m) Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m) Propulsion: 2 Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30 gas turbines and emergency diesel generators, 78 MW (105,000 shp) Speed: In excess of 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph) Complement: 140 Sensors and processing systems: AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) (X-band, scanned array)[3] Armament: • 20 × MK 57 VLS modules, with a total of 80 launch cells[4] RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 4 per cell Tactical Tomahawk, 1 per cell Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC), 1 per cell • 2 × 155 mm Advanced Gun System 920 × 155 mm rounds total; 600 in automated store + Auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) as of April 2005 70–100 LRLAP rounds planned as of 2005 of total • 2 × Mk 110 57 mm gun (CIGS) Aircraft carried: • One SH-60 LAMPS helicopter or MH-60R helicopter • Three MQ-8 Fire Scout VT-UAVs[2] Aviation facilities: Flight deck and enclosed hangar for up to two medium-lift helicopters |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:09:24 AM EST
[#44]
Quoted: I do wonder however if one modern Ticonderoga class cruiser with it's anti air, anti submarine, and anti surface capability could in fact defend itself and actually sink say the entire Japanese Navy of WWII (assuming it had a resuply ship to rearm). Obviously it would be able to see the Japanese ships and planes long before they could see it. The Tomahawk and Harpoon missles would prove devistating (even if they didn't use nukes) but without other assets their range would be limited. The big question is could these missles actually penetrate and sink a heavly armored battleship? My guess is that they would not be able to do so at least not without using up a ton of missles so resuply would be critical or the battleships might well close to firing range and they could blast the modern Aegis cruser out of the water - but then the crusier could out run these ships and it wouldn't need to refuel. Using Midway OOB...could a Tico take 60-70 divebombers and 50-60 torpedo bombers alone? Not to mention 80-90 Zeros. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:19:24 AM EST
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do wonder however if one modern Ticonderoga class cruiser with it's anti air, anti submarine, and anti surface capability could in fact defend itself and actually sink say the entire Japanese Navy of WWII (assuming it had a resuply ship to rearm). Obviously it would be able to see the Japanese ships and planes long before they could see it. The Tomahawk and Harpoon missles would prove devistating (even if they didn't use nukes) but without other assets their range would be limited. The big question is could these missles actually penetrate and sink a heavly armored battleship? My guess is that they would not be able to do so at least not without using up a ton of missles so resuply would be critical or the battleships might well close to firing range and they could blast the modern Aegis cruser out of the water - but then the crusier could out run these ships and it wouldn't need to refuel. Using Midway OOB...could a Tico take 60-70 divebombers and 50-60 torpedo bombers alone? Not to mention 80-90 Zeros. How many rounds to the Phalanx CIWS do they have? The range on that should be at the limits of a torpedo or bomb run I would think? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:23:17 AM EST
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory. Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such. Yes. This was thought of and specifically dealt with by modifying attack profiles of missiles during their terminal flight profile to attack from above into the lightly armored decks and upper decks. All that armor and torpedo blister don't do squat against that kind of threat. BB armor was designed to resist AP shells coming in at a 45 degree angle. A straight on attack makes it more vulnerable and the Iowa class had approx 11 in of deck armor compared to 18 in on the side plate and turrets. Remember you don't always have to have a complete kill to take a ship out of the fight. You only have to do enough damage to CNC or power plants to take a ship out of immediate action. I think there was a study that showed that subsonic missiles in a pop up mode or otherwise.wouldn't penetrate the armor, supersonic was another story. Uh yeah OK. Lets take a stroll down memory lane to Dec 7, 1941. A boat load of dumb bombs drop directly onto the armored decks of several battleships managed to penetrate the armored decks of BB's with bombs in the 200-500lb range. A harpoon missile has a 490lb warhead on it and a quantity of jet fuel that will ignite after detonation. I think I'll stick with the first hand experience of several sunk ships with a similar attack pattern that a harpoon missile can have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:30:58 AM EST
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see that nostalgia is getting in the way of reason, here. It always does. If they would only bring back the F4U Corsair . . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:31:11 AM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
Planes out range guns, it's that simple. Planes with ATA and AGM missiles make it even more lopsided. If an enemy is close enough to your carrier to fire on it with guns or for you to use guns on them someone has REALLY FUCKED UP. AA in 20mm and 30mm is meant for shooting down incoming missiles, it is pretty doubtful they will ever be used on enemy planes much less ships. Guns can fire again in 30 seconds - 9 more rounds. On a completely different target, even. How long does it take to get a Superbug back to the carrier, refueled and rearmed - IF it and its pilot can be used again immediately. BB can send nine shells ata a time through contested or denied airspace without risking 100 mil airframes or aircrew, and don't need air rescue assets, tankers, jammers standing by.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:32:52 AM EST
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did. Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false. You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal. That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory. Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out. Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such. A modern missile is going to cut through that armor like a hot knife through butter. A modern misile is neither strong enough or fused to function when hitting 16 inches of armor at speed - why would it be? There are no such targets in service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 4:34:03 AM EST
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Planes out range guns, it's that simple. Planes with ATA and AGM missiles make it even more lopsided. If an enemy is close enough to your carrier to fire on it with guns or for you to use guns on them someone has REALLY FUCKED UP. AA in 20mm and 30mm is meant for shooting down incoming missiles, it is pretty doubtful they will ever be used on enemy planes much less ships. Guns can fire again in 30 seconds - 9 more rounds. On a completely different target, even. How long does it take to get a Superbug back to the carrier, refueled and rearmed - IF it and its pilot can be used again immediately. BB can send nine shells ata a time through contested or denied airspace without risking 100 mil airframes or aircrew, and don't need air rescue assets, tankers, jammers standing by....  We're doing this again.
Let me know when that nine shells at a time can reach Tehran, then you'll have something resembling a point. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
