Battleships... do we still build them? - Page 4

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Battleships... do we still build them? (Page 4 of 7)

Posted: 7/27/2011 4:34:50 AM EST

[#1]

Quoted:

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.

Iowa has three seperate armored decks, which would function as spaced armor agaisnt a shaped charge type warhead, which is what most modern ASMs have.

Posted: 7/27/2011 4:38:46 AM EST

[#2]

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.

What a complete failure.

Posted: 7/27/2011 4:47:09 AM EST

[#3]

Quoted:

Uh yeah OK. Lets take a stroll down memory lane to Dec 7, 1941.

Yes, lets....

A boat load of dumb bombs drop directly onto the armored decks of several battleships

...along with aerial torpedoes, as well as quite possibly torps off of midget subs...

...managed to penetrate the armored decks of BB's....

...WWI design battleships, which were not built with an aerial bomb threat taken into consideration of their design. WWI design battleships tied up, in peacetime, with unmanned AA weapons and water-tight doors open.

Exactly how well would an aircraft carrier fared under such conditions? Or any ship, for that matter? Suprise attacks are a bitch....

.... with bombs in the 200-500lb range.

???

No.

Not even.

The bombs that the Japanese dropped at Peal Harbor were actually armor-piercing battleship gun rounds, 16.1 inch Type 99 (Model 1939) No 80 Mark 5. Fitted with fins, these were AP rounds for the guns on the Nagato, and weighed 1,641 pounds.

A

Posted: 7/27/2011 4:48:47 AM EST

[#4]

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.

One point would be that servicing nearer targets would free airframes for more deep attack - like on Tehran.
For another, weather, fouled decks, etc can shut down a carrier in conditions that would not stop a BB from firing.

Posted: 7/27/2011 5:07:11 AM EST

[#5]

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.

One point would be that servicing nearer targets would free airframes for more deep attack - like on Tehran.
For another, weather, fouled decks, etc can shut down a carrier in conditions that would not stop a BB from firing.

Closing to the ranges necessary to accuratley engage with the 16in guns puts you at risk from land based cruise missiles.

Posted: 7/27/2011 5:08:54 AM EST

[#6]

Allow me.

Bring back the Battleship!

Posted: 7/27/2011 5:33:56 AM EST

[#7]

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.

One point would be that servicing nearer targets would free airframes for more deep attack - like on Tehran.
For another, weather, fouled decks, etc can shut down a carrier in conditions that would not stop a BB from firing.

Closing to the ranges necessary to accuratley engage with the 16in guns puts you at risk from land based cruise missiles.

True - if one confines oneself to WWII rounds. We have guided artillery shells now, and rounds were in development for the 16 inch that had ranges from 92 to 200 miles - which compares very favorably with the unrefueled combat radius of carrier aircraft. If you are doing buddy-pack refueling, that cuts the number of missions you can serve.

Posted: 7/27/2011 5:45:39 AM EST

[#8]

This is the most interesting thread I have ever read in GD.

Nothing to contribute, just wanted to thank you all for your civil insight and knowledge.

Posted: 7/27/2011 6:01:16 AM EST

[#9]

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.

Even if a supersonic missile did penetrate the compartmentalization would prevent it from taking out the ship leaving it still fighting. Those missiles give up payload for speed and or range.

Posted: 7/27/2011 6:05:55 AM EST

[#10]

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.

the Iowa's had Tomahawks so thats not a problem. they also had Harpoons and 4 Phalanx...

Posted: 7/27/2011 6:09:04 AM EST

[#11]

Quoted:
Even if a supersonic missile did penetrate the compartmentalization would prevent it from taking out the ship leaving it still fighting. Those missiles give up payload for speed and or range.

There's some big missiles with good range and good speed out there....

Posted: 7/27/2011 6:54:47 AM EST

[#12]

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.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

Posted: 7/27/2011 6:59:41 AM EST

[#13]

Quoted:

True - if one confines oneself to WWII rounds. We have guided artillery shells now, and rounds were in development for the 16 inch that had ranges from 92 to 200 miles - which compares very favorably with the unrefueled combat radius of carrier aircraft. If you are doing buddy-pack refueling, that cuts the number of missions you can serve.

You're a fucking joke.

Posted: 7/27/2011 7:02:25 AM EST

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Even if a supersonic missile did penetrate the compartmentalization would prevent it from taking out the ship leaving it still fighting. Those missiles give up payload for speed and or range.

There's some big missiles with good range and good speed out there....

Yes there are. It amazes me when people talk about shit they don't know.

And, oh by the way, how do people think BBs will hold up against things like ASBMs?

Posted: 7/27/2011 7:05:00 AM EST

[#15]

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.

You mean the ones in the NV desert that they sold this year via gov liquidation?

Posted: 7/27/2011 7:11:19 AM EST

[#16]

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.

Yeah it's not like ships need protection from aircraft, cruise missles, or ballistic missiles....

Posted: 7/27/2011 7:12:25 AM EST

[#17]

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.

One point would be that servicing nearer targets would free airframes for more deep attack - like on Tehran.

For another, weather, fouled decks, etc can shut down a carrier in conditions that would not stop a BB from firing.

What targets are you going to engage with 16 inch guns that can't be serviced by the present NGFS assets or air assets that fleet has, or hell even the organic assets of the MEU in a landing situation?

Posted: 7/27/2011 7:16:34 AM EST

[#18]

Quoted:
Toured the USS Iowa in Portsmouth harbour in 1986, toured the USS Massachusetts a couple of weekends back, both amazing ships, it amazed me that the Massachusetts still has a ton (actually many tons) of 16" shells aboard. Was interesting to see the shrapnel damage from Jean Bart and to see the remains of a 16" shell that flew 15 miles, penetrated 15" of armor on Jean Bart and went a further 70 feet through the ship then exploded.

USS Iowa in 1986:

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p170/MarkNH/arf/016160.jpg

I know it isn't feasible or realistic but I would love it if the US kept one BB in commission and used it for diplomatic power projection, CVNs are cool but nothing beats a BB as a visual representation of "don't fuck with me". Park it off Libya (with a couple of destroyers and subs in support) and watch Ghadaffi crap his burka

All those blue practice shells on the MA weren't brought on board till the mid 90's when the last BB was decommed. A bunch of the old timers got the appropriate machinery working to move them down into the magazine. It was awesome.
I pretty much grew up with the Big Mamie as my playground. My dad ran the food service so I spent a lot of time there. I'll always have a soft spot for the BBs but they are an outdated war machine. They would be very handy for a lot of applications, but the cost to keep one running, or build a new one isn't worth it when the functions can be done by airplane or cruise missile.

Posted: 7/27/2011 7:17:40 AM EST

[#19]

Quoted:

And, oh by the way, how do people think BBs will hold up against things like ASBMs?

Question, if an ASBM managed to get through the defenses of a Carrier group, how serious would the impact of a very good ASBM be even on a modern Carrier?

Posted: 7/27/2011 7:18:51 AM EST

[#20]

"A shot across the bow" loses it's appeal from a guided missile.

Posted: 7/27/2011 7:23:06 AM EST

[#21]

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.

His argument holds up in the vacuum of space, not so much when gravity is involved.

Posted: 7/27/2011 8:08:47 AM EST

[#22]

Quoted:

And, oh by the way, how do people think BBs will hold up against things like ASBMs?

They don't make enough armor to protect against things like ASBMs..

Posted: 7/27/2011 8:28:29 AM EST

[#23]

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.

One point would be that servicing nearer targets would free airframes for more deep attack - like on Tehran.
For another, weather, fouled decks, etc can shut down a carrier in conditions that would not stop a BB from firing.

Closing to the ranges necessary to accuratley engage with the 16in guns puts you at risk from land based cruise missiles.

True - if one confines oneself to WWII rounds. We have guided artillery shells now, and rounds were in development for the 16 inch that had ranges from 92 to 200 miles - which compares very favorably with the unrefueled combat radius of carrier aircraft. If you are doing buddy-pack refueling, that cuts the number of missions you can serve.

Posted: 7/27/2011 8:31:33 AM EST

[#24]

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.

One point would be that servicing nearer targets would free airframes for more deep attack - like on Tehran.
For another, weather, fouled decks, etc can shut down a carrier in conditions that would not stop a BB from firing.

Closing to the ranges necessary to accuratley engage with the 16in guns puts you at risk from land based cruise missiles.

True - if one confines oneself to WWII rounds. We have guided artillery shells now, and rounds were in development for the 16 inch that had ranges from 92 to 200 miles - which compares very favorably with the unrefueled combat radius of carrier aircraft. If you are doing buddy-pack refueling, that cuts the number of missions you can serve.

What are you laughing about? I am sure Rick googled up those "facts." And we all know there are only facts posted on the interwebs.

Posted: 7/27/2011 8:37:33 AM EST

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True - if one confines oneself to WWII rounds. We have guided artillery shells now, and rounds were in development for the 16 inch that had ranges from 92 to 200 miles - which compares very favorably with the unrefueled combat radius of carrier aircraft. If you are doing buddy-pack refueling, that cuts the number of missions you can serve.

You're a fucking joke.

Oh really? Perhaps I imagined this...(from responses on TankNet...)

"1. HARP mentioned above was a program intended to fire projectiles as substitute for sounding rockets, re-entry vehicle testing or even orbit. Separately, the USN had a program in the 1960's to fire surplus Army 280mm (HE versions of the 'atomic cannon' shell) with sabot from 16"/50. Tests progressed as far as firing one 77km, with goal of 93km. This was at one time considered as outfit for USS New Jersey when recommissioned during the Vietnam War.

As you and others suggested, it wouldn't be practical to use such a round, unguided, against moving ships. Even assuming the accuracy issues of high muzzle velocity for a naval gun (1387 m/sec was aimed for in that program) and sabot separation were solved with no effect on accuracy relative to full caliber shells, dispersion would still increase at least linearly with range, likewise the distance the target moved while the shell was in flight. But the target wouldn't get any bigger. Even in a shore bombardment role as envsioned, it would have been an area weapon.

This changed, potentially, with guided shell technology and lots of proposals for a guided shell of this type,..."

"The 13"/16" sabot round for the USN 16"/50 on the Iowas was part of Phase III of the BB reincarnation project of SecNav Lehman's program. I recall a 60K meter range capability, with GPS terminal guidance, radar tracking of rounds, and the 13" shell was a bus for DPM submunitions, all as part of the NSFS program supporting the Over the Horizon doctrine hatched in the 80s. After the 90-91 Gulf War, it disappeared from the US POM budget cycle. The Iowa turret accident ahd also doomed further BB ops. "

Further, DARPA was working on SCRAMJET rounds that were gun launched, in part for further upgrades to the Iowa class before their final decommissioning. Some laboratory test firings in furtherance of this took place at the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn. Ranges, if actually built as a 16" shell, are speculative since the program was cancelled, but they WERE working on it.

I would respond to the personal atack, but I'm still waiting to here from the FBI or your chain of command, or mine, since you decided to accuse me of social engineering to solicit classified information from you. That is a MANDATORY reporitng event, yes? Still waiting...

Posted: 7/27/2011 8:51:45 AM EST

[#26]

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.

You realize that those battleships were twenty years old or older in 1941 and had not been designed with the slightest in anti-air protection?

Posted: 7/27/2011 8:54:03 AM EST

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True - if one confines oneself to WWII rounds. We have guided artillery shells now, and rounds were in development for the 16 inch that had ranges from 92 to 200 miles - which compares very favorably with the unrefueled combat radius of carrier aircraft. If you are doing buddy-pack refueling, that cuts the number of missions you can serve.

You're a fucking joke.

Harmless fantasizing is harmless.

Posted: 7/27/2011 8:54:50 AM EST

[#28]

DARPA does a lot of silly shit that will never see use anywhere.

Posted: 7/27/2011 8:56:51 AM EST

[#29]

The 280MM artillery shell is scarcely more effective than the 155MM, and both are eclipsed by guided rocket systems.

Posted: 7/27/2011 9:09:15 AM EST

[#30]

Missiles have extend the kill range of smaller ships.

Why build huge targets when you do not need them?

Carriers are large for a reason, and there kill range is only limited by the aircraft they carry.

It is called technology.

Posted: 7/27/2011 9:12:54 AM EST

[#31]

Quoted:
All our BBs are now museums, except for the USS Iowa (BB-61), which is waiting at the Reserve fleet in Suisun Bay for a city to take her as a museum.

Well, just as long as they're still around.

I mean, you never know when we're going to have to go to Iscandar.

Posted: 7/27/2011 9:29:54 AM EST

[#32]

Quoted:
Oh really? Perhaps I imagined this...(from responses on TankNet...)

"1. HARP mentioned above was a program intended to fire projectiles as substitute for sounding rockets, re-entry vehicle testing or even orbit. Separately, the USN had a program in the 1960's to fire surplus Army 280mm (HE versions of the 'atomic cannon' shell) with sabot from 16"/50. Tests progressed as far as firing one 77km, with goal of 93km. This was at one time considered as outfit for USS New Jersey when recommissioned during the Vietnam War.

Even if the data is accurate (and from an open source like the internet I'd be in doubt) 93 klicks is only about 57 miles...

Posted: 7/27/2011 9:33:18 AM EST

[#33]

Quoted:
The 280MM artillery shell is scarcely more effective than the 155MM, .

But they sure shake the ground alot more when fired..(ever try sleeping with a battery of 8" guns going off near you.

)

Posted: 7/27/2011 11:57:51 AM EST

[#34]

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.

No, we do not maintain those things. The last of the barrells are sitting down at Hawthorne awaiting demil (if they haven't been already), the powder is long gone (proven dangerous after the Iowa incident), and I doubt the shells are around either.

Then I stand corrected, but this is something that has happened recently. The Navy kept those in inventory for many years after the last Iowa class was decommissioned in 1992.

As far as I know, the only thing that we kept around were the barrels, and they weren't really preserved –– they were pretty much left out to rot.

Exactly where were they left? If it was anywhere with low humidity, no "preservation" is needed.

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.

You mean the ones in the NV desert that they sold this year via gov liquidation?

Didn't even make it to page 2 did you?

Posted: 7/27/2011 12:26:19 PM EST

[#35]

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.

No, we do not maintain those things. The last of the barrells are sitting down at Hawthorne awaiting demil (if they haven't been already), the powder is long gone (proven dangerous after the Iowa incident), and I doubt the shells are around either.

Then I stand corrected, but this is something that has happened recently. The Navy kept those in inventory for many years after the last Iowa class was decommissioned in 1992.

As far as I know, the only thing that we kept around were the barrels, and they weren't really preserved –– they were pretty much left out to rot.

Exactly where were they left? If it was anywhere with low humidity, no "preservation" is needed.

Well, I already said they were at Hawthorne Army Depot, which is in Hawthorne, Nevada.

Regardless, that is not even close to being correct. Steel, left out and unpreserved, will (and does) rust. Even in Nevada where our humidity is low.

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:02:53 PM EST

[#36]

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.

No, we do not maintain those things. The last of the barrells are sitting down at Hawthorne awaiting demil (if they haven't been already), the powder is long gone (proven dangerous after the Iowa incident), and I doubt the shells are around either.

Then I stand corrected, but this is something that has happened recently. The Navy kept those in inventory for many years after the last Iowa class was decommissioned in 1992.

As far as I know, the only thing that we kept around were the barrels, and they weren't really preserved –– they were pretty much left out to rot.

Exactly where were they left? If it was anywhere with low humidity, no "preservation" is needed.

Well, I already said they were at Hawthorne Army Depot, which is in Hawthorne, Nevada.

Regardless, that is not even close to being correct. Steel, left out and unpreserved, will (and does) rust. Even in Nevada where our humidity is low.

IIRC, there were some in VA as well.

There isn't anywhere left to make new ones either. From what I've read, it's a pretty neat process though

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:10:43 PM EST

[#37]

Quoted:
The 280MM artillery shell is scarcely more effective than the 155MM, and both are eclipsed by guided rocket systems.

You are confusing 203mm with 280mm. 8 inch < 11 inch.

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:12:07 PM EST

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Oh really? Perhaps I imagined this...(from responses on TankNet...)

"1. HARP mentioned above was a program intended to fire projectiles as substitute for sounding rockets, re-entry vehicle testing or even orbit. Separately, the USN had a program in the 1960's to fire surplus Army 280mm (HE versions of the 'atomic cannon' shell) with sabot from 16"/50. Tests progressed as far as firing one 77km, with goal of 93km. This was at one time considered as outfit for USS New Jersey when recommissioned during the Vietnam War.

Even if the data is accurate (and from an open source like the internet I'd be in doubt) 93 klicks is only about 57 miles...

True. I confused miles with km. There goes that NASA gig.....

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:13:57 PM EST

[#39]

Only people who are utterly clueless about modern naval warfare think that putting the Iowa class BBs back into service is a good idea. You know why its the only ship with giant guns and a ton of armor? Because that is and has been a shitty strategy for surviving a modern naval engagement for decades now.

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:15:39 PM EST

[#40]

Quoted:
We should be building these..

[/div]

You could at least keep it looking like a Battleship

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:18:46 PM EST

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I always wondered if the US Navy has any Heavy Cruzers in mothball still? I assume they don't as they would be so old now it would be cheaper to build a new one then retrofit one. Still, it seems like there could be a day when lobbing shells is desirable over expensive missles but obviously I am wrong or we would have some big gun boats still.

Current plans, as I understand it, is to equip all new DDs with enough power generation to mount rail guns when they become available.

That's the future of navel guns. The projectiles fired by these guns will eventually be self-correcting.

Is that like an LCP or something that you carry in your navel?

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:20:08 PM EST

[#42]

Quoted:
But even an 8in shell coming through your window would wake you up!

Wake you up? It would probably put you to sleep forever.

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:23:15 PM EST

[#43]

OP Never saw Under Siege I take it.

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:24:14 PM EST

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But even an 8in shell coming through your window would wake you up!

Wake you up? It would probably put you to sleep forever.

You can stuff a dead hooker in a piece of spent 8" rapid fire brass.

Hell, you could probably fit 3 of em if they are Thai

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:24:14 PM 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.

Give up on the SM-2/3/6. Quad pack 90 or so VLS cells with ESSM. Fill the rest with VL-ASROC and Harpoon. Plus if its updated with the RAM you get 20 or so more SAMs. That should do. I mean we are talking hypothetical here.

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:25:18 PM EST

[#46]

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.

No, we do not maintain those things. The last of the barrells are sitting down at Hawthorne awaiting demil (if they haven't been already), the powder is long gone (proven dangerous after the Iowa incident), and I doubt the shells are around either.

Then I stand corrected, but this is something that has happened recently. The Navy kept those in inventory for many years after the last Iowa class was decommissioned in 1992.

As far as I know, the only thing that we kept around were the barrels, and they weren't really preserved –– they were pretty much left out to rot.

Exactly where were they left? If it was anywhere with low humidity, no "preservation" is needed.

Well, I already said they were at Hawthorne Army Depot, which is in Hawthorne, Nevada.

Regardless, that is not even close to being correct. Steel, left out and unpreserved, will (and does) rust. Even in Nevada where our humidity is low.

IIRC, there were some in VA as well.

There isn't anywhere left to make new ones either. From what I've read, it's a pretty neat process though

I think you're right, someone here saw them at the shipyard, lying out in the elements.

Posted: 7/27/2011 1:30:48 PM EST

[#47]