RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

The Gnome -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:12:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: ltfightr Let one of those 2 BB's into a Chinese invasion TF of Tiawan and watch the the transports sink. Well, maybe. Assuming they each didn't get hit by several dozen Silkworms armed with shaped-charge warheads. Might be easier to stand out 60 miles and fire Harpoons from fast-movers at the transports. I dunno - i think they are magnificent, beautiful ships which i would like to see cruising around, but i have my doubts about their usefulness in a modern warfare environment. Plus I hate to think what a few Los Angeles SSN's would do to an invasion fleet - with torpedos alone, forget the stinking missiles. I wouldn't risk any surface assets against an invasion fleet. Between air and subsurface the aggressor is going to the bottom.

ChezDaJez -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:15:46 PM)
quote: I've never bought the "can stay on station longer" arguement. A bunch of Burkes is going to scare me more then 1 Iowa. Remember resupply ships? I agree with you there. The "stay on station longer" point is pretty much moot today. Supply ships and forward bases pretty much mean that the Burkes and other Aegis equipped ships don't have to worry much about getting resupplied. The Arleigh Burkes are a hell of a ship... part cruiser, part destroyer, a hybrid if you will. There isn't a mission short of shore bombardment that they can't do very effectively. An shore bombardment is a form of warfare that is becoming less an option anymore. Shore bombardment won't work against terrorists. You're not going to bombard the coast of China, Korea or any other country that has a considerable air threat, regardless of how effective that air threat might be. Between B-52s, Tomahawk missles and other long range weapons systems, it just doesn't make any sense to bring back a weapons systems because of its shore bombardment potential. If they truely did favor bringing these ships back, I would say remove one or more of the turrets and make them massive Tomahawk arsenals but that still overlooks the main problem with them and that is they are too expensive to operate. The engineering plant is 65 years old and requires substantial fuel oil quantities. Most of today's warships are gas turbine powered, buring JP-4, 5 or 8. Thats basically a kerosene jet fuel. Crew habitality needs considerable revamping. They would need extensive electronic modernization. You could probably operate 8-10 Burkes for what it would cost to operate 1 Iowa. On the other hand, they are beautiful ships and you can't help but be impressed by their majesticness. Plus their ability to absorb punishment can't be overlooked. I remember an article in the Navy Times newspaper when one of the Iowas was being readied for her Gulf Storm deployment The captain was asked by some reporter what his response would be if a Silkworm missile hit the ship. He replied that he would put a call out over the 1MC system for "Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms!" Chez

DeepSix -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:29:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: byron13 My two cents: Without addressing the costs and other downsides to reactivating the glorious BB's, my gut reaction is to have at least one around. Those that argue technology is the answer make me nervous. Rumsfeld is the ultimate advocate for an all high-tech military. But his shock and awe campaign nearly failed because he forgot some simple truths that high-tech has not yet solved: it takes grunts on the ground to secure and occupy a country. Our gee-whiz weaponry is subject to countermeasures, but we haven't faced an opponent able to employ them. GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil. Unless they bugger things up, China is the next superpower. I believe their military power will equal if not surpass the U.S. in our lifetime - if not the next twenty years - and they will have an economy and military at least as comfortable with high-tech as ours. All this goes to one point. The U.S. relies on high-tech, and it works because no one has been wealthy enough to compete with the U.S. in military high-tech since WWII, and the U.S. has always been a step ahead in the high-tech field. That will change. On the other end of the scale, high-tech doesn't always work when your facing not lower-tech but no-tech. High-tech didn't save our bacon in Viet Nam. Hence, I don't want to put all my eggs in the high-tech basket. The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that. I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried. In addition, the BBs have unique abilities that no other ships possess such as big guns, thick armor, and high survivability. I can't to what uses these capabilities may be put in the future, but I like the idea of having a ship that has strengths and capabilities completely different from any other ship. What's more, it's a weapon system that no one will trump by building a bigger or better one. For my own toolbox, I'd rather have 19 wrenches and 1 screwdriver than 20 wrenches. I tend to agree and am not inclined to trust solely to techno-war. Frag, you don't have to have a nuke to have an EMP weapon. Nevertheless, the real question (to me) seems to be "What is the threat and how do we meet it?" I don't buy the argument that low tech is entirely obsolete (operational costs aside). But would weapons like 16-inchers have no usefulness in a world where a 747 can become a weapon. The only thing high-tech about September 11 was the plan itself, if you'll allow me to put it that way, but for me, the question is, could a BB be a successful part of the equation we now live in (China-Taiwan or India-Pakistan notwithstanding). [Edited for clarity (I hope)]

DeepSix -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:31:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez ... The captain was asked by some reporter what his response would be if a Silkworm missile hit the ship. He replied that he would put a call out over the 1MC system for "Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms!" Chez Love it![sm=00000280.gif]

byron13 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:35:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried. That one's funny ... thats just the classic military nonsense. If I manage to pop off a nuke within range of your 16" guns, you're not going to be worried about the guns still being able to fire. In an EMP environment, you have already gone to nukes ... a BB is not going to make any difference at all. Bring on the Ohio's, the ULTIMATE survivable BB [:D] A concern in Europe during the bad ole days was a nuke burst high enough that it wouldn't produce blast damage or even real fallout, but close enough to cause EMP damage. Such a strike is also ambiguous when considering whether the battle has gone nuclear. I'm no nuclear technician, but it seems a valid tactic - especially if you are a nuclear power that does not rely as much on electronics. In a tactical sense, a close-in nuke is not going to sink many ships. Their crews may die within a couple of days, but they would still be expected to fight today's battle. Plus, the affects of radiation is significantly diminished by armor. Finally, you're assuming that the use of a tactical nuke necessarily leads to use of strategic nukes. That has always been a threat, but never been a given - at least in U.S. thinking. Going strategic may very well be the best option against China, given their huge population, our advantage in the field, and the relative concentration of their industry, but it's silly to assume that one high air burst leads to strategic nukes or even a tactical nuke response. I've admitted that I know nothing about EMP hardening, but nothing you've said changes my mind about that one issue.

BraveHome -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:38:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus This argument is as old as....well I am (yikes.....) heh...old enough that i did a Term Paper on the subject when i was in high school back in the 80's (old fart me) You do a diservice to old farts! I graduated high school in the 60s [:D]

rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:39:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeepSix quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez ... The captain was asked by some reporter what his response would be if a Silkworm missile hit the ship. He replied that he would put a call out over the 1MC system for "Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms!" Chez Love it![sm=00000280.gif] Doubt that a silkworm with a shaped charge warhead would bounce. Nice quote though.[:D]

byron13 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy quote: GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil A free fall bomb that only is receiving telemtry and adjusting fins is almost undetectable and impossible by most standards to shoot down.. How can you justify this statment? The countermeasure is not shooting down the bomb, but jamming the GPS signal. Since the bomb is receiving data from GPS satellites that are broadcasting signals 24/7, it should be no problem to jam or otherwise affect the signals locally. Unless the military has the option of turning the signal on and off at will and at a different frequencies, something I'm not aware of, it shouldn't be a problem.

wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:42:03 PM)
You do not have to use a nuke to produce an EMP pulse, Anny high explosives with tightly coiled copperwire surrounding it will produce an EMP pulse, just not as powerfull as a Nuclear one. I realy think the US has already a EMP weapon either in devellopment or already in its arsenal, The theory behind it has been arround for deccades...

Nikademus -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:44:20 PM)
Bah.....forget talking about Silkworms, Nuc's , 16inch shells, and EP. Just release a bunch of hackers. All the screens on the warships start displaying a DOOM2 cacodemon sprouting out the dreaded AOL line... "You've got mail!" "You've got mail!" "You've got mail"

wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:45:25 PM)
How much dammage would a silkworm do to a iowa class BB?. Do silkworms really have a shaped charge warhead?, I think that a modern SS rocket is just strong enough to penetrate todays lightly armed warships...

Nikademus -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:47:48 PM)
Most anti-ship missile types arn't designed to penetrate armor in general, simply because there's no need. Today's ships are all tin cans compared to the warships of yesteryear. For a shaped charge.....depends on it's specs, which i dont have on me.....modern warfare is boring to me. (push button, kiss a$$ goodbye) [;)] I doubt it would penetate the heavy armor areas of the ship but it would probably do some serious topside damage. An Iowa would be less vulnerable to the "Sheffield" effect though.

wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:48:13 PM)
quote: The countermeasure is not shooting down the bomb, but jamming the GPS signal. Since the bomb is receiving data from GPS satellites that are broadcasting signals 24/7, it should be no problem to jam or otherwise affect the signals locally. Unless the military has the option of turning the signal on and off at will and at a different frequencies, something I'm not aware of, it shouldn't be a problem. They aren't that easely jammed, the bomb recieves it's signals from strait above, while jamming will come from below......

rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 10:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2 How much dammage would a silkworm do to a iowa class BB?. Do silkworms really have a shaped charge warhead?, I think that a modern SS rocket is just strong enough to penetrate todays lightly armed warships... Well, if i was China, and the US activated some BBs, i'd be sure i had shaped-charge warheads on the silkworms. The missile is rather large. Generally a shaped-charge is going to penetrate 1-2x the diameter of the warhead. So, rough guesstimate is it would penetrate a couple of feet of armor. How much damage is done depends on what it hits, i would guess.

DeepSix -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:01:31 PM)
As legitimate a threat as China is, the BB would be a real white elephant indeed if it were kept in the arsenal solely for the contingency of war with that one nation. There's also Korea, Pakistan, of course the Middle East.... anyway, just wanted to provide more food for thought: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan.htm Some very interesting articles there (at least to a civilian like me).

rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: byron13 My two cents: Without addressing the costs and other downsides to reactivating the glorious BB's, my gut reaction is to have at least one around. Those that argue technology is the answer make me nervous. Rumsfeld is the ultimate advocate for an all high-tech military. But his shock and awe campaign nearly failed because he forgot some simple truths that high-tech has not yet solved: it takes grunts on the ground to secure and occupy a country. Our gee-whiz weaponry is subject to countermeasures, but we haven't faced an opponent able to employ them. GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil. Unless they bugger things up, China is the next superpower. I believe their military power will equal if not surpass the U.S. in our lifetime - if not the next twenty years - and they will have an economy and military at least as comfortable with high-tech as ours. All this goes to one point. The U.S. relies on high-tech, and it works because no one has been wealthy enough to compete with the U.S. in military high-tech since WWII, and the U.S. has always been a step ahead in the high-tech field. That will change. On the other end of the scale, high-tech doesn't always work when your facing not lower-tech but no-tech. High-tech didn't save our bacon in Viet Nam. Hence, I don't want to put all my eggs in the high-tech basket. The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that. I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried. In addition, the BBs have unique abilities that no other ships possess such as big guns, thick armor, and high survivability. I can't to what uses these capabilities may be put in the future, but I like the idea of having a ship that has strengths and capabilities completely different from any other ship. What's more, it's a weapon system that no one will trump by building a bigger or better one. For my own toolbox, I'd rather have 19 wrenches and 1 screwdriver than 20 wrenches. In a related measure, the Joint Chiefs announced that it is considering arming troops with bows and arrows. The reasons given are that they can penetrate today's modern body armor, they can be made from non-strategic materials, and are completely immune from electronic countermeasures...[:'(]

Lord_Calidor -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:19:48 PM)
Maybe USN should have to consider buying Kirov? (or was it already scrapped?) I remember kickin' some Iowa hiney (together with half of US fleet) with it in Harpoon games...

Iridium -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:27:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Just out of curiosity - the 16" shell moves at something like 1000 mph, which is in the same range as some of the soviet antiship missiles. Could a CIW like Phalanx or Goalkeeper shoot a shell down (or blow it up)? Actually this can shoot down shells and pretty much anything else that I can think of: Link This is an old link so if someone is able to find more up to date material on this MTHEL system please hook us up. Edit: I found this as well: Linky I think taking out mortars is pretty neat. [&o]

wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:33:28 PM)
Remember, 16" shells will most likely have an armoured nosecap. Some 20 mm shells from a phalanx would probably do not much damage. But the "goalkeeper" CIWS (by holland signaal of course) probably COULD knock those puppy's down, it has been build around the GAU 8 avenger gun that is also installed in the A-10....................... [image]local://upfiles/14273/01BE3073594A4B5298C7CFD1654288A3.jpg[/image]

byron13 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:37:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that. Sure there is, it's called a submarine and it's also a hell of a lot cheaper to get a fleet of very quiet diesel boats for coastal defence. [;)] I'm disappointed. One, that is not a countermeasure to a 16" shell. Why not just say that a BB can be destroyed in its home port by sabotage? Or China's best countermeasure for an M1 tank is to sink the RO-RO ship it is on? Two, I think we'll maintain our lead in sub technology longer than most others. I'm confident that our hunter-killers will do just fine. We had a significant incentive to develop submarine and ASW technology for forty years; China doesn't have the same incentive.

rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:39:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Just out of curiosity - the 16" shell moves at something like 1000 mph, which is in the same range as some of the soviet antiship missiles. Could a CIW like Phalanx or Goalkeeper shoot a shell down (or blow it up)? Actually this can shoot down shells and pretty much anything else that I can think of: Link This is an old link so if someone is able to find more up to date material on this MTHEL system please hook us up. Edit: I found this as well: Linky I think taking out mortars is pretty neat. [&o] Cute - until now, hadn't seen they had gotten it down to this scale and speed.

rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:41:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2 Remember, 16" shells will most likely have an armoured nosecap. Some 20 mm shells from a phalanx would probably do not much damage. But the "goalkeeper" CIWS (by holland signaal of course) probably COULD knock those puppy's down, it has been build around the GAU 8 avenger gun that is also installed in the A-10....................... [image]local://upfiles/14273/01BE3073594A4B5298C7CFD1654288A3.jpg[/image] Might be able to. IIRC, the fuze is in the tail of the 16" (someone will correct me if i am wrong, i'm sure [;)]) - so it would have to give the shell quite a jolt to set it off.

wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:46:27 PM)
could't the impact of multiple 30 mm rounds set of the tail fuse, or does it use an accelerometer to detect the moment of impact on target ???

Iridium -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:48:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2 could't the impact of multiple 30 mm rounds set of the tail fuse, or does it use an accelerometer to detect the moment of impact on target ??? I think that it does use a type of accelerometer. Doesn't this shell have two fuses though? I was under the impression that it had a standard tip fuse and a tail fuse.

rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2 could't the impact of multiple 30 mm rounds set of the tail fuse, or does it use an accelerometer to detect the moment of impact on target ??? I think that it does use a type of accelerometer. Doesn't this shell have two fuses though? I was under the impression that it had a standard tip fuse and a tail fuse. Only one real way to find out: tests are in order. Anyone have a spare 16" gun and ammo, and a Goalkeeper handy?[:'(][:D]

wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/20/2005 11:58:20 PM)
I've got a 16" gun, see this guy testfire it !! Who will give me my ammo? go to http://franshalstuig.nl/ and click on put1.mpg

byron13 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:00:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso In a related measure, the Joint Chiefs announced that it is considering arming troops with bows and arrows. The reasons given are that they can penetrate today's modern body armor, they can be made from non-strategic materials, and are completely immune from electronic countermeasures...[:'(] A better analogy is that Rumsfeld discovered that high-tech can't replace the grunt (which, by the way, is an older system than bows and arrows). America's army - at least its heavy divisions - is well-suited to fighting mobile battles in the fields of Europe or the deserts of Iraq, but is completely ill-suited at present to fight slugfests in built-up areas and dense terrain. My gut on the battleship issue, without muddying the waters with cost-benefit analysis, is that a BB gives you capabilities you don't otherwise have and allows you to respond to a wider variety of circumstances. Just as the BB retains capabilities that high-tech can't replace, so does the age-old grunt on the ground; high-tech isn't the answer to everything - yet.

EUBanana -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:03:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeepSix quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium ... Basically, I think that if we throw out the old fashioned idea of the BB and replace it with a new model you might come out with what you may refer to as a modern BC in terms of traditional terminology. That's an interesting idea.... what if such new ships were "nuke-yoo-ler" powered? A BBN? The Russkies had - and I believe still have - nuclear powered battlecruisers, the Kirov class. No armour, but a big dreadnought size asskicker loaded down with missiles. Statistics Displacement: 28,000 tons Dimensions: Overall length: 826.8 ft (252.0 m) Waterline length: 754.6 ft (230.0 m) Beam: 93.5 ft (28.5 m) Draft: 29.5 ft (9.0 m) Propulsion System: 2 � KN-3 water pressurized nuclear reactors 2 � oil fired high pressure boilers 2 � GT3A-688 geared steam turbines 70,000 hp (52 MW) each Two shafts with fixed pitch propellers Performance: Power: 140,000 hp (104 MW) Maximum speed: 30 to 32 knots (56 to 59 km/h) Endurance: 1000 nautical miles (1,852 km) at full speed Weapon Systems Guns 2 � 100 mm/59 cal AK-100 (Kirov) 1 � twin 130mm AK-130 AK-360 30mm rotary cannons as the CIWS system Missiles Surface-to-air missiles: 2 � twin retractable SA-N-4 Gecko missiles twin launchers 12-cell VLS for SA-N-6 Grumble missiles Surface-to-surface missiles: VLS for SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles Anti-submarine warfare 1 � twin cylinder launcher for SS-N-14 Silex missiles Torpedoes: 10 � 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes. Electronic Systems Radar: Voskhod MR-800 (Top Pair) 3D search radar on foremast Fregat MR-710 (Top Steer) 3D search radar on main mast 2 � Palm Frond navigation radar on foremast 2 � Top Dome for SA-N-6 fire control 4 � Bass Tilt for AK-360 CIWS System fire control 2 � Eye Bowl for SA-N-4 fire control Sonar: Horse Tail VDS (Variable Deep Sonar) Aircraft: 3 � Kamov Ka-27 "Helix" stored in a below-deck hangar at the stern Crew: Ship's complement: 727 Aircrew: 18 Flag staff: 15

rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:11:44 AM)
quote: The Russkies had - and I believe still have - nuclear powered battlecruisers, the Kirov class. No armour, but a big dreadnought size asskicker loaded down with missiles. They might have them, but they scrapped a lot of their "prestiege" ships. I don't think they were in service. I'll have to check on this...

pompack -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:13:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy quote: GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil A free fall bomb that only is receiving telemtry and adjusting fins is almost undetectable and impossible by most standards to shoot down.. How can you justify this statment? You jam the signal, it's a falling rock. Hard to jam from below, but a piece of cake if you want to put enough effort into the game to put a very large antenna and a decent power supply into geo orbit. If the antenna is large enough, you could put your power into a VERY small ground footprint; not even provacative, no out of control airliners, lost tourists or other collateral damage outside of a small area. Not a technically demanding task, just VERY expensive.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875