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

Iridium -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:13:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

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


This class has been decomissioned if memory serves. Too much money for the Russians to keep in action. I'd have given it more of an umph in the gun catagory but a nice design though.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:14:04 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.



The Kirov class ships even had an OLYMPIC SIZED SWIMMING POOL on board, so much room was in those ships [&o][&o][&o][&o]



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:22:37 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.


Just did a search.

What they have right now: maybe the Petr Velikiy. Everything else but Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) is gone.

As of early 2004 the Admiral Nakhimov was undergoing repairs at Sevmash. Its overhaul is due to be completed in 2007. However, the Russians have had a really hard time of getting stuff out of the yards, and i'm guessing its at least even money she'll never go to sea again.

Petr Velikiy was said to be in bad shape. "Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said the massive cruiser had been badly maintained and could "explode any moment", adding that "it's especially dangerous because it has a nuclear reactor". Just three hours later, however, Kuroyedov retracted his ominous statement, saying he had been misunderstood by the media. "There is no threat whatsoever to the ship's nuclear safety," he said in a statement. "

The rest of the post was somewhat confusing, saying she had gone in for repairs in April 2004. The post was unclear (to me) whether the ship should have been or actually was repaired by August 2004.





DeepSix -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:26:59 AM)

Yet another article (this one's on the DD(X)): http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050419/ZNYT01/504190698

Not discounting the usefulness of such a ship, but reactivating 2 Iowas might still be cheaper than the 5 DD(X)s now on order.

And just playing devil's advocate - A Korean conflict could be fought in mountainous terrain, where air strikes would be more difficult. Plus, N. Korea has lots of artillery and the bulk of its forces are stationed close to the DMZ, if memory serves, thus leaving "us" with little warning in advance of an attack. Wouldn't even 1 BB in theatre amount to a significant deterrent?



Greyshaft -> Intercepting gunfire with missiles (4/21/2005 12:32:29 AM)

I thought the British navy did some tests 10-15 years ago where their sea dart missiles were fired against incoming shells. The intercepts worked but it was kinda expensive. Missiles cost a heck of a lot more than shells.



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:43:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

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





Looks more like a 12" model.[:D]



Tom Hunter -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 12:50:16 AM)

For a long time, from 1910 to the 1990s a BB could put more heavy ordinance on target more accurately than anything else.

Technology finally caught up with them when Cruise Missles, GPS and Laser Guided bombs all became commonly available. Now you can actually put something bigger than a 16" shell on a very small target, you can do it around the world and you can do it pretty much as many times as you like, if your American.

In the 80s I was a big fan of reviveing them because though expensive they really did do something that no other weapon system can do. But now they just don't make much sense, because they do what the laser guided bombs and GPS guided cruise missels do, but they don't do it as well and they cost much more.

If you want to bring back something beautiful that can kill people under the right circumstances put the sails back on the Constitution, its much prettier, and round shot would be a real suprise in todays battlefield environment.



freeboy -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 1:41:28 AM)

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.

gps, interesting and probably classified.. short of killing the satilites it would seems much easier to evade these type of counter measures imo



pompack -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 2:05:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

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.

gps, interesting and probably classified.. short of killing the satilites it would seems much easier to evade these type of counter measures imo



GPS really isn't even classified. There used to be a "war reserve mode" that encrypted the signal, but the trouble has become the extreme civilian use of the signals; encrypting them would be a really bad hit to the civilian economy now. There is some effort by non-US orgs to find ways to jam the signal and some really classified US work to keep our own mil systems from being jammed.



byron13 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 2:11:01 AM)

For those interested and technically oriented, which isn't me, here is a document from the internet that interesting:

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR614/MR614.sec3.pdf#search='gps%20and%20jamming'

Scary what you can find online. Didn't see a date on it, though it looks to be pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom. Being dated, I'm sure technology has progressed on both sides.



ChezDaJez -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 2:28:00 AM)

ASW is something that the US Navy excels at. No other navy, with the exception of the Brits (Aussies included), comes close. During the 1980's, estimates were that 75% of all Soviet nuclear submarines at sea would be on the bottom within 24 hours. Between our P-3s and SSNs, the enemy nucs hardly has a chance. Diesel subs are a different story. They can be very difficult to find, much harder than a nuc when submerged. For diesels, I'ld have to give a nod to the German air ASW forces. They are very good in the Baltic.

It used to be that Soviet nucs were once easy to find easier to track due to their noisiness. I will say that the Russians have made some pretty good advances in their sub quieting techniques (Thank you, Mr. John Walker). The Akula II is one formidible sub but it is still not at the level of ours.

I used to hate flying against our Ohios on training missions. I swear those subs are a black hole in the sea. It seems the best way to find them is to look where there isn't any noise because they are absorbing it all!

Chez



freeboy -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 2:35:57 AM)

quote:

GPS really isn't even classified. There used to be a "war reserve mode" that encrypted the signal, but the trouble has become the extreme civilian use of the signals; encrypting them would be a really bad hit to the civilian economy now. There is some effort by non-US orgs to find ways to jam the signal and some really classified US work to keep our own mil systems from being jammed


I just do not believe that there is not a new "secret" signal.. remember .. I can always change freq on these guys.. and if it was a WW# sit.. then good luck keeping up is all I am trying to say!



byron13 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 5:42:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ASW is something that the US Navy excels at. No other navy, with the exception of the Brits (Aussies included), comes close. During the 1980's, estimates were that 75% of all Soviet nuclear submarines at sea would be on the bottom within 24 hours. Between our P-3s and SSNs, the enemy nucs hardly has a chance. Diesel subs are a different story. They can be very difficult to find, much harder than a nuc when submerged. For diesels, I'ld have to give a nod to the German air ASW forces. They are very good in the Baltic.

It used to be that Soviet nucs were once easy to find easier to track due to their noisiness. I will say that the Russians have made some pretty good advances in their sub quieting techniques (Thank you, Mr. John Walker). The Akula II is one formidible sub but it is still not at the level of ours.

I used to hate flying against our Ohios on training missions. I swear those subs are a black hole in the sea. It seems the best way to find them is to look where there isn't any noise because they are absorbing it all!

Chez


For some reason, I seem to be focusing today on a conflict with China. I do believe that, if we had sufficient warning to gather the herd, the SSNs could keep the Formosa Strait clear of subs that would threaten my dear BBs. As for the P3s and S3s, I wouldn't want to be working the Formosa Straits when the balloon went up. Likely to be a little too hot for my taste.

PS: How does the Viking stack up against the Orion in its raw ability to find and destroy subs? My dad was in one of the first P3 squadrons formed in '62 or '63!



Cutman -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 6:51:28 AM)

I have been briefed/heard that the satelites can be jammed pretty easily. The satelites do not put out that much power and they have been around for awhile which makes there capabilities well known.

Cutman



Bobthehatchit -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 3:01:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cutman

I have been briefed/heard that the satelites can be jammed pretty easily. The satelites do not put out that much power and they have been around for awhile which makes there capabilities well known.

Cutman


Imho would be better to build several 6" or 8" gun type cruisers with maybe 2 or three double or triple fast firing auto loading type guns, plus the usual air diffence systems and maybe cruise missiles as well. Cheaper to build, crew and maintain.

How much damage would several modern wire guilded torps do to and iowa.....



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 4:00:56 PM)

quote:

I used to hate flying against our Ohios on training missions. I swear those subs are a black hole in the sea. It seems the best way to find them is to look where there isn't any noise because they are absorbing it all!


The Ohios are quite literally quieter than the ocean they are operating in - i.e. - measure amount of noise coming from equivalent volume of ocean, the Ohios produce less noise.

However, that does not mean they can not be picked up by passive measures. You have come close to describing the new technology: new advances allow analysis of "noise shadowing". You can sort of experience this if you are walking through a darkened house, and get close to something large (and quiet). Suddenly you know something is there because the background noises go away in the direction of the silent object. Computer analysis can use ambient ocean noise to act as an omnipresent "sonar".

So maybe the Ohios are TOO quiet.[:)]



waynec -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 5:22:37 PM)

quote:

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)


excuse me but being in high school in the '80s does not make you old.

quote:

What they have right now: maybe the Petr Velikiy. Everything else but Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) is gone.


i remember having an iowa class surface action group taking on a soviet kirov class surface action group playing HARPOON when it first came out.

[image]local://upfiles/6704/09B6654A146547B5B3D9639C01BD6921.gif[/image]



Nikademus -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 5:26:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: waynec
excuse me but being in high school in the '80s does not make you old.

[image]local://upfiles/6704/09B6654A146547B5B3D9639C01BD6921.gif[/image]


Tell that to my girlfriend. All i hear these days are old fart jokes...... [sm=00000028.gif]



Mr.Frag -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 5:33:21 PM)

quote:

Tell that to my girlfriend. All i hear these days are old fart jokes


Obviously time to trade her in for a younger model. [:D]



Nikademus -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 5:37:12 PM)

there's a scary thought, since she was probably combing the hair of My Little Pony dolls at around the time I wrote my term paper

[:'(]




ltfightr -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 9:19:59 PM)

"Obviously time to trade her in for a younger model. "

Always remember to trade a 40 in for 2 20's




Nikademus -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 9:24:05 PM)

I'm keeping this one. She actually knows where Port Morosby is and who fought WWII in the Pacific.



Rob322 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 9:28:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm keeping this one. She actually knows where Port Morosby is and who fought WWII in the Pacific.


Yeah but she'll probably argue with you on your troop placements. [:-]



Nikademus -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/21/2005 9:31:04 PM)

no fear of that.

When WitP pops up and its time to play/test......she rolls her eyes and mutters something that sounds suspiciously like:

boys and their toys......


Been getting that even more lately since my new Aleinware laptop arrived. Might have something to do with the soft coo'ing sounds i keep making while petting the top of it.

[;)]



PBYPilot -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 2:44:46 AM)

One idea that would meet the concerns of reduced operating costs while still providing 16 inch firepower would be to bring back the monitor. As much as I would hate to see one of the remaining Iowa's cut up, the turrets could provide for three gunfire support monitors (or two in the case of the Iowa).

You don't need a 33 knot 900 ft. long ship for this. It's not supposed to escort carriers or provide AAA anymore. It doesn't have to go up against a enemy battleline. A ship that could travel with the amphibious fleet at 20 knots would work fine.

And even the New Jersey, et al. very rarely fired a full broadside in post WWII gunfire support role. They would most often fire one to three shells at a time from a single turret.

A beamy, hardened, relatively shallow draft gunfire support monitor could do the job at much lower cost in manpower and supplies, remove the effort of supporting 60 year old engineering and even have some steathy design built-in. And still carry a "big stick" for when things had to be positively, absolutely destroyed ASAP.

PBYPilot



crsutton -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 3:00:24 AM)


[Totally useless in modern warfare. They recommissioned two in the 80s and it was a total waste of money and resources. They might as well take all that money, tie it up into bundles and shoot it at the enemy.[:-]



joliverlay -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 6:18:48 AM)

Regarding the idea that the recommissioning of the ships was a waste. Ask the marines what the response of the militia in Lebonon was when a single shell from that ship was fired on their positions. How many sorties do you think it would take by aircraft to deliver the ordinance of a 20 min bombardment by Iowa?

Mission? how much of the worlds industry is within 5-10 miles of the coast.

For those of you who say the shells could be shot down by phlanx or equivlanet, I would say, how many? A salvo of several shells fired over a few min. would be more difficult to stop.

The argument that they would be vulnerable to modern surface to surface missles. Are you kidding? These weapons dont carry the penetrating payload of 16 in shells. The Sheffiled was killed by SSMs that would not even damage Iowa.

A major SSM strike would likely have perhaps 30 missles in a salvo (from several ships or aircraft) which would then require significant reload.

The BBs have a mission. 1. Shore bombardment. 2. Absorb hits for the CV. If somone fires a slavo of ssm at a CV task force put the BB in the flight path and let her do her duty. There is even a good chance she will survive.

Yes they are old. But NOTHING in the modern fleets has a fraction of the resistance to moderns SSMs as a BB. Just make sure the task force is well escorted by SSNs.



Feinder -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 6:50:37 AM)

I almost wish I had the patience to read this thread.

When it all comes down to it, it's "cost effienciecy".

The cost of sending a BB anywhere is -very- expensive.

The technology is old. The engines are old. The guns are old. You're talking about everything from maintenance, to training issues, to the ratio of sailors to tonnage.

As far as how much "BOOM!" can you make? Yes, there's something really cool about watching that fire a broadside on CNN. Definately magnificent, and certainly not what you want to be on the recieving end of. But an airwing can deliver more ordinance, with much greater precision (albeit at greater local risk), than the a BB can.

But let's face it. Carriers give you much more bang for your buck. Even in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. What was the priority? BBs or CVs? CVs can simply deliver the good more effiently, and at better cost in resources (and cash), than a BB can.

I love to watch New Jersey blowing the hell out of stuff. But the simply truth is that, carriers are more effient at that deadly task.

-F-



joliverlay -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 7:01:12 AM)

Feinder

I think you are wrong about the ordinace delivered by an air wing compared to a battleship. I have seen studies of this, my recollection of this is that there is no comparison whatsoever, the BB can deliver much more tonnage in ordinace much faster and cheaper.

I belive that the shells from Iowa weigh something like 2000 lbs each, maybe more. Firing one gun every 6 mins (9 mins for three turrents) gives you 2000 lbs ordinace/min. In one hour thats 120,000 lbs. How quickly do you think you can turn a CV air wing around and fly to/from the target.

I expect that a modern heavy cruiser (with real armor) and autoloading 8" or 10" or 12" guns might be the way to go today, becuase of age etc. My post was in reference to the reactiviation of the BBs after WW2 and in the 80s.



Feinder -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 8:06:59 AM)

This site, seems to have do a bit of homework...

NavWeaps.Com

Don't get me wrong. NJ can do a LOT of damage. You're absolutely right, that's a LOT of tonnage to be throwing around. However, NJ carries about 130 round per gun. And then she goes home (and potentially a LONG way home, since it's not like there are stocks of 16" shells everywhere). And after about 300 rounds, she's spends time to replace her barrels. (this is where we further the discussion on cost/effiency). Even if she -could- keep up a sustained rate of fire like that, she's on station for 2 hours, and then goes home.


===

So now we move on CVN. CVW-8, is a typical airgroup that is deployed on board our Nimitz class carriers.

CVW-8 is comprised of
2x Sqdns of F-14s
2x Sqdns of F-18s
1x Sqdn of E-2
1x Sqdn of S-3

Assuming that everyone does their job, the F-14s flying CAP and escort. The E-2 flying command-n-contorol. The S-3 looking for subs (altho they're quite capable of delivering ordinance). That leave us with 2x Sqdns of F-18s that are used in the attack role. At 16 planes per squadron. That's 32 F-18s that we get to use to bomb stuff.

According to the USN, the payload of an F/A-18F is 17,750 pounds. We'll play nice and say that, even tho the mission is short-ranged (if NJ can stand 16 miles off coast, so can we), and we could thus carry more ordinance, we'll also carry anti-air missles to combat a potential air-to-air threat (altho if there -was- one, NJ would -NOT- be standing 16 miles from coast, rest assured). But to give as much pad as possible, we'll halve the payload, and call it 8000 lbs of ordinance per plane.

8000 x 32 = 256,000 pound of ordinance in about 6 minutes. We both know it wouldn't all be dumb-bombs. But let's again say, it's 80% dumb-bombs since we're being cost-effient about the whole thing. I'd bet those pilotss are skilled enough to get -all- of the ordinance within 250 yds of the target (compared the 14 of 15 accuracy of New Jersey, wich still -is- quite accurate mind you).

And then they fly home, and load up some more. They'll be back in a couple hours or less. Nothing needs swapping out. They just need more gas, and more bombs. And there's plenty more where that come from.

===

Now, it's not as simple as multipling the rate of fire times the shell weight. Or the payload times the aircraft. But either way, deploying aicraft is more accurate, more boom, and more cost effective.

-F-



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.34375