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

Lord_Calidor -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 10:59:32 AM)

Morale effect of any warship popping up in enemy territory shouldn't be underestimated.

I remember some 14 years ago, during the war in Balkan, 2 Yugoslav destroyers showed up in 2 instances in front of a Split city, or 3 patrol gunboats in front of Rijeka city, both Croatian. Although their firepower was almost negligable, morale effect they caused among that cities' civilians and military was tremendeous. Croatian Army started to pull artillery elements of nearby brigades defending inland areas from heavy land attacks just to counter the warships, and seriously weakend that fronts. Only when the ships retreated, guns were sent back. It was by pure luck and quite chaotic command structure in Yugoslav Army/Serbian paramilitary units that they didn't execute simultaneous attack by land & sea.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 1:59:28 PM)

I believe this document is of relevance. Apparently extended range 5 inch guns, not yet developed and delayed since 2001, are supposed to fill the gap until around 2018...

If I were a US Marine, I'd be hopping mad.

Steve.



barbarrossa -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 3:11:59 PM)

As a former main battery FC and plankowner of Wisconsin 1987-88, I'll chime in on some stuff I saw as I glanced through the thread. Nice to be back I'll add. Love the 1.4 patch, BTW.

As much as I love the Iowas, bringing them back into service really isn't feasable either cost-wise or combat wise.

There's the fuel problem --- nothing in the fleet uses the type of fuel an Iowa uses anymore. Everything now is either nuc or GSE. So you'd have to have an oiler dedicated to just this one ship class -- not very practical.

There's the size of the crew --- about 1500. That's 1500 to service (in '80's configuration) 16 Harpoons, 32 Tomahawks, about 1000 or so 16" rounds and a whole bunch of 5" rounds and that's it.

The ABL's (armored box launcher) used on BB's isn't even in the fleet anymore, so you'd have to have dedicated support for those. I think the vertically-launched T-hawk birds are different from ABL-launched birds too. Again, more assets dedicated to this one class of ship.

A couple of things you might not know about the 16" ordinance. The projectiles (AP 2700 lbs. HE 1800 lbs) and the powder, all date from WW2. They weren't made during reactivation and service in the '80's, but rather utilized from stores. The powder bags themselves were new, but not the powder grains.

The fuzes are in the nose of the projectiles, you arm them with a screwdriver.

The primer charge that fires the gun looks like and is about the same size as a 4-10 shotgun shell.

The 5" guns are actually louder and more unpleasant to the ear than the main battery.

A few tidbits......



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 3:37:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


[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.[:-]


Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel instead of waffling?[:D]



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 3:52:12 PM)

quote:

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?


Well, given previous quoted 17,500 pounds/sortie figure - vs. 9 x 2700 x 10 salvoes = about 14 sorties, less if we park the carrier just off the coast and put on a heavy load.

Despite the claimed "pinpoint accuracy" of the 16" shells - they don't all wind up hitting at the exact same spot, and when firing inland in Lebanon, they often came nowhere near the enemy, as demonstrated by reports from bitter Lebanese civilians and footage showing new "swimming pools" out in the middle of an empty field (and not anywhere near the fighting). How many new El Qaida members were created by this action. Who knows?



quote:

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


First of all, the statement was made that nothing can stop the 16" shell ("no countermeasures") - so now that it is shown that maybe something CAN stop the 16" shell, the cry goes up, "Yeah, but there would be too many to stop". This seems like a fruitless argument. I could reply that you don't need to stop every shell, just the ones about to hit your ship, but i won't say this.[:'(]


quote:

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.


True enough. No need to put an AP (including shaped charged) warhead on a missile today (unless you count torpedoes as missiles), since no one bothers with much armor. However, if someone fielded a BB, it would be a simple matter to produce such a warhead (not really high tech, nor hard to make).

However, you don't really need that - you can use napalm or a FAE (Fuel Air Explosive). The vulnerability of the BB to these has been pointed out numerous times in the professional naval literature (well, USN Proceedings, anyway).



barbarrossa -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 5:04:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


[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.[:-]


Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel instead of waffling?[:D]



Actually, all 4 were recommissoned in the '80's.



barbarrossa -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 5:44:04 PM)





quote:

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


quote:

First of all, the statement was made that nothing can stop the 16" shell ("no countermeasures") - so now that it is shown that maybe something CAN stop the 16" shell, the cry goes up, "Yeah, but there would be too many to stop". This seems like a fruitless argument. I could reply that you don't need to stop every shell, just the ones about to hit your ship, but i won't say this.[:'(]



The IV (intial velocity) of a 16" projectile was roughly anywhere between 2200 feet per second to 2500 fps depending on the powder charge being used and the projectile (AP or HE). Do the math to calculate MPH.

IMHO I don't think it's realistic to think that CWIS, Sparrow or any other point defense system could successfully engage an incoming 16" round.

It would be hard enough to lock on to something as small as a 16" round then factor in the fact that it is travelling at such a high rate of speed then factor in that it was fired less than 23 miles away. I don't think it possible to get a good enough fire control solution for successful intercept.

I've been out of the FC world for a long time, but I don't think it's feesable.[:)]

I'd be more worried about the Harpoons anyway![:D]




rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 6:18:14 PM)

quote:

The IV (intial velocity) of a 16" projectile was roughly anywhere between 2200 feet per second to 2500 fps depending on the powder charge being used and the projectile (AP or HE). Do the math to calculate MPH.


Yeah - but you don't intercept a projectile at initial velocity - you intercept it after its gone several miles (hopefully, or else you don't have enough time to intercept!) I have seen statements that this velocity is around 1000 mph. At least one British DD engaging Scharnhorst was able to use its radar to dodge several salvoes of 11" shells mentioned that they travelled at about this speed. Iirc, i have seen other mention of speeds in the 1000 mph range. Flight time over 20 miles of a salvo is something like 45 seconds (don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head) which gives a first order approximation AVERAGE velocity of 1600 mph (not counting the exact arc or the curve of the shell, etc) , so the shell is likely to be travelling rather slower than that towards the end of the trajectory since it starts out at about 2 miles/sec = 7200 mph.

EDIT - IIRC, various CIWS like Phalanx, Goalkeeper, etc. were designed to cope with threats in that range of speeds (ie - some supersonic (c. 1000-1200 mph) Soviet antiship missiles).



tsimmonds -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 6:34:31 PM)

If the fire is at long range (plunging), the shell will be accelerating again as it nears its target.

If you are talking about using a point defense system, chances are you are near (or on!) the shell's target. Good news for fire control solution - no deflection! Bad news for other reasons.[X(]



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 6:41:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

If the fire is at long range (plunging), the shell will be accelerating again as it nears its target.

If you are talking about using a point defense system, chances are you are near (or on!) the shell's target. Good news for fire control solution - no deflection! Bad news for other reasons.[X(]


True enough - but the only figures i've ever seen for a BB shell at the end of its trajectory is in the 1000 mph range. Anyone have any other numbers?[&:]


EDIT - PS - the British DD that was dodging the Scharnhorst's shell eventually got tagged, which killed at least part of the radar crew, ending that "experiment". I think the ship survived, though.



barbarrossa -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 6:45:35 PM)

We could argue all day about this, but I don't really believe you could shoot a 16" projectile out of the sky.

A 16" round is considerably smaller than any Soviet made CV-killer bird and has a completely different path while in flight. Not to mention these Soviet birds are standoff weapons mostly fired from A/C so they can be detected at a much greater range.

A 16" round is small by comparison, has low flight trajectory, short range and is coming at you in one heck of a hurry. I don't think you can acquire it much less track it to successful engagment.

I think it's a pipe dream.

But fun discussion[:)]






rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 6:57:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

We could argue all day about this, but I don't really believe you could shoot a 16" projectile out of the sky.

A 16" round is considerably smaller than any Soviet made CV-killer bird and has a completely different path while in flight. Not to mention these Soviet birds are standoff weapons mostly fired from A/C so they can be detected at a much greater range.

A 16" round is small by comparison, has low flight trajectory, short range and is coming at you in one heck of a hurry. I don't think you can acquire it much less track it to successful engagment.

I think it's a pipe dream.

But fun discussion[:)]






[sm=duel.gif] Well, the CIWS don't really have a long-range detection radar - they are designed for close in stuff. And presumably you know where the shells from a BB are coming from so you can have your guns pointed in the right general directions.

Shells are smaller: true.

Not sure about the trajectory of the CVN-killers. Some are/were low trajectory, but i think some had "popup" capabilities. Others were high trajectory. BB shells could be low-trajectory (close in work) but more likely you are going to be after high-trajectory plunging fire - at least for a while before the BB can get close. If a BB is 2000 yards off, you are most likely toast, as there is probably not enough time to react and engage 9 (less misses) different projectiles in the 2-3 seconds or so before impact.



barbarrossa -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 7:12:25 PM)










quote:


[sm=duel.gif] Well, the CIWS don't really have a long-range detection radar - they are designed for close in stuff. And presumably you know where the shells from a BB are coming from so you can have your guns pointed in the right general directions.


To be honest, having "your guns pointed in the right general direction" doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in this old FC.[:)]

Another thing I thought of that would be an obstacle to hitting a 16" round would be the limited engagement range of those Vulcan gatlings. Combine this short range with the velocity of the incoming round and you have a window of hitting the incoming round of probably a few tenths of a second or so. Maybe at most one or two seconds at the most.

At least no one's claimed AEGIS can do it.......yet![:D]



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 7:25:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa










quote:


[sm=duel.gif] Well, the CIWS don't really have a long-range detection radar - they are designed for close in stuff. And presumably you know where the shells from a BB are coming from so you can have your guns pointed in the right general directions.


To be honest, having "your guns pointed in the right general direction" doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in this old FC.[:)]

Another thing I thought of that would be an obstacle to hitting a 16" round would be the limited engagement range of those Vulcan gatlings. Combine this short range with the velocity of the incoming round and you have a window of hitting the incoming round of probably a few tenths of a second or so. Maybe at most one or two seconds at the most.

At least no one's claimed AEGIS can do it.......yet![:D]



I agree Vulcan 20 mm probably isn't up to the job. The 30 mm goalkeeper might be. The Sea Sparrow and similar missile CIWS should have sufficient range and time (with 30-45 seconds reaction time at long range.) The CIWS are designed to have reaction times in the few seconds range. I had a friend that helped engineer the original Phalanyx, and he said it scared the heck out of you when it moved so fast (even if it didn't fire) in auto-reaction mode. So it might have enough time to react. We still need live fire testing![:D]

Again - i agree, at close range, you are probably toast. You might get one shell per CIWS, (if you are very lucky). Once they start landing aboard, it is time to think about remembering all your abandoning ship drills...



ChezDaJez -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 7:25:45 PM)

quote:

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!


The Viking can't hold a candle to a P-3 or any allied ASW aircraft for that matter. The OL-82 Acoustic suite was garbage from the moment it came out. It had a very crappy display and the operator would have to get out of his ejection seat and reseat all the computer cards after a cat shot. That's one of the reasons many S-3s have been converted to other tasks such as aerial refueling and electronic countermeasures. However, they are very good at surface surveillance with the APS-137 ISAR radar.

Our CVs now rely more on the helo than the S-3 for intrinsic fleet ASW defense. Two helos on top a sub spells very bad news for that sub. One maintains contact, the other attacks. They swap back and forth. Using sonobuoys and dipping sonar, the helo crews will have quite a few silohuettes painted on their aircraft by the time the shooting stops.

The P-3 is great platform for longe-range ASW and interdiction in the open ocean but its pretty defenseless against any kind of opposition. Flare dispensers, electronic and infrared jamming systems can be quickly installed but still, its not very survivable in opposed air space. We lost 2 P-3s in Viet Nam to enemy fire because they were tasked to recon sampams and the like. In fact, the Defensive Air Combat Maneuvering (DACM) manual used to state the best defense for a P-3 against a fighter was to get very low, very slow, and turn like a raped ape. The theory was that a fighter would use his guns instead of wasting a missile against us. And there is some credibility to that as the P-3 can out turn many fighters under those conditions. The manual also recommended, that when faced with 2 fighters, the P-3 crews should consider intentional ditching!!! Now, that would be one helluva way to fight a war!

Chez



barbarrossa -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 7:40:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso












quote:


I agree Vulcan 20 mm probably isn't up to the job. The 30 mm goalkeeper might be. The Sea Sparrow and similar missile CIWS should have sufficient range and time (with 30-45 seconds reaction time at long range.) The CIWS are designed to have reaction times in the few seconds range. I had a friend that helped engineer the original Phalanyx, and he said it scared the heck out of you when it moved so fast (even if it didn't fire) in auto-reaction mode. So it might have enough time to react. We still need live fire testing![:D]

Again - i agree, at close range, you are probably toast. You might get one shell per CIWS, (if you are very lucky). Once they start landing aboard, it is time to think about remembering all your abandoning ship drills...


During sea trials on Wisconsin we had a CIWS gun shoot at a towed drone. Those mounts were pretty wicked in thier movements when they lock on to the target. I know I slept better knowing they were aboard. When they fire it sounds like a chainsaw. A very loud chainsaw[:D].

I don't know too much about the Goalkeeper system. The radome over the radar and the director mount resemble the AN/SPG-55B radar (Terrier) I worked on after my stint on the Wisconsin though.









ChezDaJez -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 8:45:56 PM)

quote:

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".


I didn't mean to imply that the Ohios create black holes of sound in the ocean. They can be quieter than the ambient noise sometimes but it depends upon the oceanographic conditions and their operating mode. Its more like me trying to hear my TV over my daughter's stereo. When she goes to bed, the ambient noise levels drop so I can hear my TV better.

My experience with acoustic computer analysis is that they aren't worth squat. Today's computers aren't capable of the kind of AI required to extract submarine sound signatures from ambient noise. Its kind of like asking a computer to analyze a Van Gogh painting and come up with a realistic interpretation. It might surprise you to know that the UYS-1 acoustic system has less than 1 meg of memory to store all the programs required and it doesn't use a harddrive, it uses VHS size casettes to load programs. The P-3C central computer, the CP-901, had 64K (thats kilobytes) of memory (My 1983 APPLE IIE had more) until less than 10 years ago and used 1/4" magnetic tape to load and save computer data. They've replaced the CP-901 now but I'm not sure what specs the new system has but I'ld bet you a dollar that a generic desktop comptuer has more memory.

Computers can alert you to the presence of high-interest frequencys that you have told it to look for but the operator must still analyze the characterisitics of the signal. Are they it broad and diffused, is it discrete, is it stable or unstable, does it show short term or long term transient effects, do they harmonically relate, is there a gear reduction relationship? Thats just scratching the surface of acoustic analysis. Some of the characterisitcs are temporary due to differing oceanographic profiles that can change in an instant. For example, a sub going from deep water to a continental shelf or entering a current like the Gulf stream can play havoc on signal characterisitics. Computers as yet, can't follow that.

The Navy has been working on other detection systems but they haven't really been able to find one that contains all the answers yet. Blue-green lasers did hold some promise too but there are too many limitations for practical employment. The Soviets were actually pretty far ahead of us in this endeavor but haven't been able to resolve atmospheric problems either. Acoustic systems have pretty much reached their zenith against targets whose sound properties are at or below the ambient noise. That's why the Navy has been testing LFA systems the last few years. The P-3's are also testing a similar system called Explosive Echo Ranging (EER). These are basically nothing more than superloud active sonar systems. These systems light everything in the ocean up for long distances so I doubt that they will be the best answer, especially given the environmental concerns over whales and other oceanic mammals.

Chez




rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 9:00:18 PM)

Don't misunderstand me. These aren't looking for sub noises, rather the computer software looks for "acoustic shadows". Apparently dolphins, and whales are capable of doing this (even without the "cliks" they produce) at least some times. (Maybe other animals too, i disremember).

Current computers are capable of doing this (apparently) - but only the very large supercomputers under experimental conditions. So the Ohios are safe for now. However, given the exponential growth of computer power, who knows how long this will last?

PS - I've only read this in the scientific literature, not military. So, probably the Navy guys aren't advertising anything.



ChezDaJez -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 9:23:25 PM)

quote:

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?


Yes, those 16" shells can be very effective against an enemy who does not possess the means to engage these ships.

But these ships have to operate within 10 miles of a coast to be effective. In many places of the world, that means shallow waters... ideal environments for today's diesel subs and mine warfare. Plus, the Iowas do not possess sufficient anti-air defenses to operate alone so they would need escorts, not just for air defense but for ASW work also. These escorts are much more vulnerable to surface-surface missiles and air-surface weaponry than is the Iowa, given their lack of armor. Most of these missiles far outrange Iowas guns so she would have to run a gauntlet just to get into position to use those guns. Salvos of antiradar missiles and surface-surface missiles are bound to have an impact sooner or later, either by attriting the escorts or by knocking out Iowa's systems required to direct the gunfire. Countries like China and Korea have hundreds, if not thousands of them. These missiles may not be state-of-the-art but gsooner or later, some are bound to hit. And this doesn't include the hundreds of aircraft available for attack either.

The enemy would do everything in their power to destroy or severely damage one of them. Just the impact to our national physche of seeing the USS New Jersey damaged or sinking would be enough justify the enemy's efforts.

In my opinion, the Iowas best use, naval bombardment, is not necessary unless you plan on invading. Aircraft and Tomahawk missiles can achieve the type of damage to an enemy's infrastructure at much greater distances and more cost effectively than a platform carrying 16" guns.

The Iowas are beautiful, impressive ships but their day in the sun is gone. We didn't need them for Lebanon or for Desert Storm though they did demonstrate some usefulness.

Anyways, just my opinion.

Chez



ChezDaJez -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 9:52:27 PM)

quote:

Current computers are capable of doing this (apparently) - but only the very large supercomputers under experimental conditions. So the Ohios are safe for now. However, given the exponential growth of computer power, who knows how long this will last?


I've been out of ASW for 7 years now so it wouldn't surprise if they've come across something that will do the job. I was out of the loop for 4 years when I did a shore duty tour as a Navy recruiter and was quite surprised at some of the changes that had occurred during that time.

As far as military hardware goes, the actual technology is old. Most of the stuff being used now has a design and development time of 5-10 years before introduction to the fleet, and once there, the likelyhood of it being upgraded anytime soon is a joke. Its like the UYS-1 Single aAdvanced Sensor Processor (SASP). It had been in development for over 10 years before it hit the fleet in 1985 and it had major software issues when it did. It was originally designed to have two seperate acoustic processors but cost cutting eliminated one with the result that 2 operators were using one processor simultaneoulsy. It was a royal pain as there wasn't enough memory available to load all the functions you needed at once. It would be like hooking up 2 monitors and 2 keyboards to your home computer and trying to play a game while someone else is playing a different game.

Its been my experience that very few new systems arriving in the fleet are ready to go straight out of the box, very analogous to WitP actually!

Chez



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 10:11:59 PM)

quote:

Its been my experience that very few new systems arriving in the fleet are ready to go straight out of the box, very analogous to WitP actually!

Chez


[:D][:D]



wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 10:16:10 PM)

I understood that even the much admired AEGIS cruisers are only equiped with computers equially to the 386/486 type's
Some parts of the " ultra high tech" F22 Raptor aren't even made anny more...............



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/22/2005 11:05:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

I understood that even the much admired AEGIS cruisers are only equiped with computers equially to the 386/486 type's
Some parts of the " ultra high tech" F22 Raptor aren't even made anny more...............


Not terribly surprising. This stuff is (supposedly) strictly for the military, so it is going to lag behind what's available. They (again, supposedly) don't want to use off-the-shelf stuff because of vulnerability to hackers (from what i've read).

Sort of reminds me of when i got my first 386 computer with a WORM drive. I had more computing power, speed, storage, and memory than the hospital i worked at had in their central system. Course, they paid something like $1 mill+ when they had gotten it 5 or 6 years before... [X(][8|][:D]



Knavey -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/23/2005 2:01:29 AM)

It was my understanding when on CVN-71 that our CIWS were not particularly effective at destroying incoming objects (missles or whatever). They were just there to put up that wall of depleted uranium shells in hopes that one would make contact with the object that was bent on our destruction. The reasoning was that the kinetic energy imparted by the depleted uranium shell would nudge the object away from its intended trajectory, thus missing my ship.

And so, I would guess that there would be A CHANCE that you could make that 16" round miss its target. After all, those things shoot 3k? rounds a minute. Thats a pretty effective wall.

The sweetest thing is though, that I never, ever, ever had to worry about that...[:D]...after all, the BBs were on MY side when I was sailing around.




rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/23/2005 4:15:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

It was my understanding when on CVN-71 that our CIWS were not particularly effective at destroying incoming objects (missles or whatever). They were just there to put up that wall of depleted uranium shells in hopes that one would make contact with the object that was bent on our destruction. The reasoning was that the kinetic energy imparted by the depleted uranium shell would nudge the object away from its intended trajectory, thus missing my ship.

And so, I would guess that there would be A CHANCE that you could make that 16" round miss its target. After all, those things shoot 3k? rounds a minute. Thats a pretty effective wall.

The sweetest thing is though, that I never, ever, ever had to worry about that...[:D]...after all, the BBs were on MY side when I was sailing around.




I dunno about that course deflection business. If that is how it worked, a 20 mm shell is not going to deflect much of anything with much mass - be it BB round, missile, airplane, etc. I bet it is designed to punch through something, causing/hastening its destruction.



Knavey -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/23/2005 4:22:36 AM)

"The intent is to destroy the warhead on incoming missile. As a secondary measure, should it fail to hit the warhead, CIWS's rate of fire is intended to blow holes in the missile body, causing it to break up in air. "

Just found this statements at this link. CIWS

Pretty interesting reading.



Knavey -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/23/2005 4:35:16 AM)

Try this one on for size!

[image]local://upfiles/7595/EE8751CB7B1745AE8AFD10EC758C1E86.jpg[/image]



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/23/2005 4:45:55 AM)

Thanks for the link. Alas, nothing about range or speeds of missiles it can intercept. Guess they don't want to give away all their secrets on the web![8D][:D]



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/23/2005 4:49:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Try this one on for size!

[image]local://upfiles/7595/EE8751CB7B1745AE8AFD10EC758C1E86.jpg[/image]

You missed![X(][:D]



wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/23/2005 11:03:10 AM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

It was my understanding when on CVN-71 that our CIWS were not particularly effective at destroying incoming objects (missles or whatever). They were just there to put up that wall of depleted uranium shells in hopes that one would make contact with the object that was bent on our destruction. The reasoning was that the kinetic energy imparted by the depleted uranium shell would nudge the object away from its intended trajectory, thus missing my ship.

And so, I would guess that there would be A CHANCE that you could make that 16" round miss its target. After all, those things shoot 3k? rounds a minute. Thats a pretty effective wall.

The sweetest thing is though, that I never, ever, ever had to worry about that... ...after all, the BBs were on MY side when I was sailing around.




I dunno about that course deflection business. If that is how it worked, a 20 mm shell is not going to deflect much of anything with much mass - be it BB round, missile, airplane, etc. I bet it is designed to punch through something, causing/hastening its destruction.





A big drawback of a 20 mm CIWS is the lack of a proximity fuse for your shells, that's why the 30mm "goalkeeper” was developed. Its shells carry a proximity fuse and "special" high fragmentational shells………



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5