OT - Bringing back the battleship?

[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...

[Nikademus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.......................

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

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]

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.......................

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: DeepSix

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

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.