LaEscopeta
Member
Can those decks designed to keep out long-range shells also effectively protect against plane dropped bombs or guided ballistic missiles?
How accurate is your rifle at 34,000 yards?
- Thread starter Jenrick
- Start date
- Status
Selfforging munitions
Almost anything can be breached with the selfforging munitions being used against tanks. 17" of armor takes a little more, but it's doable.
In a sense, the weapon makes a low melting point eutectic out of the armor as it penetrates. With a shaped charge MOAB type device and some well designed "thermite", it should be doable.
This is a crude description of the technology. One wouldn't want to put real ideas in offshore heads.
Almost anything can be breached with the selfforging munitions being used against tanks. 17" of armor takes a little more, but it's doable.
In a sense, the weapon makes a low melting point eutectic out of the armor as it penetrates. With a shaped charge MOAB type device and some well designed "thermite", it should be doable.
This is a crude description of the technology. One wouldn't want to put real ideas in offshore heads.
moooose102
Member
every one of my firearms are 100% accurate at that range, as long as the target was "terra-firma"!
RonE
Member
I was fortunate to be able to see, in person the result of Naval Battleship bombardment from the jeep of the Navy FO. There was supposed to be a batallion of NVA in about 40 acres of palm trees. The FO directed fire to the effect that all of the palm trees were blown up, down and sideways. Then came the F-4's then the AD Skyraiders then the US Army and the ARVN's. After all that, there were still NVA that returned fire when our guys entered the area.
The 16" shelling was spectacular.
The 16" shelling was spectacular.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Yes. Armor-piercing gravity bombs dropped from high altitude were one of the things the engineers designed the protection around.
Most anti-ship missile warheads are not nearly as heavy or as penetrative as a 16" AP shell.
Regarding explosively formed penetrators, yes, an EFP could penetrate the armor, but would only result in a small penetration and localized damage on the far side. Big difference from exploding 500-1000lb of TNT on the far side of the armor. A tank interior is TINY, which is why a narrow EFP hole can take out a tank; a battleship, not so much.
Having said that---although an Iowa-class BB could take immensely more punishment than a current cruiser, the current cruiser would be FAR less likely to get hit in the first place, IMO, unless you removed a turret or two from the BB and replaced them with VLS cells and basically converted the ships to giant Aegis ships. The BB's pretty much had only close-in defense against ships and planes, and the CIWS would be easy to saturate with simultaneous attacks from multiple directions. An Aegis system could take out those threats before they got close.
Don't forget that an Aegis ship has the technical capability to shoot down an ICBM in space, as long as the software is coded to allow it to engage the target and the Standard missiles are configured for it.
And in a one-on-one fight with a BB, the Aegis ship could shoot down any BB shells that looked like they were going to hit, at least until it ran out of missiles. But the Aegis ship could engage the BB long before it got into gun range.
My understanding is that Missouri and New Jersey are done. They're still physically there, of course, but they are not being maintained in a manner that makes reactivation practical. Iowa is being stored in 'mothballs' and would be able to be reacticated, and everything needed to repair her #2 turret (the one that suffered the explosion during a gunnery exercise) is being stored in the turret itself. Wisconsin is also a museum ship, like her sisters, but is still being maintained in a manner that makes reactivation a possibility. If you go aboard her (I have), you can only get into a few above-deck spaces. The rest of the ship is sealed off to maintain a constant (low) humidity.
I'm not sure why Iowa was selected for retention in the reserve, but WisKy is a natural choice. She actually has very little uptime since being launched. Most of her time has been spent in reserve, and she has a LOT of life left in her.
Mike
Jenrick
Member
After checking my math I forgot to knock a couple of decimal places off, so 9.89 yds is a MOA at 34K yards.
On the whole issue of a BB in the moder navy:
A BB does one thing very well, and that's put fricking huge shells on targets close to 30 miles inland. It also does it FAR cheaper then a TLAM or other equivalent method of delivering HE (round vs missile; not launching platform). An A-6 can carry approximately 18K lbs of ordinance, roughly equivalent to a full 9 gun salvo from a BB. If the entire CVN airwing of 80+ aircraft is all A-6's that means a BB puts out as much iron in 40 minutes as the entire air wing can. For MUCH cheaper then it would cost to launch and operate that many aircraft. Additionally there's no risk to any aircrews etc.
I also suspect that a BB would be cheaper to maintain/operate then an Aegis cruiser, expecting the number of crew required. A ship made mostly of old school steel parts, with not a large amount of mechanization, automation, or other electronics doesn't break as often and is MUCH easier to repair. A new circuit board isn't something you can normally manufacture on board, wear as a bearing or other piece of metal can be made from raw stock if you know what your doing, a Chief can provide that knowledge
Secondly 99% of the nations we're going to deal with where a BB might be deployed are not going to have the ability to put 200 Backfire's in the air shooting Shipwreck missiles at once. 10-15 Exocets or Silkworms? Sure, that's what the rest of the task force is for, with the Aegis and Ticonderoga cruisers. I don't think anyone in the world (the US included) has a reliable method of stopping a BB's shells from landing on shore. How would have Mogadishu have turned out if a BB had been offshore as part of the task force, the ultimate in "gunboat diplomacy" ? The range of guns on board her would have allowed everything from 5" tactical bombardment, to 16" "might as well be a tac nuke" fire missions. Against a more modern opponent such as Libya or Iran, everything within 30 NM of the coast is in danger of being turned into a lumpy mass of dirt if need be to prevent them from lobbing ASM's at the TF.
Far as the submarine issue goes, that's what the Seawolf and Improved LA class subs are for. BB's don't operate solo, just like CVN's they are part of a much larger task force. CVN's and their air wing provide a long range very flexible force projection ability. A BB provides a shorter range lead pipe force projection ability. The rest of the TF is there to provide cover and support to perform that mission. A major TF/Battlegroup is going to have very little to fear from most of the worlds navies. The AA, ASW, and AASM ability of modern escort ships is superb, and combined with the ASW ability of the submarines that are attached there is little sub-surface to be feared as well.
-Jenrick
On the whole issue of a BB in the moder navy:
A BB does one thing very well, and that's put fricking huge shells on targets close to 30 miles inland. It also does it FAR cheaper then a TLAM or other equivalent method of delivering HE (round vs missile; not launching platform). An A-6 can carry approximately 18K lbs of ordinance, roughly equivalent to a full 9 gun salvo from a BB. If the entire CVN airwing of 80+ aircraft is all A-6's that means a BB puts out as much iron in 40 minutes as the entire air wing can. For MUCH cheaper then it would cost to launch and operate that many aircraft. Additionally there's no risk to any aircrews etc.
I also suspect that a BB would be cheaper to maintain/operate then an Aegis cruiser, expecting the number of crew required. A ship made mostly of old school steel parts, with not a large amount of mechanization, automation, or other electronics doesn't break as often and is MUCH easier to repair. A new circuit board isn't something you can normally manufacture on board, wear as a bearing or other piece of metal can be made from raw stock if you know what your doing, a Chief can provide that knowledge
Secondly 99% of the nations we're going to deal with where a BB might be deployed are not going to have the ability to put 200 Backfire's in the air shooting Shipwreck missiles at once. 10-15 Exocets or Silkworms? Sure, that's what the rest of the task force is for, with the Aegis and Ticonderoga cruisers. I don't think anyone in the world (the US included) has a reliable method of stopping a BB's shells from landing on shore. How would have Mogadishu have turned out if a BB had been offshore as part of the task force, the ultimate in "gunboat diplomacy" ? The range of guns on board her would have allowed everything from 5" tactical bombardment, to 16" "might as well be a tac nuke" fire missions. Against a more modern opponent such as Libya or Iran, everything within 30 NM of the coast is in danger of being turned into a lumpy mass of dirt if need be to prevent them from lobbing ASM's at the TF.
Far as the submarine issue goes, that's what the Seawolf and Improved LA class subs are for. BB's don't operate solo, just like CVN's they are part of a much larger task force. CVN's and their air wing provide a long range very flexible force projection ability. A BB provides a shorter range lead pipe force projection ability. The rest of the TF is there to provide cover and support to perform that mission. A major TF/Battlegroup is going to have very little to fear from most of the worlds navies. The AA, ASW, and AASM ability of modern escort ships is superb, and combined with the ASW ability of the submarines that are attached there is little sub-surface to be feared as well.
-Jenrick
Kind of Blued
Member
If this election goes in the crap shoot we should all pool our funds and buy a battleship.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, but did anyone figure out how many MOA is 220 yards at this range?
RX-178
Member
With all that's left of the next-generation warfleet procurement, we really might as well have refitted Iowa and WisKy.
Actually, thinking about what the Iowa Class hulls would be like with modern armaments, while still retaining their 16" cannons is pretty scary.
Replace the central turret with a VLS launcher. Replace the 5" gun turrets with those new 155mm AGS turrets.
Replace the existing Phalanx turrets with SeaRAM turrets (Phalanx combined with Rolling Airframe Missile launchers).
Replace the armored box launchers with... whatever else could go in that space.
Actually, thinking about what the Iowa Class hulls would be like with modern armaments, while still retaining their 16" cannons is pretty scary.
Replace the central turret with a VLS launcher. Replace the 5" gun turrets with those new 155mm AGS turrets.
Replace the existing Phalanx turrets with SeaRAM turrets (Phalanx combined with Rolling Airframe Missile launchers).
Replace the armored box launchers with... whatever else could go in that space.
LaEscopeta
Member
About 22 MOA.
SoCalShooter
Member
My mosin nagant can do that without a problem. Hell the bayonet reaches out that far.
Funderb
Member
^^ +1
but when hunting with the mosin, at what point does it just become "Bayonetting a deer"
but when hunting with the mosin, at what point does it just become "Bayonetting a deer"
KBintheSLC
Member
Does that come in a revolver package?
Jason M
Member
22.267206477732793522267206477733 MOA to be exact.
Still, a very impressive level of accuracy.
Jason
- Status
