More on BB vs DD(X)
- Thread starter 280PLUS
- Start date
- Status
rwc
Member
I had the same thought Preacherman did. Has anyone studied the Falklands war? That was the last serious naval engagement I can recall. The Brits did all right, but it cost them as I recall.
I know almost nothing about modern naval engagements, but it would seem that you wouldn't want to take a carrier group or any large ship anywhere near a shore that had a large number of dispersed anti-ship missles. Think Falluja for ships. To heck with controlling the shore, how do you keep every jihadi with an Avon, an Evinrude, and an Exocet from toasting your ship? I don't know the answer, just asking the question.
As for CAS, I had friends in the A-10 squadron at DMAFB outside Tucson. Their planes were slated for transfer "across the street" to the bone yard when GWI started. I've not heard anyone talk about ditching the Warthogs since. I imagine they'll be upgrading that platform until someone figures out how to give a Gunny control over a small squadron of UAVs that he can use to provide his own CAS. As I understand it the Marines are using UAVs now for scouting. Seems like just a medium step in budget and scale to rig an A-10 as a UAV and substitute more 20mm for the "bathtub."
I know almost nothing about modern naval engagements, but it would seem that you wouldn't want to take a carrier group or any large ship anywhere near a shore that had a large number of dispersed anti-ship missles. Think Falluja for ships. To heck with controlling the shore, how do you keep every jihadi with an Avon, an Evinrude, and an Exocet from toasting your ship? I don't know the answer, just asking the question.
As for CAS, I had friends in the A-10 squadron at DMAFB outside Tucson. Their planes were slated for transfer "across the street" to the bone yard when GWI started. I've not heard anyone talk about ditching the Warthogs since. I imagine they'll be upgrading that platform until someone figures out how to give a Gunny control over a small squadron of UAVs that he can use to provide his own CAS. As I understand it the Marines are using UAVs now for scouting. Seems like just a medium step in budget and scale to rig an A-10 as a UAV and substitute more 20mm for the "bathtub."
Last edited:
Preacherman
Member
Amen! Indeed they can - which is why CVN's and their battle groups don't get within a few hundred miles of an enemy shore, and try to keep their distance from naval opposition as well...
misANTHrope
Member
I have a feeling there are plenty of MMs around with steam plant experience who are nowhere near retirement. After all, someone's got to be running the plants on the LHA, LHD, and LCC-class ships, as well as the couple of CVs left running around. You could make the argument that most of those ships are older; indeed, the remaining CVs won't be around much longer. I can't find any prospective decomission info on the LCCs, but the Navy plans to SLEP the LHAs out to 2025-2030, and the LHDs are even newer and will last at least as long as the LHAs. LHD-7 was just commissioned in 2001, and will be around for awhile. Having spent some time on LHD-6, Bonhomme Richard, last summer, I can say with finality that there are plenty of young sailors about who can operate and maintain a oil-fired steam plant, and even play some pranks on clueless midshipmen while on duty.
280PLUS
Member
Yes, I believe there is a bucket of steam and some relative bearing grease in #1 fireroom waiting for you...
and could you pick up some batteries for the sound powered phones too, while you're at it?
oo-oo and some bulkhead remover and a SKY HOOK!
Just watch out for those pesky Sea bats!
Oh and most important of all! Beware those who are not Wogs!
on a more serious note, I recall seeing a film of an Exocet hitting a destroyer midships, afterward there was no midships the thing kept floating though...
Last edited:
armoredman
Member
You're a wog? Sorry....got my shellback in 88....
misANTHrope
Member
Yeah, I went out thinking I was ready for the pranks, expecting the mail bouy watch, the ID-10-T form, the relative bearing grease, etc. I thought I was prepared, and my superior situational awareness and engineering knowledge would protect me from any novel pranks.
Wrong.
I and two other mids are down in forward MMR (main machinery room) one day with a crusty old CWO doing safety checks, when he mentions in the most offhand manner that they got a new steam blanket in, had we seen it? Uh, no. Now, I'd never heard of such a thing, even during my shipoboard engineering classes, but for some reason I can't explain, I took it hook, line, and sinker. Oh, well the steam blanket is in the after MMR, and CWO needs it in forward, so we head back there. This involves climbing up four decks and back down again.
Back in after MMR, we're given this rolled-up piece of fiberglass matting. I'm starting to get a bit suspicious, but there's nothing to do now but roll with it. My suspicions grow tenfold when a petty officer down there takes a photo of the three clueless mids holding some random fiberglass matting. Eventually, we head back to forward MMR with the "steam blanket." Four decks up, four decks down. Hmm, CWO isn't present, but there is a general air of merriment. Oh, says a grinning fireman; he's up in the E-div office. Six decks up, we trek to the office, and there he is.
After a good round of laughter, it was all over.
Wrong.
I and two other mids are down in forward MMR (main machinery room) one day with a crusty old CWO doing safety checks, when he mentions in the most offhand manner that they got a new steam blanket in, had we seen it? Uh, no. Now, I'd never heard of such a thing, even during my shipoboard engineering classes, but for some reason I can't explain, I took it hook, line, and sinker. Oh, well the steam blanket is in the after MMR, and CWO needs it in forward, so we head back there. This involves climbing up four decks and back down again.
Back in after MMR, we're given this rolled-up piece of fiberglass matting. I'm starting to get a bit suspicious, but there's nothing to do now but roll with it. My suspicions grow tenfold when a petty officer down there takes a photo of the three clueless mids holding some random fiberglass matting. Eventually, we head back to forward MMR with the "steam blanket." Four decks up, four decks down. Hmm, CWO isn't present, but there is a general air of merriment. Oh, says a grinning fireman; he's up in the E-div office. Six decks up, we trek to the office, and there he is.
After a good round of laughter, it was all over.
280PLUS
Member
All I can tell you is that I am not a Wog...
Steam Blanket?
Actually that's one I don't recall, hmmmm
Steam Blanket?
Actually that's one I don't recall, hmmmm
richyoung
Member
A TOWED system? You've got to be kidding! It's life expectancy in a shooting war is minutes. I play OPFOR in an Army sim center, and the first thing that happens is I take out half of the M198s. Why only half? Because we are teaching artillery officers, and the exercise controllers stop me from killing the other half. Jane's Armor and Artillery 2004-2005 gives max range for the G5/52 with base-bleed as 40K (about a 20 pound explosive charge), with VLAP 50K. That VLAP projectile has a mere 8.3 kg explosive charge - not enough to hurt a BB, even if you could hit at max range, which you can't. There IS an experimental rocket-assisted VLAP round that WILL shoot to the 52k you reference...BUT it only has a 4.3 Kg charge - I'm sure you aren't seriously considering this as an anti-BB round??? The biggest round you can throw, the base-bleed at 40K, has only 20 pounds or so of TNT - equivalent to a 105mm howitzer or similar diameter mortar round. The rest are even less. The BB an sling its 16" rounds out to 48K+ -0 - FULL SIZE rounds. I know who's gonna win that counter-battery fight.
The beauty of a BB is it doesn't MATTER how many marshmallows you hurl at it - they have ALREADY demonstrated the ability to take a direct hit from an airplane travelling 400 MPH carrying a 1000lb bomb, with little damage. Nobody can aford to make "dozens of hits" with anything big enough to hurt a BB - you just aren't going to get "dozens of hits" with Silkworm class ASMs, and anything less, like an Exocet, isn;t going to do the job no matter how many you send.
...so we should scrap all those amphibious landing ships, etc? IF (and its a big if) we had to operate in such an environment, obviously some other system would have to suppressthe ASM sights,...hmmm, might be a good target for those Tomahawks, backed up by whatever extended range main gun ammo is adopted. If the Soviets can shoot down incoming ATGMS with active defense systems on tanks, a BB can carry an even more effective counter-system.
...and just WHO has this stuff fielded in the numbers you are talking about? I notice neither we nor any other navy is giving up their amphibious capability - under your scenario, such units also would be wipe dout.
If not the BB, then nobody. We lost a LOT more carriers in WWII than BBs.
Lotsa good points on both sides.
I think the either/or BB/DDX debate is somewhat miscast. They are different ships with different capabilities, some of which have been called out, and some of which overlap. A case can be made for both capability sets. Actual implementation of the BB' capabilities (and proposed BB capabilities) are relatively low-cost and low-risk.
The technologies being introduced for other arty systems could be used for the 16" guns
- GPS guidance
- Tri-mode seeker
- In-filght updates on target loc (for moving targets)/re-tasking
- Multiple, independant, guided, sub-munitions
There are some misconceptions:
Tomahawks ( & guided missiles in general)
Tomahawks for shore bombardment is a non-starter, as are Tomahawks for in an anti-personnel role. Also, Tomahawks are not going to crack open any tough bunkers.
155mm vs BB
SA produces an awesome 155mm howitzer...that is only a 155mm howitzer. Not exactly a fearsome adversary for a BB (unless it has a nuke warhead). The BB gets to move about pretty easily and the howitzer, if SP, can move out, too, though WHERE it can move is more resticted. If the howitzer is towed, shoot & scoot impairs how it can service the BB...or it stays in place and gets ready for a 16" diameter present. CB radar give the advantage to the constantly-moving platform.
We saw what happens to battleships & their smaller counterparts at Jutland. The battleships shrugged off most hits by smaller rounds and were in danger primarily from other battleships. The smaller ships were in extreme danger from both battleships as well as other smaller ships. Lesson: if you're using guns vs BB, they'd best be BIG guns. If you're a smaller ship, avoid close-in gun battles.
A couple of other SA howizer ques:
- How widespread are SA's howitzers?
- Any guided munitions?
- If so, what method?
Most opfor howitzers will be the 152mm & 122mm varieties from Russia, not SA 's howitzers. The RUskie howiters would be much less a threat than SA's tubes.
I think the either/or BB/DDX debate is somewhat miscast. They are different ships with different capabilities, some of which have been called out, and some of which overlap. A case can be made for both capability sets. Actual implementation of the BB' capabilities (and proposed BB capabilities) are relatively low-cost and low-risk.
The technologies being introduced for other arty systems could be used for the 16" guns
- GPS guidance
- Tri-mode seeker
- In-filght updates on target loc (for moving targets)/re-tasking
- Multiple, independant, guided, sub-munitions
There are some misconceptions:
Tomahawks ( & guided missiles in general)
Tomahawks for shore bombardment is a non-starter, as are Tomahawks for in an anti-personnel role. Also, Tomahawks are not going to crack open any tough bunkers.
155mm vs BB
SA produces an awesome 155mm howitzer...that is only a 155mm howitzer. Not exactly a fearsome adversary for a BB (unless it has a nuke warhead). The BB gets to move about pretty easily and the howitzer, if SP, can move out, too, though WHERE it can move is more resticted. If the howitzer is towed, shoot & scoot impairs how it can service the BB...or it stays in place and gets ready for a 16" diameter present. CB radar give the advantage to the constantly-moving platform.
We saw what happens to battleships & their smaller counterparts at Jutland. The battleships shrugged off most hits by smaller rounds and were in danger primarily from other battleships. The smaller ships were in extreme danger from both battleships as well as other smaller ships. Lesson: if you're using guns vs BB, they'd best be BIG guns. If you're a smaller ship, avoid close-in gun battles.
A couple of other SA howizer ques:
- How widespread are SA's howitzers?
- Any guided munitions?
- If so, what method?
Most opfor howitzers will be the 152mm & 122mm varieties from Russia, not SA 's howitzers. The RUskie howiters would be much less a threat than SA's tubes.
Preacherman
Member
Rich, I'm afraid your facts (some of them) are still wrong, and you're still missing the point. I'm not talking about combat exercises here, but the real world.
First, your figures on the G5 are still wrong. The ranges you cite are for the G5/45 with base-bleed ammo, and that's been available since the early 1980's. The G5/52 is a new development, not yet fielded except for trials, and the RAP's to go with it are also new. Check out Denel's specs on the weapon for yourself - they're on the Web. Also, bear in mind that the same technology used for the G5 in its various incarnations is in use by other countries: India has the Austrian version of the weapon, China is using it to develop longer-ranged artillery (to go with their already-longer-ranged MRL systems), etc. It's not limited to one country by any means.
Second, the damage resistance of BB's. I have already agreed with you that a BB could take one or two major hits without a problem. In the scenario I posited, the BB is likely to take dozens of hits... and no BB in history has ever taken damage like that before. The scenario is not unlikely, either: China could mount such a mass missile attack anytime, and so could Russia, as they've both got these missiles by the hundreds, if not thousands. The BB is much more vulnerable to such attacks than CV's, AA ships, etc., because the BB must come within range of the coast to provide fire support - certainly within visual range, if they're to cover (say) 5 to 10 miles inland.
Another thing: the BB (and the other ships of the force) use missile launchers, Phalanx systems, etc. for defence. Get in just one or two good hits on any ship, and the odds are very good that radars, launchers and guns used for anti-missile defence will be either degraded or destroyed - leaving that much less interference for the remainder of the incoming missiles to deal with.
I'd point out that these scenarios have been "wargamed" by countless navies, NATO, etc. over the years. In every such scenario over the past 20 years or so, the fleet units within range of such a missile attack have lost, and lost comprehensively. This is why current CVN doctrine calls for deployment well outside the coastal missile envelope, and why amphibious capabilities are being developed to allow the dispatch of a landing force from more than 100 miles away from the proposed beachhead. Distance is one's only safety - and the BB, with its limited range, just can't get far enough away to be safe.
For that matter, with the ongoing development of energy weapons, the future is very interesting, as aircraft, missiles and even conventional artillery and MRL systems are likely to become obsolete by 2050 if current predictions pan out. There is a school of thought that says that with the development of light-speed laser and charged-particle-beam weapons, anything - anything - that comes over the horizon, at whatever altitude or speed, is dead right there. This would mean the end of close air support, missiles, even satellites, if long-range beams were developed for extra-atmospheric use. This is no longer science fiction, as laboratory developments have demonstrated such weapons already. At present, disruptive beam weapons are under development to scramble a missile's electronics from several miles away. Right now, Phalanx systems are being deployed to Iraq to deal with incoming artillery munitions - this was announced a few weeks ago, and these upgraded systems are claimed to be able to hit a 155mm. shell in flight. (See here for info on both these developments.) Let these guidance systems be further improved, and mated with a beam weapon, and we've got a whole new ball game, where ships, aircraft, and even tanks (in open country, without cover) are dead meat.
First, your figures on the G5 are still wrong. The ranges you cite are for the G5/45 with base-bleed ammo, and that's been available since the early 1980's. The G5/52 is a new development, not yet fielded except for trials, and the RAP's to go with it are also new. Check out Denel's specs on the weapon for yourself - they're on the Web. Also, bear in mind that the same technology used for the G5 in its various incarnations is in use by other countries: India has the Austrian version of the weapon, China is using it to develop longer-ranged artillery (to go with their already-longer-ranged MRL systems), etc. It's not limited to one country by any means.
Second, the damage resistance of BB's. I have already agreed with you that a BB could take one or two major hits without a problem. In the scenario I posited, the BB is likely to take dozens of hits... and no BB in history has ever taken damage like that before. The scenario is not unlikely, either: China could mount such a mass missile attack anytime, and so could Russia, as they've both got these missiles by the hundreds, if not thousands. The BB is much more vulnerable to such attacks than CV's, AA ships, etc., because the BB must come within range of the coast to provide fire support - certainly within visual range, if they're to cover (say) 5 to 10 miles inland.
Another thing: the BB (and the other ships of the force) use missile launchers, Phalanx systems, etc. for defence. Get in just one or two good hits on any ship, and the odds are very good that radars, launchers and guns used for anti-missile defence will be either degraded or destroyed - leaving that much less interference for the remainder of the incoming missiles to deal with.
I'd point out that these scenarios have been "wargamed" by countless navies, NATO, etc. over the years. In every such scenario over the past 20 years or so, the fleet units within range of such a missile attack have lost, and lost comprehensively. This is why current CVN doctrine calls for deployment well outside the coastal missile envelope, and why amphibious capabilities are being developed to allow the dispatch of a landing force from more than 100 miles away from the proposed beachhead. Distance is one's only safety - and the BB, with its limited range, just can't get far enough away to be safe.
For that matter, with the ongoing development of energy weapons, the future is very interesting, as aircraft, missiles and even conventional artillery and MRL systems are likely to become obsolete by 2050 if current predictions pan out. There is a school of thought that says that with the development of light-speed laser and charged-particle-beam weapons, anything - anything - that comes over the horizon, at whatever altitude or speed, is dead right there. This would mean the end of close air support, missiles, even satellites, if long-range beams were developed for extra-atmospheric use. This is no longer science fiction, as laboratory developments have demonstrated such weapons already. At present, disruptive beam weapons are under development to scramble a missile's electronics from several miles away. Right now, Phalanx systems are being deployed to Iraq to deal with incoming artillery munitions - this was announced a few weeks ago, and these upgraded systems are claimed to be able to hit a 155mm. shell in flight. (See here for info on both these developments.) Let these guidance systems be further improved, and mated with a beam weapon, and we've got a whole new ball game, where ships, aircraft, and even tanks (in open country, without cover) are dead meat.
richyoung
Member
Our data bases for weapons vulnerability and performance are as close to "real world" as declassification allows (we train foreign officers, as well)
Jane's Armor and Artillery 2005-2005, page 814, refering to the Denel Ordinance G5-52:
"Max range:
(base-bleed) 40,000 m
(VLAP) 50,000 m
Since you feel you have better sources, mind telling us who they are?
Ah yes, the difference between advertising, and what the system will actually do...been there, done that, it still can't HIT or HURT a BB...
By your own admission , "not yet fielded except for trials"...and STILL not a threat to BBs!
Wrong - how many hits did the Bismark take before it was scuttled by its own crew? How many did the Yamato class? I'm sorry, but your statement reveals a gaping hole in your knowledge about these ships
Only warheads of Silkworm size or larger are a threat, anything smaller is useless against a BB. Where, prey tell, on planet Earth is there any ONE area defended byy "hundreds" much less "thousands" of Silkworm class missles, which BTW are big slow targets and only have an 80K range? Hmm, might be good Tomahawk or 16" extended range targets...
A problem that ANY ship filling this role, old or new would have...
Refresh my memory, aren't YOU the one that said,"I'm not talking about combat exercises here, but the real world." Right back atcha...
If we can make base-bleed and rocket-boosted 155mm rounds, we can make the same in 16", giving the old girls plenty of range.
Right - I'm supposed to be flying to work in a bubble-top air car with a personal robot slave by now..."current predictions" didn't pan out - they never do. Even if they do, thats still 45 years away - we have to get from here to there in the mean time, not to mention those things can be ADDED to the BB, just like the cruise missles were...
There WAS a school of thought that said since we had nukes, we didn't need large conventional forces - not ALL schools of thought are right, Obi-Wan...
All the more reason to be able to sling a 2000 lb shell, guided only by the laws of physics, and darned hard to destroy vis-a-vis a fragile missle and delicate guidance systems....plus might make a good anti-missle defense for the BB
_
Ah, predicting the "death of the tank" again, yet it just keeps clanking along, doing its job. Destroying a 6" round, and destroying a 16" round, are two drastically different problems..._________________
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Time for some more research on your part...
richyoung, you are packing a lot of attitude for someone who has their basic facts incorrect.
The SS-N-19 is a supersonic missile with a 750kg warhead and a range of 625km (300kg in excess of the Silkworm).
The SS-N-22 travels at Mach 2.2 in its low-altitude profile and has a warhead of 320kg over a 250km range.
Advanced Chinese anti-ship missiles such as SAWHORSE sport a semi-armor piercing 500kg warhead, a Mach 2 speed and a 100km range.
The smallest of these missiles weighs 3,400kg and travels at Mach 2. Think about that for a second, this is a missile that weighs as much as a WWII kamikaze but instead of carrying a 250kg ventral bomb in the nose, is carrying a 500kg semi-AP warhead and travelling at Mach 2. That is a big difference to consider. In addition, the shorter the range the missile has to travel, the more the onboard fuel will contribute to the chaos.
A new ship with LESS armor will be AS or More vulnerable at the keel, and MUCH MORE vulnerable than turrets and deck armored to withstand 16" AP.
Both ships will see serious damage and loss of life if struck by a single missile. If struck by two, both ships are likely to sink. The first difference is that the modern ship actually has the low radar signature, anti-air defense net, and modern electronics to avoid getting hit in the first place. The second difference is that the modern ship will sink with about 400 crewmembers on board and one 5" or 155mm gun. The BB will sink with 1,100 crewmembers on board and half of your fleetwide naval gunfire support.
Also, let's not mistake "surviving" a hit with actually being useful in a continued fight. Because the battleship has the thick armored belt, almost all of its 1980s technology is mounted externally - any significant hit on a BB will disbale most of its electronics and radar suite and many datalinks and comms as well. You don't even need a giant warhead on a supersonic missile to do it. You can render a BB combat ineffective just by stripping off the radars and datalinks with several Sparrow AAW missiles in surface-targeting mode.
CHeaper? You don't use million dollar Tomahawks that we are already short on for shore bombardment.
Current unit production cost is $569,000 for a Tomahawk. This means you can buy 2,639 of them for the cost of simply reactivating a single BB (and this is before we add manpower costs or powder, shells, etc.). But you are right, you wouldn't use Tomahawks for shore bombardment, you would use the 5" guns the Navy already has on most ships.
Since the max range of the 16" is almost 50km, whereas max range for a 155mm is around 18km - 23km with conventional rounds, how about tank or mech battalions 25km or more from the proposed marine landing beach?
So we have a beachhead of 23km but nowhere to put the organic artillery of a MEU?
By the time you factor in the cost of airplanes and the aircrew's training - NO.
Tomahawk - airplane cost $569,000. Aircrew training - minimal. Aircrew risk - zero. Number of Tomahawks you can buy for one BB - 2,639
Oh, I dunno - BUNKERS, maybe?
So what is a better way to attack a fixed hard target like a bunker? A $1.5 billion BB with 1,100 crew that must close within missile range of the shore in order to attack or a $569,000 Tomahawk launched from way offshore by a submerged SSN?
Tomahawk not tough enough for the really hardened bunkers? OK, how about a GBU-28 that penetrates 20' of concrete or 100' of earth and costs only $149k per unit? Even better it can be delivered by platforms that are a fraction of the cost even after you consider manpower and training requirements.
OOH, I know, lets put an ENGINE in the BB so it can MOVE!
Rich, my point was that when you calculate the weight of ordnance on target that can be delivered daily by a BB, you do yourself a disservice if you simply multiply how many rounds a BB can fire in a day and say "That is how much weight we can deliver on target". Chances are in a real war, the BB will have to move quite a bit to acquire new targets and while it is moving it is not delivering ordnance, so the real numbers would be much lower than what O'Bryon suggested.
How about in the future, we both assume that we are basically have the same interests at heart and assume a certain level of goodwill rather than willfully misconstruing a point in order to throw out sarcastic witticisms?
The beauty of a BB is it doesn't MATTER how many marshmallows you hurl at it - they have ALREADY demonstrated the ability to take a direct hit from an airplane travelling 400 MPH carrying a 1000lb bomb, with little damage.
1. I have been unable to find any documented instance of a BB taking multiple kamikaze hits.
2. They took these hits in a WWII environment where radar was still relatively new, surface engagements were in visual range, and torpedos attacked at the waterline rather than underneath the keel. Those days are over. See the earlier comments about how even modest hits would severely affect the onboard systems of a BB.
As far as amphib landings, all of the points against a BB also apply to amphibs. Amphib landings are extremely dangerous in a contested maritime environment. The difference is you can achieve temporary superiority by concentrating forces in a small area in order to achieve the landing. After that, the expansion of the beachhead serves to remove the threat of attack.
The proposed use of the BB is to cruise up and down the coast attacking the shore (unlike an amphib group). So what do you do? Concentrate the same resources to protect the BB?
richyoung, you are packing a lot of attitude for someone who has their basic facts incorrect.
The SS-N-19 is a supersonic missile with a 750kg warhead and a range of 625km (300kg in excess of the Silkworm).
The SS-N-22 travels at Mach 2.2 in its low-altitude profile and has a warhead of 320kg over a 250km range.
Advanced Chinese anti-ship missiles such as SAWHORSE sport a semi-armor piercing 500kg warhead, a Mach 2 speed and a 100km range.
The smallest of these missiles weighs 3,400kg and travels at Mach 2. Think about that for a second, this is a missile that weighs as much as a WWII kamikaze but instead of carrying a 250kg ventral bomb in the nose, is carrying a 500kg semi-AP warhead and travelling at Mach 2. That is a big difference to consider. In addition, the shorter the range the missile has to travel, the more the onboard fuel will contribute to the chaos.
A new ship with LESS armor will be AS or More vulnerable at the keel, and MUCH MORE vulnerable than turrets and deck armored to withstand 16" AP.
Both ships will see serious damage and loss of life if struck by a single missile. If struck by two, both ships are likely to sink. The first difference is that the modern ship actually has the low radar signature, anti-air defense net, and modern electronics to avoid getting hit in the first place. The second difference is that the modern ship will sink with about 400 crewmembers on board and one 5" or 155mm gun. The BB will sink with 1,100 crewmembers on board and half of your fleetwide naval gunfire support.
Also, let's not mistake "surviving" a hit with actually being useful in a continued fight. Because the battleship has the thick armored belt, almost all of its 1980s technology is mounted externally - any significant hit on a BB will disbale most of its electronics and radar suite and many datalinks and comms as well. You don't even need a giant warhead on a supersonic missile to do it. You can render a BB combat ineffective just by stripping off the radars and datalinks with several Sparrow AAW missiles in surface-targeting mode.
CHeaper? You don't use million dollar Tomahawks that we are already short on for shore bombardment.
Current unit production cost is $569,000 for a Tomahawk. This means you can buy 2,639 of them for the cost of simply reactivating a single BB (and this is before we add manpower costs or powder, shells, etc.). But you are right, you wouldn't use Tomahawks for shore bombardment, you would use the 5" guns the Navy already has on most ships.
Since the max range of the 16" is almost 50km, whereas max range for a 155mm is around 18km - 23km with conventional rounds, how about tank or mech battalions 25km or more from the proposed marine landing beach?
So we have a beachhead of 23km but nowhere to put the organic artillery of a MEU?
By the time you factor in the cost of airplanes and the aircrew's training - NO.
Tomahawk - airplane cost $569,000. Aircrew training - minimal. Aircrew risk - zero. Number of Tomahawks you can buy for one BB - 2,639
Oh, I dunno - BUNKERS, maybe?
So what is a better way to attack a fixed hard target like a bunker? A $1.5 billion BB with 1,100 crew that must close within missile range of the shore in order to attack or a $569,000 Tomahawk launched from way offshore by a submerged SSN?
Tomahawk not tough enough for the really hardened bunkers? OK, how about a GBU-28 that penetrates 20' of concrete or 100' of earth and costs only $149k per unit? Even better it can be delivered by platforms that are a fraction of the cost even after you consider manpower and training requirements.
OOH, I know, lets put an ENGINE in the BB so it can MOVE!
Rich, my point was that when you calculate the weight of ordnance on target that can be delivered daily by a BB, you do yourself a disservice if you simply multiply how many rounds a BB can fire in a day and say "That is how much weight we can deliver on target". Chances are in a real war, the BB will have to move quite a bit to acquire new targets and while it is moving it is not delivering ordnance, so the real numbers would be much lower than what O'Bryon suggested.
How about in the future, we both assume that we are basically have the same interests at heart and assume a certain level of goodwill rather than willfully misconstruing a point in order to throw out sarcastic witticisms?
The beauty of a BB is it doesn't MATTER how many marshmallows you hurl at it - they have ALREADY demonstrated the ability to take a direct hit from an airplane travelling 400 MPH carrying a 1000lb bomb, with little damage.
1. I have been unable to find any documented instance of a BB taking multiple kamikaze hits.
2. They took these hits in a WWII environment where radar was still relatively new, surface engagements were in visual range, and torpedos attacked at the waterline rather than underneath the keel. Those days are over. See the earlier comments about how even modest hits would severely affect the onboard systems of a BB.
As far as amphib landings, all of the points against a BB also apply to amphibs. Amphib landings are extremely dangerous in a contested maritime environment. The difference is you can achieve temporary superiority by concentrating forces in a small area in order to achieve the landing. After that, the expansion of the beachhead serves to remove the threat of attack.
The proposed use of the BB is to cruise up and down the coast attacking the shore (unlike an amphib group). So what do you do? Concentrate the same resources to protect the BB?
richyoung
Member
ALL of these are the size of fighters, and just as easy to shoot down. NONE of them hit as hard as a 16" AP, which the Iowa class was built to take. Numerous kamikaze hits, some with 500kg bombs, struck American BBs in the Pacific, and none were even knocked out of the fight. Not to mention the very cost and complexity of the weapons you reference makes them scarce and widely dispersed.
A new ship with LESS armor will be AS or More vulnerable at the keel, and MUCH MORE vulnerable than turrets and deck armored to withstand 16" AP.
Have you a CLUE as to how much pounding a BB can withstand?
You aint sinking a BB with one or two hits - they were built to duke it out with a Yamato class...and win.
Also, let's not mistake "surviving" a hit w
You DO know that there are optical fire directors as well, right? That battleships were slinging big lead and hitting targets long before radar even existed?
CHeaper? You don't use million dollar Tomahawks that we are already short on for shore bombardment.
5" is too short-ranged and too small a payload - thats why the LCS was considered - but a reactivated BB is better!
Since the max range of the 16" is almost 50km, whereas max range for a 155mm is around 18km - 23km with conventional rounds, how about tank or mech battalions 25km or more from the proposed marine landing beach?
I am refering to the enemies mobile forces BEFORE the marines hit the sand - that is the "best time" to attrite them, don't you think?
By the time you factor in the cost of airplanes and the aircrew's training - NO.
You forget that unlike the Tomahawk, the BB can shoot thousands of rounds over its lifetime, and SUSTAINED fire is lots better at suppressing the enemy, which is why the Marines want the BBs back so badly they have volunteered to fund the manning of them.
You are neglecting the risk to the airplane and crew, neither of which are cheap.
That's just plain wrong - I see you haven't priced a B-2 wing lately...
OOH, I know, lets put an ENGINE in the BB so it can MOVE!
This would be news to all those sailors from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam that had NO PROBLEM shooting Iowa-class 16" guns while moving....
50Km range AND can steam at 33+ knots - you can hit a lot of targets.
I din't misconstue anything - the BBs mobility is a plus - why anyone questions its ability to move in range is beyond me.
The beauty of a BB is it doesn't MATTER how many marshmallows you hurl at it - they have ALREADY demonstrated the ability to take a direct hit from an airplane travelling 400 MPH carrying a 1000lb bomb, with little damage.
Glad to help...U.S. BBs hit by Kamikaze:
"This damage could be considered similar to numerous Kamikaze hits sustained by “Standard Type” ships (including Nevada once, New Mexico twice, Mississippi twice, Idaho once, Tennessee once, California once, Colorado twice, Maryland twice and West Virginia once), all of which were largely shrugged off as all of the “Standards” remained in the battle zone for extended periods before departing for repairs."
fromA Survey of the American Standard Type Battleship
You are wrong again - most navies had "influence" (magnetic) detonators in use during or at the start of the war - they were designed to explode beneath a ship's keel.
And yet we consider building a new ship to do the same jobe less capably, with the same if not more vulnerabbilities. Not an argument against the BB, I'm afraid...
NO, you are wrong again. The proposed use of the BB is to provide fire support for an amphibious landing, the Marines understandably less than enthusiastic about 5" shells being the largest currently available. Since the BB will be supporting a landing, the same defenses protecting the amphib ships will be protecting it.
Yes - it is going to be in the same place anyway.
280PLUS
Member
Just because I know it's there, here is a link to a Sinkex done a while ago on a destroyer I know very well. Take a look at the pix and you'll see what effect some of these missles have. It may be relevant somehow to the conversation taking place here, I don't know.
http://sinkex.uss-buchanan-ddg14.org/
If you do more searxches on Buchanan you may find a more comprehensive file of pix, I know there are more than what is shown here. Plus I think theres a video!
http://sinkex.uss-buchanan-ddg14.org/
If you do more searxches on Buchanan you may find a more comprehensive file of pix, I know there are more than what is shown here. Plus I think theres a video!
richyoung
Member
I've seen the pictures - a BB is a much harder target than a destroyer.
(They are cool pic tho...)
(They are cool pic tho...)
280PLUS
Member
Preacherman
Member
Rich, you're spouting a lot of information, but you're missing the point completely. The US navy, and ALL OTHER NAVIES in the world, have been working on these scenarios for decades. In the face of modern anti-shipping weapons, no vessel, including a BB, is survivable in a littoral zone. That's why stealth and distance are major factors in new warship design. This is not conjecture or theory, but established fact.
To pick up a few of your points:
Rich, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and you obviously know more than a little about the subject of artillery: but please bear in mind that others know as much, or more, and the professionals in the Navy (and in navies around the world) are unanimous in their verdict: no warship, let alone a BB, is a survivable proposition in close-in littoral combat today. The threat from high-speed missiles, long-range artillery and MRLS systems (many of which now incorporate terminal guidance or homing), torpedoes and mines, etc. is just way, way too great. Ever since the Russians developed the missiles and tactics to take on such vessels, they've been effectively useless for such purposes. The US Navy has adapted by moving its strike forces way, way offshore, developing long-range landing assets such as hovercraft and the new LVT series (capable of over 30 knots for long periods), so that it can land amphibious forces without putting their transports and support ships in mortal danger. Increasingly, airpower is going to be the dominant fire-support for such landings, with ultra-long-range guns backing this up, using precision-guided rounds. The BB is an anachronism in such an environment, besides being an awfully costly asset both to use and to lose. It ain't coming back...
To pick up a few of your points:
Er, no, they're not the size of fighters, and they are also MUCH faster than fighters. No fighter can sustain much more than Mach 1.1 or 1.2 at low levels. These sea-skimming missiles can sustain Mach 2 plus at altitudes of less than 100 feet. Smaller and faster - much harder target, particularly if they number in the dozens, or scores, or even hundreds.
Yes, I do, and so does the Navy. A 350 mph impact from a lightly-built Japanese World War 2 fighter with a 500-pound or 1,000-pound bomb strapped underneath is nothing like the impact of a Mach 2 missile with an armor-piercing warhead containing explosive compounds far, far more powerful that standard WW2 explosives. The speed of impact alone, even without an explosion, will probably put the missile through-and-through a BB. The explosion (inside the vessel, rather than on the external armor) will be devastating. These missiles are built for precisely this purpose, and they work.
Try optically picking up and tracking a Mach 2 missile at ultra low level when your time of sight before impact is measured in seconds, not minutes. Now try the same with an incoming flight of dozens of them. No way, Jose.
Yes, and all navies - I repeat, ALL navies - that had them discontinued their use due to their unreliability, and went back to contact pistols for their torpedo warheads. The first reliable magnetic exploders date from the 1950's, and current exploders also use a variety of other sensors to ensure correct positioning. No major warship (i.e CV or BB size) has ever been tested with a modern torpedo strike beneath the keel - until now, when the Navy is planning to use the USS America as a test vehicle to assess the impact of modern weapons on a CV size ship. I assume this will include a below-the-keel warshot from a torpedo... should be interesting!
Rich, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and you obviously know more than a little about the subject of artillery: but please bear in mind that others know as much, or more, and the professionals in the Navy (and in navies around the world) are unanimous in their verdict: no warship, let alone a BB, is a survivable proposition in close-in littoral combat today. The threat from high-speed missiles, long-range artillery and MRLS systems (many of which now incorporate terminal guidance or homing), torpedoes and mines, etc. is just way, way too great. Ever since the Russians developed the missiles and tactics to take on such vessels, they've been effectively useless for such purposes. The US Navy has adapted by moving its strike forces way, way offshore, developing long-range landing assets such as hovercraft and the new LVT series (capable of over 30 knots for long periods), so that it can land amphibious forces without putting their transports and support ships in mortal danger. Increasingly, airpower is going to be the dominant fire-support for such landings, with ultra-long-range guns backing this up, using precision-guided rounds. The BB is an anachronism in such an environment, besides being an awfully costly asset both to use and to lose. It ain't coming back...
280PLUS
Member
I know now why I thought those pics were relevant, it takes me a while sometimes
Look at the damage done by the GBU-24 to the bridge area, the bridge is gone antennas are gone. IIRC that's where the gun director is/was located. So granted the hull is still relatively intact but, as someone else mentioned, her guidance is down rendering her useless. Same thing on a BB. Yes the structure is very strong and can withstand a lot of punishment but the electronics etc are not and if those are lost the fighting capabilities of the ship are severely diminished.
Incidentally, the hole in the bow is where my little bed used to be, for a while.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY GOT THE TV!!
Look at the damage done by the GBU-24 to the bridge area, the bridge is gone antennas are gone. IIRC that's where the gun director is/was located. So granted the hull is still relatively intact but, as someone else mentioned, her guidance is down rendering her useless. Same thing on a BB. Yes the structure is very strong and can withstand a lot of punishment but the electronics etc are not and if those are lost the fighting capabilities of the ship are severely diminished.
Incidentally, the hole in the bow is where my little bed used to be, for a while.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY GOT THE TV!!
richyoung
Member
NO it won't be ESTABLISHED fact until and if it happens, until then it is computer based conjecture - said computers being programmed by people with a vested interest in supporting a new weapons program vs. refitting the BBS - kinda like the "global warming" simulations are rigged. We still spend billions on amphibious control ships, amphibious mother ships, marine units - all a complete waste - UNLESS some means have been found to deal with these issues.
To pick up a few of your points:
Quote:
ALL of these are the size of fighters, and just as easy to shoot down.
SS-N-19 - length 10 meters
SS-N-22 - length 9.38 meters
F-5 Tiger - length 48 feet (approximaely 14.7 meters)
They are still pretty big - close to fighter size, and not much harder to bring down.
which they don't, much less in the hands of those we would be likely to launch a sea-born invasion of -
Quote:
Have you a CLUE as to how much pounding a BB can withstand?
The only explosives we have signifigantly more powerful than WWII-era ones are nuclear, (excepting hyperbaric warheads, which aren't suitable for this use anyway). The only major change in our explosives formulae since then has been to reduce the risk of cook-off in a fire, (this after a couple of carrier fires...) Those missles aren't very heavily built, nor are they designed or are they capable of, penetrating a BB turret or deck, much less armor belt. They will positively shred tankers, carriers full of munitions and fuel, and lightly built destroyers and cruisers, which they WERE designed to kill.
Not happening. Even battleship AP didn't always get through. The missle isn't fast enough and doesn't have enough sectional density. BBs have armor comparable to the fromt of a main battle tank - DU and tunsten steel rods traveling at Mach 7 don't always get through.
They were built to blackmail tanker traffic. They would fail against a hard target.
Quote:
You DO know that there are optical fire directors as well, right? That battleships were slinging big lead and hitting targets long before radar even existed?
The same defenses the amphib ships will be using will be effective for the BB
Quote:
You are wrong again - most navies had "influence" (magnetic) detonators in use during or at the start of the war - they were designed to explode beneath a ship's keel.
The POINT is that the BBs are already designed with this threat in mind.
(edited to add: altho, I wouldn't be playing fair if I didn't point out that Pennsylvania's carreer was ended by a torpedo strike - she was essentially "bent", and nothing could be done to fix her. Minimal repairs were done to her, and she finished out the war..but that was the end.)
Will be looking forward to it...
Hope you are wrong - I see no reason the BB can't benfit from the same extended-range technology. Not to mention, sometimes you have to go in harm's way - I would rather do so inside all of that armor. Somethings going to have to provide the fires - planes are too expensive, the LCS has the same vulnerabilities as the BB, the BB can do more, longer, for less.
richyoung
Member
If I've come across too ascerbic, please forgive me - sometimes stuff comes out "sounding" different typed than it would if I spoke it - no insults intended! I'm sure we all want whats best for the grunts...
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
And you base that conclusion on what? Do some quick math on travel times and ranges of these missiles at supersonic velocities. Assuming you detect a mach 2-capable missile at launch and the missile is launched from its maximum range, you have about 120 seconds to do something about it. If the missile is hidden by the curvature of the earth/sea-skimming terminal approach, your first notice of its approach will be when it is with 20-30 seconds of your picket.
Speaking of the Yamato, the Yamato capsized and sunk after 10 torpedo hits and "several" bomb hits. Let's assume the torpedoes were the most advanced Allied torpedos and carried the 600lb Torpex warhead. Let's also assume that the bombs were 2,000lb bombs.
This means the total amount of explosives expended on the Yamato was in the neighborhood of 12,000lbs - all of it delivered at the armored portions of the ship.
That is about 7 SS-N-19s (assuming of course that the fact the missile is travelling Mach 2 and packed with fuel adds no extra damage).
This is about 11 C-301 SAWHORSE missiles (the least capable of the missiles we discussed). Of course, the SAWHORSE has primarliy been outclassed by the Russian missiles that the Chinese have been buying instead.
After the first missile, the BB will be completely blind to any additional incoming missiles since it will likely no longer have an SPS-49 to detect the threats and no data link to other ships. This doesn't matter much since it couldn't really do much about them even if it did detect them as all it has to defend itself with is 4 CIWS. The range of CIWS is classified; but with a missile travelling around Mach 2, CIWS will have a very short window to detect and engage the threat. So while you are probably correct that a BB will survive the first hit, you'd have to be pretty optimistic to like its chances beyond that hit.
So what is the engagement range on an optical fire director? Perhaps if we were still fighting WWII, having only an optical fire director as your sole surviving combat sensor might not be a bad situation.
In the meantime, are you suggesting a hit by a 500kg Mach 2 anti-ship missile will be so insiginificant that the BB will be able to continue naval gunfire support?
Well, the BB can't defend itself from air attack. It cannot defend itself from ASUW attack. It cannot defend itself from submarine attack. Since the BB is basically a defenseless floating gun base that will need escort to be effective, why not just tow a giant MRLS barge into place?
Any naval warship with a gun can provide sustained fire and fire support. The only thing the Iowa-class BB does that is not already done is provide fires out to 26nm and provide a larger explosives package. I know of no targets that are able to withstand a 5" shell but are still so mobile that they will be gone by the time a Tomahawk arrives, so the larger explosives package is irrelevant unless you have more than 2,639 such targets on hand. At this point, the BB may start to be more cost effective.
AND
See any conflict between those two statements Rich?
A few other comments from this link that you seem to have missed:
There was also Warspite’s subsequent encounter with a German guided missile-bomb (FX1400) which hit midships and left the ship drifting helplessly. Warspite was left permanently lamed and with X-turret inoperative.
The final insult to Warspite’s honored hull came in the form of an influence mine, which left her permanently “bent.” In this regard, Pennsylvania performed as badly when hit by a torpedo off Okinawa and was similarly written off with minimal repairs.
Both Barham and Malaya suffered single torpedo hits that put them out of action for three months at a time. In contrast, Maryland suffered a single torpedo hit in June 1944. After transiting from Saipan to Pearl Harbor before being repaired, Maryland was back in action in August 1944.
Resolution suffered a single torpedo hit and was left drifting and helpless in September 1940. This strike was in the widest part of the anti-torpedo blister, and not in way of the propeller shafts like the Pennsylvania, giving Resolution little excuse for having to be towed to port.
These are BBs being put out of action by prehistoric cruise missiles and single hits from WWII-era torpedos. While the Iowa-class BBs are admittedly a much better designed BB than any of those mentioned, the threat has also seen a much larger upgrade.
This is what modern torpedoes do to surface vessels.
armoredman
Member
May I point out two things? One, the armor belt of the BB is approx 16 inches of cold rolled steel, not a hybrid like M1 Abrams armor, or anything special, just a huge chunk of 75 year old steel. I don't know what the penetration of a modern missile would be against such a belt, except for one other thing - are there not several anti ship missiles that use pop-up kill strategy? I could indeed see a wave of missles out to kill the single most impressive target afloat, for both battle usefullness, and propaganda.
I love the old battlewagons, but perhaps it would behoove us to design and build a new type of BB, BC, or such.
I love the old battlewagons, but perhaps it would behoove us to design and build a new type of BB, BC, or such.
In one of the night naval battle around Guadalcanal the USS South Dakota lost power and was illuminated and pummelled by 5 Japanese ships. She was struck 27 times by various caliber naval rifles including 14 inch shells from the Kirishima. She still had working radar after this raking and none of her armor was breached, although her fire directors and radios were out.
The South Dakota was an earlier class than the Iowa and you can expect her survivability to be greater since she benefitted from lessons learned in the earlier days of the war. Those 14 inch shells weight over 1100 pounds and were armor piercing, something they don't make missiles with. In the battle of Leyte Gulf the Japanese battleship Kongo's 14 inch shells perforated the destroyer USS Hoel and passed through without exploding.
Another destroyer the USS Aaron Ward survived 10 (!?!? ) kamikaze hits during the invasion of Okinawa. I think our BBs could probably survive more, for those who are equating a missile with a kamikaze.
And the pictures of the DD used for a target may be a class that has an aluminum alloy superstructure. The command tower on the Massachusetts is over 12 inches thick of armor. She's the same class as the South Dakota so again, the Iowas are probably different. I don't think anything short of a bunker busting bomb is going to penetrate that.
The South Dakota was an earlier class than the Iowa and you can expect her survivability to be greater since she benefitted from lessons learned in the earlier days of the war. Those 14 inch shells weight over 1100 pounds and were armor piercing, something they don't make missiles with. In the battle of Leyte Gulf the Japanese battleship Kongo's 14 inch shells perforated the destroyer USS Hoel and passed through without exploding.
Another destroyer the USS Aaron Ward survived 10 (!?!?
) kamikaze hits during the invasion of Okinawa. I think our BBs could probably survive more, for those who are equating a missile with a kamikaze.And the pictures of the DD used for a target may be a class that has an aluminum alloy superstructure. The command tower on the Massachusetts is over 12 inches thick of armor. She's the same class as the South Dakota so again, the Iowas are probably different. I don't think anything short of a bunker busting bomb is going to penetrate that.
- Status