More on BB vs DD(X)

[richyoung]

Deck and belt armor may withstand 16" AP, but not the superstructure. The BB doesn't have to be sunk, just rendered ineffective, which "popgun" missiles can do.

Former Navy Secretary john Lehman disagrees. Parts of the superstructure ARE armored, if not to 16" AP levels, more than enough to defeat an Exocet.

Pop a couple holes in the funnels and they ain't doing 33 knots no more...knock out radar and electronic rangefinding, yes they have optical but it's no longer accurate over-the-horizon, is it?

No reason you can't spot fire from an RPV, A/C, or FO - as long as one commo channel is open...

The very high probability of mines and subs mean that you're not sailing at 33 knots either.

Agreed, but AMW/ASW is NOT her job - these considerations apply to the WHOLE amphibious task force, and obviously willhave to be dealt with in some manner.

Propeller shafts don't take kindly to explosions happening around them, even from near-misses...nor do steam and water pipes.

Iowas class powerplant is far better protected and features more redundancy that any proposed alternative.

Surviving a nuclear scenario is ludicrous - the ship may survive but it's not doing 33 knots or bombarding targets any more. The electronics are fried, a goodly portion of the crew is fried (thinking of 60-year-old ventilation system, a lot dead/dying slowly);

Again, the BBs are going to fare as well or better after refit than any proposed alternative...

the ship is out of the fight - probably forever. None of the ships that "survived" at Bikini were put back in service, were they?

None of the ships at Bikini had damage control crews on them, and they STILL survived - many of them indeed COULD have moved or fired if need be: the mainreason none of them were put back into service is the cost of decontaminating them turned out to be far in excess of their utility as fleet units - almost all of them having been captured enemy units, obsolette qarships, etc.

 

[richyoung]

DD(X)'s is using a lot of new technology throughout from the tumbleholme hull to ship controls and navigation. What makes you think that they forgot about armament?

I don't. I think they forgot about armor..simply because its heavy expensive and difficult to fit. Do you have any (unclassified) figures as to what armor, if any is fitted tot he DD(X) hulls, bottm, deck, turrets, and superstructure?

The plans show it to be well-armed for a Destroyer. Can it take the place of a Battleship in the firepower department? Maybe, but we're talking apples and oranges. There's no point in comparing the two.

To rationally decide whether to allocate funds to reactivate the BBs, we need to compare the two...

DD(X) needs to happen because the entire fleet is a mess. The ships are floating along on 30 year-old technology and being shimmed into the 21st century with technology that is such a pain to administer, maintain, and upgrade that it would make you cry. DD(X) is trying to not just bring us in to 2005, but leave us with a modern system when the first ship floats out of drydock in 5-7 years. Working with what is "known" only leaves us with the same stuff we already have while the Chinese develop capabilities we're not prepared for.

My understanding, flawed though it may be, is that China is only begining to develope a "blue water" capability for its fleets - judging by their combat A/C and AFV, they are still 15-20 years behind our state of the art in everything.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Using figures quoted throughout this thread, it's $1.5-$3B for a DD(X), $11B for a carrier and aircraft.

How much $$$ for a totally new BB, designed with the lessons learned in the 60+ years since the Iowas were first drawn up? Nuclear or gas-turbine powered, lower radar signature, lower noise signature, lower profile, VLS, modern armor, maybe three turrets arranged like a Nelson and the VLS aft.

Imagine a bigger Ticonderoga without flight deck and hangar, 5"/54 and torpedo tubes...downsize the VLS by not having ASROC, or replace ASROC tubes with more AAMs.

No need for 20mm, 40mm or 5"/38. Why didn't the Iowas get Sea Sparrows when refit? The only note I could find was because they couldn't withstand 16" recoil...is that because of the external mounting or because NO AAMs can withstand the pounding (which scraps the SM-2s in the VLS )

 

[Preacherman]

Actually, I've often wondered why the Navy doesn't consider a pure "missile carrier" for use in conjunction with AEGIS ships in a task force. The whole idea of the AEGIS system is that it can guide missiles fired by all ships in the force, not just the AEGIS ship itself. If you could build something like a fast merchantman hull, able to keep up with the task force, and equip it with a vast array of vertical-launch missile systems, you could probably fit several hundred - even a thousand or so - missiles onto it. They would not need their own guidance systems, as they'd be launched on command from the AEGIS ship(s), which would provide the necessary guidance. Each missile carrier would thus be purely an armament ship for AEGIS, and have a couple of CIWS for its own point defence. It'd probably be relatively cheap to build, and would help to cope with the "missile wave" attacks developed by the Soviet Union, and now standard doctrine in Chinese and other navies.

One could also use the missile-carrier as a floating helicopter platform, or stores ship, if necessary - but this would inevitably take away deck space that could otherwise be used for VLS missiles.

What say other Navy types to this idea?

 

[280PLUS]

Quite honestly and certainly nothing personal to anyone here, but the 1970's era peace loving hippie child side of me wishes there was no need for any of this crap.

:banghead:

Other than that wouldn't you still want to keep your eggs in many baskets? You put all your eggys in one big basket and they take out the basket, no more eggys. Are huge ships the answer?

Besides, everybody knows China's military numbers alone nearly equal the entire population of the US, so I'd to think that any true war with China would have to turn all out nuclear in a very short time because if it didn't we would probably lose and we certainly can't have that. Of course, at that point the only ones left will be the pols in their bunkers with nothing left to rule. So wouldn't that make all this Navy stuff pretty well moot at this point in history? If all the industrial areas in our country were suddenly wiped out, the Navy would simply whither on the vine.

I still like cheap remote control 16" gunboats though

 

[richyoung]

I don't think China can hit the US, except for the extreme edge of California (LA area), and that only with about a dozen or so operational missles (another argument for "Star Wars",,,) - and they didn't vote Republican anyway, so...too bad!

 

[WT]

Preacherman - they have considered a pure missile carrier. Its called a 'container ship.' The US Navy is looking at purchasing 2 Maersk containerships to carry a plethora of VLM's.

The Royal Navy utilized a containership to launch Harriers during the Falkland War. Unfortunately, the ship was later sunk by the Argies.

 

[carebear]

280,

The Chinese are a threat only when we go into their territorial air and water. They can't muster the shipping to even take Taiwan or they would have done so under previous, weaker CinC's, nuclear threat or not.

Once we shoot down all their aircraft, sink all their subs and they run out of SRBM's, they run out of options. A million men standing on a beach with rifles are just targets.

We need the new gear though, cause they are trying to catch up. If they remain hostile AND can fix their economy, it'd be the Cold War Round 2, and no egg roll.

 

[richyoung]

Agreed - but its not an "either - or" we also need something NOW - whatever we decide to build won't be available in numbers for 10-15 years...