More on BB vs DD(X)

[280PLUS]

And the pictures of the DD used for a target may be a class that has an aluminum alloy superstructure.

Absolutely correct! (Except thats a DDG - Adams Class to be exact. )

But I question whether any ship's guidance capabilities would remain 100%after multiple hits with something such as the GBU-24. It sounds to me like the type of attack these guys are talking about would, even if the hull and superstructure stayed relatively intact, wipe anything not covered in armor right off the deck.

Of course the best way to prove / disprove all this is to take one out and take a few shots at it.



They're worn out, are they worth salvaging? Is it worth it to spend the $ on new ones of similar design? Would it be better to spend the money on smaller ships and put our eggs in a few more baskets? 460 mile range on a 16" projectile sounds great until you reduce the projectile weight down to 500 Lbs. That negates the effectiveness of the gun. You're no longer throwing a "Volkswagen's worth of explosives" out there. A long while back here at THR we figured out the ft-lb for a 16" projectile weighing 2000 lbs IIRC. It would be interesting to compare the difference between that and the energy produced by a 500 Lb shell.

Edited to add this:

She still had working radar after this raking and none of her armor was breached, although her fire directors and radios were out.

Rendering her useless, or pretty near anyway.


Interesting arguments here!

 

[spartacus2002]

How about pulling an old carrier from mothballs and parking a bunch of Paladins and MLRS on the deck?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

I think it is more likely that this argues that a WWII kamikaze is in no way equal to a modern anti-ship missile in destructiveness; because there is no way something the size of a WWII-era destroyer would survive ten hits from a modern anti-ship missile.

The HMS Sheffield was destroyed by a single Exocet missile during the Falklands war and this was a modern destroyer with 4,100 tons displacement.

The USS Aaron Ward had a displacement of only 1,630 tons and survived ten kamikaze hits but later in the war was sunk from a single hit from a dive bomber combined with several near misses.

More than anything, this suggests to me that the kamikaze is probably just not an effective weapon and should not be used as a proxy for modern anti-ship missiles.

 

[richyoung]

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.

Musashi, Yamato's sister ship, took 20 torpedos and 17 bombs - by your math, thats 29,000 pounds of explosive. Yamato took 11 confirmed torpedoes and 2 probables with 8 confirmed bomb hits. Also many near miss bombs most certainly did some damage and the fact the second bomb hit killed the entire aft damage control team sped things up and prevented the fire in the aft 155MM turret that was so devastating and eventually led to the magazine explosion. So she went down, (by your math) to 15,800 lbs hitting + who knows how many near-misses that hurt as well + what can only be described as "bad luck" resulting in the mag explosion. But thats not the WHOLE story - as I'm sure you know, the torpedo hits were probably the most damaging - the depths were set to 20 feet, so as to strike beneath the armor belt - a trick I'm sure you will agree that no current ASM can pull off, seeing as Mach 2 missles tend to disintegrate on contact with water. The OTHER thing you are ignoring, is that the bombs were AP - designed to punch through the decks of armored ships - NO current ASM , even if it is described as "armor penetrating", is going to be as powerful.

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.

Experience from WWII indicates otherwise - nonetheless, the bulk of the heavy AA lifting I expect to be done by the Aegis systems attached to the fleet for just such a purpose.

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?

The closest thing we can analyze is older American BBs struck by Kamikaze at 400+ MPH with a heavier airframe, more gas, and 500Kg AP bombs - this set-up I would expect to do MORE damage to a BB than a modern ASM - the bomb is designed (as best as it can be) to penetrate an armored target (UNLIKE the ASM), and your smacking a whole airplane rather than a missle low on fuel into the target. NONE of the American BBS so struck lost the ability to fire or manuver - one was struck right on the turret, and it didn't even stop shooting that turret. The ones we have left are even MORE heavily armored and protected. You DO know that during the A-bomb trials, even a NUKE failed to sink the old BBs used as targets - some only a thousand meters away!

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?

Ignoring the aircraft compliment, the same things apply to a CV, or just about any ship - handling ASMS and enemy air is the job of the fleet CAP and Aegis systems (augmented by whatever firepower is aboard for close-in), handling ASW is the job of those dedicated ships, aircraft, and the 1 to 3 attack subs that are attached to each task force for just such a purpose. To call a BB "defenseless" reveals how little you know about them. MLRS can't shoot from a moving platform, much less one that is moving AND rocking about all three axis of motion. Plus all it can do is sling a lot of ICM bomblets around - there are no mine or HE rounds for it. (If you get to put new rounds in the 155s and MLRS, I get to put new rounds in the 16's... )

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.

Your lack of knowledge and experience is showing. The people who have to do the landings, the Marines, obviously feel that the 5" is inadequate in both range and effects - thats why they are volunteering to fund manning the two remaining BBs. The Navy also knows that they need something - just google "littoral" and "surface combatant", and you will see the hoops they have been trying to jump through to AVOID reactivating the BBs - unfortunately, all the alternatives cost more, do less, and are less survivable.


Quote:
50Km range AND can steam at 33+ knots - you can hit a lot of targets.

AND

Quote:
Since the BB will be supporting a landing, the same defenses protecting the amphib ships will be protecting it.

See any conflict between those two statements Rich?

No - the BB can be almost 50K away WITH THE ROUNDS WE HAVE NOW and still shoot in support of the landing beach...from what I have read of the Aegis system - it can still protect the BB at that distance.

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.

You either didn't read the whole site, or you are being deliberately disenginuous. The examples of the Brittish ships were included to illustrate how much better our OLDER BBs before the Iowa class performed under similar hits - the new ones are even BETTER, and the threat, interms of hurting a BB is NOT upgraded, but actually less effective. The proximate cause of almost all the disablings were torpedos, attacking under the armor belt - something an ASM can't do.

 

[richyoung]

280plus, they don't have NEAR the years on them that carriers with similar size hulls and power plants have achieved.

Rendering her useless, or pretty near anyway.

Not so. BBs can and do fire based solely on radar. Thats how we fought at night in the Pacific. Not to mention all the suff that was knocked out back then was vacuum tube - modern electronics are MUCH harder.

 

[richyoung]

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.

A problem that computers and radar have no trouble solving. Please google "2S6", or any similar AA system

 

[JPL]

"launching full caliber projectiles the size of Volkswagens"

The SIZE of VWs?

I don't think so.

The weight of a VW maybe, but none of my VWs were ever 16" in diameter.

 

[richyoung]

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,

The strenght of armor is measured in units called RHA - the equivalent depth of Rolled Homogenius Armor that would provide the same protection as whatever combination of matrix/spacing is being tested/appraised. The numbers are different for kinetic energy penetration (WWII AP shells, long rod penetrators), and shaped charge (HEAT rounds, SOME anti-ship missles). For kinetic energy, at 0 degrees, (a perfect case which you never get), and giving no credit for armor sloping or the strength that the underlying structer adds to resist deformation/pentration, the BB's belt would be "16 inches (406mm) RHA Equiv - actually better, because of the special alloys used, and roughly equivalent to a M60/T-72 tank. HOWEVER, kinetic energy isn't what ASMs use, they use either a plain charge of explosive, either with a contact or slight delay fuse (this isn't going to penetrate a BB), or a shaped charge warhead. For shaped charges, once the charge is activated, air is as good as armor - a shaped charge will only penetrate a certain multiple of its diameter, usually 5 times unless real expensive liners like gold or platinum are used, and those are too expensive for large rounds like an ASM uses. So against an ASM with a shaped charge, all the water and fuel tanks, void spaces, storage areas, etc, that BY DESIGN are next to the armor, get added in as armor, resulting in an effective armor thickness several yards or more. I know of NO ASM with a shaped charge large enough around to penetrate past belt AND the sacrificial tanks and spaces behind it. Zip. Zero. Nada. Why would anyone build such a weapon? There are NO ships currently active anywhere near as hard to kill as a BB.

except for one other thing - are there not several anti ship missiles that use pop-up kill strategy?

True - but the BBs decks and turrets are armed to withstand arial bombs and AP shells - the ASMs aren't engineered to attack such targets - carriers are the hardest thing they will be shot at, & all you need to mess up one of them is to ignite a fuel A/C.

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.

The Littoral Combat Ship, or Littoral Surface Comabatant, or Naval Gunfire Support Vessle, (the names keep changing!) seems to be a dead duck - it's reactivate the BBs, or nothing....

 

[richyoung]

How about pulling an old carrier from mothballs and parking a bunch of Paladins and MLRS on the deck?

I actually like this idea - I think the America should be reconfigured as a Roll-on/Roll-off transport ship for as much of a tank or mech division they can get onboard, with the arty on top. One would have to develope fire control software that would allow the 155s and MLRS to shoot from a moving rolling platform, but that seems doable... the arty could fire in support of the landing from the flight deck, and then disembark...Good idea.

 

[richyoung]

I think it is more likely that this argues that a WWII kamikaze is in no way equal to a modern anti-ship missile in destructiveness; because there is no way something the size of a WWII-era destroyer would survive ten hits from a modern anti-ship missile.

AHA, but we aren't arguing about their effectiveness on destroyers - we are talking BBS - a whole nother ball game. Plus we don't KNOW one wouldn't survive until we try it...

The HMS Sheffield was destroyed by a single Exocet missile during the Falklands war and this was a modern destroyer with 4,100 tons displacement.

The Exocet was the Cadillac of ASMs at the time, and anyone with web access can easily discover the fatal compromises in the Sheffield's materials and design - aparently they never thought they would take her into an actual shooting war - and even then, it was the FIRE that did her in, not the warhead. BBs DON'T have aluminum uppers, and have much bigger and better damage control parties.

The USS Aaron Wad had a displacement of only 1,630 tons and survived ten kamikaze hits but later in the war was sunk from a single hit from a dive bomber combined with several near misses.

More than anything, this suggests to me that the kamikaze is probably just not an effective weapon and should not be used as a proxy for modern anti-ship missiles.

It suggest to ME that one lucky hit in the right spot of a soft target can do damage all out of proportion to the warhead - fortunately, the Iowas HAVE no such soft spot. The Kamikaze is the best (and only) analogue, and a superior weapon against a BB, for reasons I've already detailed.

 

[richyoung]

But I question whether any ship's guidance capabilities would remain 100%after multiple hits with something such as the GBU-24. It sounds to me like the type of attack these guys are talking about would, even if the hull and superstructure stayed relatively intact, wipe anything not covered in armor right off the deck.

Everything on the deck is designed to ROUTINELY withstand the wrap-around concussion of 9 16" guns firing at once - that's why I dismiss 155 RAP as a threat to them. GBU-24 can currently pentrate 6 feet of concrete, with a model in development to go through 20 feet. Penetration in armor will be a small fraction of that, if possible at all. Its essentially a PG 1000Kg arial ap bomb - the best way to defend against it is to keep enemy air outside of its ten mile range. That being said, the BBs were designed to withstand 1000kg airial bombs specifically designed to pentrate armor, with the Iowa's having the best layout - certainly more armor than any other ship built since, which kind of renders the "survivability" issue moot.

Of course the best way to prove / disprove all this is to take one out and take a few shots at it.

Any volunteers?...

They're worn out, are they worth salvaging? Is it worth it to spend the $ on new ones of similar design? Would it be better to spend the money on smaller ships and put our eggs in a few more baskets? 460 mile range on a 16" projectile sounds great until you reduce the projectile weight down to 500 Lbs. That negates the effectiveness of the gun.

That's still 2 1/2 times the size of the old 8" round, and THAT round has occasionally caused the "recieving team" to falsly conclude they were being nuked! Its 5 times the payload of a 155mm round.

You're no longer throwing a "Volkswagen's worth of explosives" out there.

True, but think of it the same as 500 lb bombs, WITHOUT risking A/C or crew, for further than the unrefueled combat radius of an FA-18

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Musashi, Yamato's sister ship, took 20 torpedos and 17 bombs - by your math, thats 29,000 pounds of explosive.

Yes, if we assume that every torpedo used the most powerful aerial torpedo developed during WWII and every bomb was the largest bomb that could be carried by a WWII era torpedo or dive bomber. More likely, the bombs were 500lbs or 250lbs.

Yamato took 11 confirmed torpedoes and 2 probables with 8 confirmed bomb hits.

That isn't what the U.S. Navy Historical Center reports. It reports 10 torpedo hits and "several" bombs.

nonetheless, the bulk of the heavy AA lifting I expect to be done by the Aegis systems attached to the fleet for just such a purpose.

So which are you proposing we do, add the cost of an Arleigh Burke DDG and Ticonderoga class CG in order to provide ASW and AAW escort for the BB or divert existing ships from their current escort duties (leaving which ships unescorted?) to support a BB?

You DO know that during the A-bomb trials, even a NUKE failed to sink the old BBs used as targets - some only a thousand meters away!

And you DO know that without any enemy action at all one of the modern BBs we are discussing for naval gunfire support rendered itself combat ineffective through a turret explosion that the Navy still hasn't adequately explained?

To call a BB "defenseless" reveals how little you know about them.

I know enough to know that alone they are dogmeat in any modern naval combat. Of course you can surround them with exclusion zones and escorts like a CVN group; but then your battleship won't be able to get close enough to the coast to actually provide NGFS even with the currently non-existent 115nm 16" shells and certainly not with the 26nm shells.

The closest thing we can analyze is older American BBs struck by Kamikaze at 400+ MPH with a heavier airframe, more gas, and 500Kg AP bombs - this set-up I would expect to do MORE damage to a BB than a modern ASM

See some of the historical examples I've posted earlier in the thread regarding this assumption. 10 kamikaze hits failing to sink a 1,600 ton DD? For another example look at the WWII-era DD-772, this is the same destroyer class as the one mentioned above (Gleaves) but with a greater displacement due to modern naval systems. This 2,200 ton DD was eventually decommisioned and sold to the Turkish navy and renamed Muavenet. During a NATO exercise she was accidentally struck by a single Sea Sparrow missile (90lb anti-air warhead) and the resulting damage removed her from the exercise and killed 5 sailors

10 kamikaze hits couldn't sink her sister ship; but a single Sea Sparrow, a missile whose anti-ship capabilities are limited and designed as a secondary thought for engaging small patrol boats, disabled her. Yet we seem to be using kamikazes as proxies for modern cruise missiles and I don't think that is a fair comparison.

and are less survivable.

[inigo montoya] You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/inigo montoya]

No - the BB can be almost 50K away WITH THE ROUNDS WE HAVE NOW and still shoot in support of the landing beach.

Rich, my original statement was that it was not fair to claim the full ordnance weight deliverable by a BB because what could be delivered and what was practical to deliver were two very different numbers. The BB can only engage targets in a 50km radius. What targets will survive multiple salvos of 16" guns? How many of them are there in a 50km radius? What will really happen is that if you could protect a BB, it would destroy all targets within its 50km radius in short order. At that point, the BB must either move (along with escorts and amphib ships) or it can no longer deliver ordnance effectively and what it is theoretically capable of doing has no practical use and isn't a useful comparison.

This is why I felt your statements were contradictory - on the one hand you are mentioning the mobility of the BB as a benefit and on the other you are claiming it can shelter under the same umbrella as the amphibs. Those are contradictions. It can't move up and down the coast attacking targets outside of that 50km radius without leaving the umbrella. So it isn't as mobile as you state since it is tied to its escorts.

The proximate cause of almost all the disablings were torpedos, attacking under the armor belt - something an ASM can't do.

No; but they can do terminal dives through the thinner deck armor and against the exposed Tomahawk box launchers and superstructure. As for the torpedoes, those torpedoes are a pale shadow of what even a second-tier Chinese produced SET-53 will do to a ship.

A problem that computers and radar have no trouble solving. Please google "2S6", or any similar AA system

Is the computer equipped to distinguish between threat and non-threat targets travelling at that speed and fire accordingly or does a human have to make a decision somewhere? Because humans have been known to freeze up in a crisis and freeze time is time you don't get to use.

As for the 2S6 integrated AAA, this is a system that claims (in advertising - remember how skeptical we are about advertising) a 65% kill probability used in conjunction with the SA-19 and assuming the target does not exceed 500m/s (Mach 2 for reference is 680.58 m/s). Let's assume the advertisers were modest and the system is good up to Mach 2. Let's assume the enemy is poor and can only lob 10 SAWHORSE missiles. How many 500kg semi-AP warheads are you going to eat? Better hope they are aiming at your BB with them; because you just lost your entire escort package if they targeted your pickets instead.

 

[Preacherman]

Bartholomew, I think we're flogging a dead horse here - Rich and buddies aren't going to change their minds based on the facts. Let's just say that every navy in the world agrees with us, and not with Rich, and leave it at that.

 

[280PLUS]

I have to ask. Weren't there a few battleships left in various stages of sunk and or destroyed after a little incident called Pearl Harbor? Or those don't count?

No Preacherman, I think he's coming around, a few thousand more words might do the trick J/K

I have to say I was on the fence at the start of this but I find myself leaning toward smaller ships and more eggs in our basket. I think th 16" gun may have it's place but it may be time to design a different platform for the gun. Someone mentioned gun barges, that seems almost plausible. How about remote controlled / self propelled ones? Kind of like floating self propelled artillery pieces?

 

[richyoung]

Yes, if we assume that every torpedo used the most powerful aerial torpedo developed during WWII...

The only aerial torpedo we used in quantity was the Mark XIII with a 600 pound warhead. The only other one actually used was a tiny anti-sub homing torpedo called "Homer" - you wouldn't attack any surface ship, much less a Yamato class, with it. How many different torps did you (mistakenly) THINK we had. You really aren't building up much credibility...

...and every bomb was the largest bomb that could be carried by a WWII era torpedo or dive bomber. More likely, the bombs were 500lbs or 250lbs.

They knew they were going after the biggest battleship in the world. The bombs would be the biggest AP bombs available that would fit the planes, probably 1000lb, possibly 2000lb if the Navy had any that big, and A/C rated to launch from a carrier eck with them. What would YOU load?

Quote:
Yamato took 11 confirmed torpedoes and 2 probables with 8 confirmed bomb hits.

That isn't what the U.S. Navy Historical Center reports. It reports 10 torpedo hits and "several" bombs.

The people WHO WERE ON IT and DIDN'T DIE report my figures - since they were front row center, they "ought" to know...

Quote:
nonetheless, the bulk of the heavy AA lifting I expect to be done by the Aegis systems attached to the fleet for just such a purpose.

So which are you proposing we do, add the cost of an Arleigh Burke DDG and Ticonderoga class CG in order to provide ASW and AAW escort for the BB or divert existing ships from their current escort duties (leaving which ships unescorted?) to support a BB?

Once AGAIN, they are going to be there anyway to protect the LHA, and other components of the amphibious force the BB is providing fire support for....no extra expenditure needed.

Quote:
You DO know that during the A-bomb trials, even a NUKE failed to sink the old BBs used as targets - some only a thousand meters away!

And you DO know that without any enemy action at all one of the modern BBs we are discussing for naval gunfire support rendered itself combat ineffective through a turret explosion that the Navy still hasn't adequately explained?

Using an unapproved load with 40 year old powder that hadn't been stored properly. Guess what, playing with big guns, missles, & such is DANGEROUS. Mishaps will happen. With any system.

Quote:
To call a BB "defenseless" reveals how little you know about them.

I know enough to know that alone they are dogmeat in any modern naval combat. Of course you can surround them with exclusion zones and escorts like a CVN group; but then your battleship won't be able to get close enough to the coast to actually provide NGFS even with the currently non-existent 115nm 16" shells and certainly not with the 26nm shells.

These are the most heavily armored warships ever built - if they can't take no one can.Read about Iowa class armor protection here For the record, I "build" combat systems in the databases for the simulations we use to train the free world's artilery officers and ncos here at beautiful Fort Sill, Oklahoma. I have to know how to model blast effects, penetration, armor equivalence, probabilities of hit, kill, pentration, AA aquisition, tracking, & engagement - and I've been doing it for nine years. Just what, pray tell, do YOU do for a living, (just so we can weigh your "expert opinion"), and whats the DSN number of the government office you occupy?


Quote:
The closest thing we can analyze is older American BBs struck by Kamikaze at 400+ MPH with a heavier airframe, more gas, and 500Kg AP bombs - this set-up I would expect to do MORE damage to a BB than a modern ASM

See some of the historical examples I've posted earlier in the thread regarding this assumption. 10 kamikaze hits failing to sink a 1,600 ton DD? For another example look at the WWII-era DD-772, this is the same destroyer class as the one mentioned above (Gleaves) but with a greater displacement due to modern naval systems. This 2,200 ton DD was eventually decommisioned and sold to the Turkish navy and renamed Muavenet. During a NATO exercise she was accidentally struck by a single Sea Sparrow missile (90lb anti-air warhead) and the resulting damage removed her from the exercise and killed 5 sailors

As I would expect - in a WAR, she doubtless would have continued to steam and fight. In a TRAINING EXERCISE, you stand down when something like that happens. Can you see the difference?

10 kamikaze hits couldn't sink her sister ship; but a single Sea Sparrow, a missile whose anti-ship capabilities are limited and designed as a secondary thought for engaging small patrol boats, disabled her.

Assumes facts not in evidence. After being struck, she didn't participate further in the exercise. No where have I read that she was incapable of moving, shooting, or communicating. "Not participating" in a peacetime training event is NOT the same as "disabled", especially in a live shooting war.

Yet we seem to be using kamikazes as proxies for modern cruise missiles and I don't think that is a fair comparison.

Only one we have - once again, what training and experience do you have to back up what you "think"?

Quote:
and are less survivable.

[inigo montoya] You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/inigo montoya]

See the link above...

Quote:
No - the BB can be almost 50K away WITH THE ROUNDS WE HAVE NOW and still shoot in support of the landing beach.

Rich, my original statement was that it was not fair to claim the full ordnance weight deliverable by a BB because what could be delivered and what was practical to deliver were two very different numbers. The BB can only engage targets in a 50km radius. What targets will survive multiple salvos of 16" guns? How many of them are there in a 50km radius? What will really happen is that if you could protect a BB, it would destroy all targets within its 50km radius in short order. At that point, the BB must either move (along with escorts and amphib ships) or it can no longer deliver ordnance effectively and what it is theoretically capable of doing has no practical use and isn't a useful comparison.

One of the things I was suprised to learn when I took this job is that DESTRUCTION isn't the only reason one fires artillery at things. You also shoot to SUPRESS things (like ASM launcers and air defense), forcing the other system or systems to shut down, button up, and/or move, INSTEAD of doing their job, Sometimes you want CONTINUOUS SUPRESSION. You don't always "know" when you have destroyed something, so some targets have to be re-engaged over and over, until manuever can get close enough to confirm destruction or deal with it themselves. Sometimes you need to shoot smoke to obscure the enemy - sometimes you need to deliver a minefield. There are even rounds with cameras in them to take TV pictures of the enemy and send them back to the HQ, there are cargo rounds to deliver ammo and supplies, (probably a bad example for the 16" ) illumination rounds, and even (Gd forbid) chemical rounds. Tomahawks can't do those things - planes have weather/availability/crew vulnerability issues, and thats WHY the Marines want SOMETHING to provide naval gunfire support.

This is why I felt your statements were contradictory - on the one hand you are mentioning the mobility of the BB as a benefit and on the other you are claiming it can shelter under the same umbrella as the amphibs. Those are contradictions. It can't move up and down the coast attacking targets outside of that 50km radius without leaving the umbrella. So it isn't as mobile as you state since it is tied to its escorts.

How nuch space do you think a naval task force takes up at sea when its all spread out? Aegis is supposed to prtect over a wide area - thats what it was made for. The BB moves if sae and necessary, stays with the task force if not.

Quote:
The proximate cause of almost all the disablings were torpedos, attacking under the armor belt - something an ASM can't do.

No; but they can do terminal dives through the thinner deck armor

Whats the BIGGEST warhead available on an ASM that perform such a terminal manuver? How does it compare against a 16" AP shell OR a 500KG AP aerial bomb, either of which the BBs were designed to GET HIT BY, and still be able to fight relatively unaffected?

and against the exposed Tomahawk box launchers and superstructure.

..so we loose the Tomahawk launchers - big deal. Much of the superstructure is a LOT more armored than a modern DD, as you will know after you read the link above.

As for the torpedoes, those torpedoes are a pale shadow of what even a second-tier Chinese produced SET-53 will do to a ship.

SET-53 (an anti-submarine homing torpedo - one wouldn't fire it at a BB) only has a 220 pound charge - the Iowas were built to withstand a 700 pound torpedo warhead with no ill effects, and earlier BBs suffered only slight damage from "long lance" torpedoes with almost 900 pound of explosive. Far from being a "pale shadow" they are actually much more powerful, if not as long ranged. Who fed you this nonsense?

Quote:
A problem that computers and radar have no trouble solving. Please google "2S6", or any similar AA system

Is the computer equipped to distinguish between threat and non-threat targets travelling at that speed and fire accordingly

For your googling pleasure please see "automated IFF", "air access corridor", "air control measure". I don't have time to tell you myself all that you don't know about AA systems and the means for controlling friendly air. Suffice it to say A/C are so tightly controlled that we don't even fire artillery through the airspace they are allowed to use, IF we can fire Suppresion of Enemy Air Defense missions and get them released int hte first place.

or does a human have to make a decision somewhere? Because humans have been known to freeze up in a crisis and freeze time is time you don't get to use.

As for the 2S6 integrated AAA, this is a system that claims (in advertising - remember how skeptical we are about advertising) a 65% kill probability used in conjunction with the SA-19 and assuming the target does not exceed 500m/s (Mach 2 for reference is 680.58 m/s). Let's assume the advertisers were modest and the system is good up to Mach 2. Let's assume the enemy is poor and can only lob 10 SAWHORSE missiles. How many 500kg semi-AP warheads are you going to eat?

None. It's called "layered defense", and it starts with Tomahawks, YF-117As and B-2s taking out the command and control facilities, radars, ASM launch facilities, followed by a steady stream of CAS and suppression, supplimented by the fleet CP, intermediate and close-in missle systems, (remember that mighty Sea Sparrow? If it can "disable" a destroyer, it will play hobb with a missle....), and gun systems for final defense.

Better hope they are aiming at your BB with them; because you just lost your entire escort package if they targeted your pickets instead.

_

Better the BB - it can take it. _________________

 

[richyoung]

Bartholomew, I think we're flogging a dead horse here - Rich and buddies aren't going to change their minds based on the facts. Let's just say that every navy in the world agrees with us, and not with Rich, and leave it at that.

Most other navies have a light cruiser or less as their biggest vessel - it is an argument applicable to only the U.S., and I have delt with all of your "facts".

 

[richyoung]

I have to ask. Weren't there a few battleships left in various stages of sunk and or destroyed after a little incident called Pearl Harbor? Or those don't count?

Slightly updated "Battle of Jutland" designs at peace with their water-tight doors open for inspection - and at that only the Oklahoma and Arizona were permanently lost. There loss has no more impplications for modern combat than the post-war scrapping of their mates does. If no one is ready to fight back - a few guys with cutting torches can take them out...

No Preacherman, I think he's coming around, a few thousand more words might do the trick J/K

NOT!

I have to say I was on the fence at the start of this but I find myself leaning toward smaller ships and more eggs in our basket. I think th 16" gun may have it's place but it may be time to design a different platform for the gun. Someone mentioned gun barges, that seems almost plausible. How about remote controlled / self propelled ones? Kind of like floating self propelled artillery pieces?

\
Cool idea - only one thing stopping it - $$$$$$$

 

[2nd Amendment]

+1 Rich, for the entire thread.

I always love it when someone winds up by saying well we won because you disagree with our "facts".

 

[Preacherman]

Rich, I'm pleased to know your credentials:

For the record, I "build" combat systems in the databases for the simulations we use to train the free world's artilery officers and ncos here at beautiful Fort Sill, Oklahoma. I have to know how to model blast effects, penetration, armor equivalence, probabilities of hit, kill, pentration, AA aquisition, tracking, & engagement - and I've been doing it for nine years.

They're good - for LAND artillery, etc. Unfortunately, the naval equation is rather different, as any US Navy ordnance specialist will tell you. I've had something over eleven years experience in actual Naval service and as a part of a design team building naval (and other) weapons, and have also undertaken liaison work with NATO officers examining the possibilities and probabilities of Cold War-type engagements between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. Even in the 1980's, the unanimous opinion of all these experts was that in a mass missile engagement of a NATO or US fleet, the fleet would lose big-time. The number of missiles available would simply swamp the defences, AEGIS notwithstanding.

Also, we did very intensive studies of missile impacts, including analysis of all known missile strikes on warships (in sinkings of reserve vessels, actual warshots such as the Falklands engagement, exercise mishaps such as the Turkish DD hit by a Sea Sparrow, tests of production missiles from France, Italy, Israel, the USA and the USSR - although no-one was too specific about how we got hold of the latter country's figures... ). Again, it was found that a hardened missile warhead, even at subsonic speeds, would penetrate WW2 hull armor of up to 8" - and (except for a few areas) BB superstructures aren't anywhere near that well armored. When supersonic speed and larger missiles, such as used by the Russians (and, today, China, India, Iran, etc.) were factored into the equation, it was unanimously agreed that even WW2 BB armored belts would not withstand the impact. As has been pointed out, these armored belts were made of steel, not nearly as resistant to penetration as today's complex layered composite armor. (Also, with the pop-up terminal attack profiles used by anti-ship missiles today, they would never encounter the main armored belt, diving instead through the decks and superstructure, which are much, much more vulnerable to their strikes.)

I'm afraid that naval experts have nothing like your confidence in a "layered" defence in a littoral environment, because that defence is directed towards keeping opponents from getting within range of the fleet. In a littoral environment, the opposite is true - you're taking the fleet to within range of the weapons! The latter can be dug into caves, mounted on trucks, launched from ships, submarines, aircraft and helicopters, or (in the case of the extended-range larger missiles) even launched from up to several hundred miles inland.

Our calculations (aided by actual exercises involving US carrier strikes, missile launches during exercises, etc.) showed that even an AEGIS-equipped battlegroup would have immense difficulty in dealing with 50-odd missiles all arriving within striking distance within a time period of 30 to 60 seconds. (This is, of course, precisely the tactic that Russia developed for attacking our carrier battle groups, and has been similarly adopted by other navies since then.) Many of the attacking missiles would be shot down, but invariably, 20% to 30% would get through - after which (i.e. for second-flight missiles) the defences would be so seriously degraded that the fleet's vulnerability would approach 100%. In missile flights of 100 missiles, it was figured that less than half would be taken out, leaving over 50 to do their damage. Not good...

(BTW, this is one of the reasons for the development of the vertical-launch missile systems currently used on US Navy warships - quite apart from the greater efficiencies in use of space, etc. It was found that the conventional missile launchers, loaded from magazines, that were used in the 1960's and 1970's would be very easily disabled by blast, even if this were not from a direct hit. VLS missiles are sheltered by the hull and their hatches, and are less vulnerable to such damage. The same applies to conventional, rotating radar antennae - these are very easily disabled compared to fixed, flat-panel antennae as used in the AEGIS system and other, more modern radars.)

As I said before, the Navies of the world are UNANIMOUS in their verdict on the survivability of ANY ship or battle group in such an environment - and approaching a hostile coastline puts them into precisely such an environment. This is why the US navy tactics include keeping battle groups as far offshore as possible, maintaining as large an outer perimeter for defence as possible (with aircraft patrolling several hundred miles away from the ships), an intermediate perimeter for AEGIS missile engagements of targets getting past the aircraft, an inner perimeter for point defence weapons, etc. Such perimeters work well when you can keep enemy missiles and aircraft from getting within (say) 500 miles of the battle group - which you can do when out at sea. If you have to put the battle group 50 miles offshore, or closer if the BB is to provide bombardment support, you've effectively narrowed your defensive perimeter to the point where it's impossible to interdict shore-launched (and hard to detect) missiles, etc. Even smaller 155mm. rounds can quite easily take out radars, Phoenix CIWS, etc., clearing the way for larger weapons to take out the ship itself and/or its larger, better-armored weapons.

This is why proposals for DD(X) and more modern support ships emphasize stealth features: if they're hard to detect, they're hard to target. Conventional BB's are incredibly easy to detect, and just as easy to target. Given enough attacking missiles to swamp the defences, they're dead meat, with their weapons and systems disabled even if they're not sunk. Furthermore, with modern warhead developments, they'll be hit not just by conventional explosives, but by EMP warheads, etc. which will also disable their active defences.

I'm not going to continue this debate, because it's clear that you believe strongly in your facts and figures, just as I believe in mine. I will simply state that all Navies agree on the non-survivability issue, including the US Navy, and that's the way it is right now. This decision is not about to change.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The only aerial torpedo we used in quantity was the Mark XIII with a 600 pound warhead. The only other one actually used was a tiny anti-sub homing torpedo called "Homer" - you wouldn't attack any surface ship, much less a Yamato class, with it. How many different torps did you (mistakenly) THINK we had. You really aren't building up much credibility...

The Mk13 aerial torpedo initially had a warhead of 451lbs of TNT and wasn't changed to a warhead of 600lbs of Torpex until later in the war. Not that I don't enjoy having my credibility questioned by someone ignorant of the facts mind you.

Once AGAIN, they are going to be there anyway to protect the LHA, and other components of the amphibious force the BB is providing fire support for....no extra expenditure needed.

Well since you are apparently our resident expert, perhaps you can answer me whether they will be able to accomodate guarding an extra ship with their current loadout of missiles and sensor arrays? That won't present any problems?

Using an unapproved load with 40 year old powder that hadn't been stored properly.

Is newer powder available for 16" guns?

For the record, I "build" combat systems in the databases for the simulations we use to train the free world's artilery officers and ncos here at beautiful Fort Sill, Oklahoma. I have to know how to model blast effects, penetration, armor equivalence, probabilities of hit, kill, pentration, AA aquisition, tracking, & engagement - and I've been doing it for nine years. Just what, pray tell, do YOU do for a living, (just so we can weigh your "expert opinion"), and whats the DSN number of the government office you occupy?

I'm a first year law student. Prior to that however, I was a linguist and analyst for Naval Security Group serving in the 7th Fleet (the AO for most of our scenarios). In that capacity I served in both DIRSUP and watch floor roles.

These are the most heavily armored warships ever built - if they can't take no one can.

Well you are right. If a ship is planning to survive modern naval combat by just soaking up hits from incoming threats, it probably is going to fail that test. This is one of the reasons every warship built in the last 50 years has been designed around the concept of avoiding detection to begin with and engaging those threats before they can hit the ship. The idea of slugging it out and trading explosives was dying even before WWII started.

(regarding the Muavenet Sea Sparrow incident) As I would expect - in a WAR, she doubtless would have continued to steam and fight.

The Saratoga (CV 60) accidentally fired a salvo of two Seasparrow missiles at the Turkish destroyer, Mauvenet, on October 1, 1992. One of the two missiles, with a nominal 38-kg warhead, struck the ship. While the Mauvenet was not sunk, the bridge was destroyed and five crewmembers, including the captain, were killed. This damage equated to a mission kill. See The Navy's Year in Review, U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings 119, No. 5 (May 1993), p. 125.

This is one of my points about the BB - even if it survives, scoring a mission kill on it is easier still because all of the modern comm and sensor systems are outside the armored belt by necessity.

You don't always "know" when you have destroyed something, so some targets have to be re-engaged over and over, until manuever can get close enough to confirm destruction or deal with it themselves.

So which targets can be suppressed with a 16" gun; but not with a 5" gun or a 155mm?

How nuch space do you think a naval task force takes up at sea when its all spread out?

It depends on the mission, ships, environment and time available. Aegis-equipped ships may operate as pickets as far as 220nm out from the carrier. Remember, we are talking missiles that travel 25nm in a single minute, you need to control fairly large sections of space if you hope to be able to protect your escorts.

Also, most of these task forces are designed around the idea that the high-value ship stays inside the middle of the task force, not running out to the edges of the formation. An additional problem presented by this is the fact that the coastline presents a pretty impenetrable barrier for the picket ships that would normally be there to provide your missile defense. This means these ships must be in different and less ideal positions than they would be in a carrier group.

Whats the BIGGEST warhead available on an ASM that perform such a terminal manuver?

Well, there is the SS-N-19 Shipwreck which is a 7,000kg supersonic missile with a 750kg warhead and a 650km range. You would be unlikely to see that outside Russia as it is one of their premier anti-ship missiles. However, they have already sold their other premier anti-ship missile, the SS-N-22 Sunburn to China, so who can say?

How does it compare against a 16" AP shell OR a 500KG AP aerial bomb, either of which the BBs were designed to GET HIT BY, and still be able to fight relatively unaffected?

Well the U.S. was able to purchase some quantity of the commercial sale Sunburns... maybe we should put the banged up Iowa to good use and find out.

..so we loose the Tomahawk launchers - big deal. Much of the superstructure is a LOT more armored than a modern DD, as you will know after you read the link above.

Except those Tomahawks each have a 1,000lb warhead - making the four armored box launchers 8,000lbs of HE stored above decks in a single container that isn't armored anywhere near the same level as the rest of the BB. Look at naval history and see how often explosions of onboard munitions played a role in a lucky shot or hit destroying or seriously damaging a vessel.

Frankly, if NGFS is the mission, you might be better off removing them and relying on the VLS cells of escorts.

SET-53 (an anti-submarine homing torpedo - one wouldn't fire it at a BB) only has a 220 pound charge - the Iowas were built to withstand a 700 pound torpedo warhead with no ill effects, and earlier BBs suffered only slight damage from "long lance" torpedoes with almost 900 pound of explosive. Far from being a "pale shadow" they are actually much more powerful, if not as long ranged.

I assure you, the SET-53, like most of the 53 series, is a multipurpose torpedo and can be fired at a BB or any other surface ship. However, I am at fault in being imprecise as I am accustomed to referring to all Russian 533mm torpedos by that name, even though it references a specific model. The type of torpedo we might expect to see fired at a BB would be a Chinese YU-4 (Russian SAET-60). This can be fired from the same 533mm tube as the SET-53 and most subs that use them carry six in the bow tubes. Each has a 400kg warhead.

Who fed you this nonsense?

The U.S. Navy.

Here is a project for you. Find a ship that has survived a single hit from a Mk48 ADCAP 533mm torpedo. In the meantime, here is another historical comparison for you:

Here is the 14,000 ton former-LPH-3 Okinawa being sunk by a single Mk48 torpedo:

For your googling pleasure please see "automated IFF", "air access corridor", "air control measure". I don't have time to tell you myself all that you don't know about AA systems and the means for controlling friendly air.

Naval Task Forces often hang out in crisis locations BEFORE war has broken out. Suprise attack is also a popular naval strategem that has won many battles. Since you don't have the time to give me an in-depth explanation, maybe you can just explain the practicality of applying these systems in a peacetime environment and what kind of compromises might need to be made. Would those effect the defense of your high-value target floating offshore?

None. It's called "layered defense"

Yeah, and the layer the BB provides is an armor belt and 4 CIWS. Everything else is provided externally. DD-X would have a lower radar signature, a VLS system that could accomodate Standard Anti-Air missiles and a phased array radar system designed to handle missile-flood attacks. It could even have a CIWS too!

Bartholomew, I think we're flogging a dead horse here - Rich and buddies aren't going to change their minds based on the facts. Let's just say that every navy in the world agrees with us, and not with Rich, and leave it at that.

Probably; but it keeps me from going insane on the Kelo vs. City of New London thread and is entertaining besides. As an added bonus, no matter how much Rich might know about modelling things blowing up or I might know about the threat environment in the 7th Fleet AO, the people who will ultimately decide this policy are more capable than either of us.

 

[Joejojoba111]

Does anyone have information on the penetration capabilities, RHA, of mose of these anti-ship missiles?

I mean the states do sound impressive, several hundred kilogram warhead, excess burning fuel, but what will that really do to thick thick thick thick steel?

As I understand it, explosives VS steel is a no-brainer, explosives lose. Bridges in Vietnam were unsuccessfully attacked with ordinary missles, and they actually left some scorch-marks on the steel... The thickness of steel sported in the belting of large BBs precludes penetration by most conventional weapons. That's why the best way to sink them was Underwater, or through the deck with AP delayed-fuse bombs. And in WW2 there had been vast strides made in underwater passive defences against torpedos, Italian systems, French systems, everyone had systems.

I think Rich makes sense, but he's pissing in the wind, no-one cares, the Dogma is already in place. Where once BBs were IT, and CVs or Subs were NOT, the situation is now reversed, practicality be damned.

 

[Preacherman]

Joe-multiple-J's ( ), these anti-ship missiles are designed with an armored warhead. This is so built as to be able (by design) to punch through steel armor plate, and/or multiple unarmored bulkheads, so as to put the explosive charge deep inside the target ship. The Russians were the first to develop these, as they were more likely to face very large ships. Early Western anti-ship missiles (e.g. Exocet, the Israeli Gabriel, the US Harpoon, etc.) did not have these "penetrating" warheads in their earlier generations, but I understand that later developments of these weapons do have some form of "penetrator aids" built in, although I don't know for sure.

The penetration works on three levels:

1. The sheer speed of a supersonic anti-ship missile, allied to its weight, makes for a formidable delivery of plain ol' kinetic energy, which will punch through an awful lot of steel plate or multiple bulkheads.

2. In some missiles (notably the Russian ones) there is an outer hardened layer around the warhead, of such a shape and thickness as to be able to penetrate very well, and thus get the warhead deep into a ship before it explodes.

3. Against very heavily armored targets (e.g. the side armor belt of a BB), the warhead, moving at Mach 2+, would probably blow a hole through the armor, even if it didn't manage to penetrate beyond it. This would also probably strip off a large amount of the layered armor, as happened in World War 2 to more than one battleship when an enemy shell exploded inside the layers of the armored belt.

 

[280PLUS]

Early Western anti-ship missiles (e.g. Exocet, the Israeli Gabriel, the US Harpoon, etc.) did not have these "penetrating" warheads in their earlier generations, but I understand that later developments of these weapons do have some form of "penetrator aids" built in, although I don't know for sure.

I know the Exocet hit I refered to earlier must have penetrated deep as it literally blew away amidships right down to the waterline. The only thing left connecting fore to aft was the keel from what I could tell. I looked around for the pic online today but had no luck. Granted it probably did not encounter much armor plate on the way through. I'm going to guess what I'm talking about took place circa 1979. Us destroyer boys were DULY impressed.

 

[Joejojoba111]

OK, crazy stupid idea time - try not to laugh:0

What if, just what if, they put reactive tiles above the water-line? You could remove a turret to accomodate any increased weight. Reactive tiles, even 1st generation ones, ought to really mess up any hopes an ASM had, no?

Also, for my information, torpedos explode near or beneath the ship, without contacting it, right? So reactive armour their would be useless?

Oh, one more thing, I found out that when considering armor impacts, it is good to examine two points of view. One is that the projectile is hitting the target at a speed. Then, to be fair, pretend that the projectile is standing still and is suddenly struck by the target, at the same speed. It really changes some ideas. "How would the warhead work if impacted by 400mm of steel travelling 700m/s?"

Oh, and Rich, fyi aiui HEAT jets from small warheads can travel a few meters, as demonstrated by some spaced-armor tests, so I'd expect a respectable coherent distance from a big one - but the damage done to a big ship by a 3-6" hole a even 10 meters long, that's not much damage.

Also, people here minimize the impact (no pun intendet) of the bombs that miss ships in war. Those were shown to be the most devastating bombs - aside from those in the funnel.


Oh, last point, iirc the big reason why battle ships were not considered really practical for modern naval warfare was because the missiles that would be coming at American fleets in WW3, when they entered Russian waters, were not HE, but thermo-nuclear, so planning to duke it out with 'da big 'uns was a poor plan. But for supporting a landing you are already working under the basic assumption that the landing force will not be nuked! This has to be assumed, doesn't it?

 

[280PLUS]

Another thing that crossed my mind.

WOOD DECKS? How well does wood slow down one of these supersonic missles?