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.
I was aware of the change in charge weight and composition - I was merely giving you the "best case" scenario for YOUR argument.
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?
AEGIS defends an area, not individual ships. It targets the incoming threats, regardless of the number of individual ships. It ADDS and coordinates the close-in defense of ALL the ships, so actually more ships are better. Having a heavily armored large target to take hits intended for a light-skinned AEGIS cruiser or LHA also enhances the defense. So, rather than presenting problems, it actually helps by adding guns and an almost invulnerable target.
Is newer powder available for 16" guns?
For money, anything is available. We use millions of tons of powder each year in small arms and artillery - there's no big "secret" to making it for large naval cannon - you just modify the formula and grain size accordingly. With modern propellants, its not impossible that range will even increase. Even of the powder still in inventory, not ALL of it was improperly stored, as the Iowa's was.
I'm a first year law student.
I hope you intend to be a trial lawer - formidable agruing skills such as yours would be wasted elsewhere...
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.
I may disagree with you, but I salute you and thank you for your service to our country. Are you going to come back as a JAG lawyer? From what I see, they get to fly Tomcats, go on CIA missions, order around sub and carrier commanders, date Senators, etc...
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.
I'll confess - I thought destroyers had an alternate position to be conned and fought from if the bridge was destroyed. I know the BBs have everythind inside the "armored box" to keep manuvering, navagating, firing, and (if the antennas aren't gone) communicating, even with extensive superstructer damage outside of the "box"
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.
They don't have to be - with miniaturization, what can't fit inside the conning armor can be placed below, in what used to be the magazine spaces for the secondary guns.
Quote:
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?
When a 16' lands it gets EVERYONE's attention: for a long ways around. In contrast, bunkers and buttoned up armored vehicles are difficult to suppress with 155, and almost impossible with 5" , esp extended range.
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.
Bite your tounge...but if she survives, we fix her up and reactivate her - OK?
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.
You raise a good point. All I can say in response is that my understanding os that ALL naval ordinace has been switched to a new explosive compound that, while actually DECREASING the explosive yield slightly, is much more resistant to "cook off" and sympathetic detonation. This change came about after a couple of bad fires on aircraft carriers that almost resulted in losing the ship. The Air Force still uses the old explosive - that's why the services have different munitions, even though the bomb case, fuse and guide vanes may be identical.
Frankly, if NGFS is the mission, you might be better off removing them and relying on the VLS cells of escorts.
Agreed - the Tomahawks were added to enhance long-range capabilities against the surface vessels they were last re-activated to counter: the four Kirov-class nuclear guided missle "cruisers" - (closer to battlecruisers). Plans exist to add 96 VLS Tomahawks under the armor decks for the Iowas. Read about that and more at this very wellconsidered and researched site about re-activation of the Iowa class:
Its nto jsut me - read these guys!
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.
Would you agree to the "Long Lance", with its 490 KG warhead (107% as explosive as the same weight of TNT, so equiv to a 524 kg warhead) as an analogue? An american BB with a similar protection scheme tothe Iowa class was struck by one - heres what happened:
'The side protection (torpedo defense) and the triple bottom systems provide protection against underwater threats such as torpedoes, mines and near-miss explosions. Both of these multi-layered systems are intended to absorb the energy from an underwater explosion equivalent to a 700 pound charge of TNT. The Navy derived at this amount of protection based on intelligence information gathered in the 1930’s. At that time, US Naval Intelligence was unaware of the advances the Japanese had made in torpedo technology. One of these advances was the Japanese 24 inch diameter "Long Lance" torpedo, which carried a charge equivalent to 891 pounds of TNT. A Long Lance torpedo essentially defeated the USS North Carolina’s side protective system. The ship was hit by chance at its narrowest, and therefore most vulnerable part of the side protection system. An Iowa Class battleship would have taken lighter damage from the torpedo due to an improved torpedo protection system over the North Carolina Class.' from
this site! :
Iowas armor protection:
Quote:
Who fed you this nonsense?
(..must not quote forrest gump...must not quote forrest gump... :banghead: )
Just kidding!
Here is a project for you. Find a ship that has survived a single hit from a Mk48 ADCAP 533mm torpedo.
Only actual firing I know of is the Brittish shoot of the ex-
Pheonix General Belgrano, a cruiser old enough to have actually been at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked - the Iowas have better protection. Still, a Mk 48 with 650 lbs. (292.5 kg) PBXN-103 (This is equivalent to about 1,200 lbs. (544 kg) of TNT) would be a problem - I would expect damage, but not a sinking.
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:
I think we can agree that a 14,000 carrier is a much softer target than a 56,000 ton battleship. See the above annecdote about
North Carolina.
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?
No more so than any of the others - its either peacetime, or it isn't. Determining the imminence of hostilities is an intelligencefunction, not surface warfare.
Quote:
None. It's called "layered defense"
Yeah, and the layer the BB provides is an armor belt and 4 CIWS.
Which is inside all of the other layers...
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!
All except the lower radar signature can be added to the BBs during refit - and there are even things that can be done about that with active jamming and judicious use of RAM. Plus the BB still can shoot further, and live longer. Plus DD-X is DOA...
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.
..may they make the right decision. Glad to have entertained you. Please read the link above - it's not just crazy old Rich coming up with this by himself - there are sound, reasoned arguments for reactivating the BBs.