User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 6:38:51 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Same things a BB has to defend against and armor doesn't make you survivable against even current threats, so the BBN doesn't buy you anything there. What the carrier does give you is the chance to outstick the threat. That kind of offensive capability is something that the surface navy hasn't shown much interest in until extremely recently.  Plus armor always makes things more survivable.  Carrier gets a few holes poked in the deck, it's out of action. OR, look at the Bonhomme Richard. They fucked up redoing the flight deck now it's down again while they re-coat it. Also, one thing I wonder about, a lot of modern weapons are designed to defeat modern ships... I.E. torpedo's detonate under a ships keel so they lift up, break dropping into the void rather than trying to penetrated directly... But Iowa class ships were built a LOT differently than modern ships. There's an interesting write up about it I'm trying to track down which is hinting that a lot of modern weapons are less effective against Iowas than modern ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 6:57:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She's a big girl by todays standards. I did not realize how big she actually was. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The USS Zumwalt is big: It is 610 feet long, has an 11,000-square foot flight deck, and displaces 14,564 tons of water. That’s about 100 feet longer than other destroyers, as well a water displacement about 50 percent larger than the next biggest destroyer on the water, the Military Times reported. She's a big girl by todays standards. I did not realize how big she actually was. With half the crew of a DDG... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 7:02:59 PM EDT
[#3]
I've got it!
Mark 7 gun + decommissioned Ohio class = SSBBN. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 7:03:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With half the crew of a DDG... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The USS Zumwalt is big: It is 610 feet long, has an 11,000-square foot flight deck, and displaces 14,564 tons of water. That’s about 100 feet longer than other destroyers, as well a water displacement about 50 percent larger than the next biggest destroyer on the water, the Military Times reported. She's a big girl by todays standards. I did not realize how big she actually was. With half the crew of a DDG... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 7:30:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which has GOT to suck ass when it comes to watch standing and hitting libbo port... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The USS Zumwalt is big: It is 610 feet long, has an 11,000-square foot flight deck, and displaces 14,564 tons of water. That’s about 100 feet longer than other destroyers, as well a water displacement about 50 percent larger than the next biggest destroyer on the water, the Military Times reported. She's a big girl by todays standards. I did not realize how big she actually was. With half the crew of a DDG... And firefighting...with a portion of the crew wounded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 9:14:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She's a big girl by todays standards. I did not realize how big she actually was. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The USS Zumwalt is big: It is 610 feet long, has an 11,000-square foot flight deck, and displaces 14,564 tons of water. That’s about 100 feet longer than other destroyers, as well a water displacement about 50 percent larger than the next biggest destroyer on the water, the Military Times reported. She's a big girl by todays standards. I did not realize how big she actually was. The PRC is building a similarly sized surface combatant. I posted a link to an article a couple of months ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 9:15:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, yea cause the surface Navy seems like it doesn't do a lot more than justify it's existence, and support ground forces after the Amphibs are already in action.
Plus armor always makes things more survivable. Carrier gets a few holes poked in the deck, it's out of action. OR, look at the Bonhomme Richard. They fucked up redoing the flight deck now it's down again while they re-coat it.
Also, one thing I wonder about, a lot of modern weapons are designed to defeat modern ships... I.E. torpedo's detonate under a ships keel so they lift up, break dropping into the void rather than trying to penetrated directly... But Iowa class ships were built a LOT differently than modern ships. There's an interesting write up about it I'm trying to track down which is hinting that a lot of modern weapons are less effective against Iowas than modern ships. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Same things a BB has to defend against and armor doesn't make you survivable against even current threats, so the BBN doesn't buy you anything there. What the carrier does give you is the chance to outstick the threat. That kind of offensive capability is something that the surface navy hasn't shown much interest in until extremely recently.
Plus armor always makes things more survivable. Carrier gets a few holes poked in the deck, it's out of action. OR, look at the Bonhomme Richard. They fucked up redoing the flight deck now it's down again while they re-coat it.
Also, one thing I wonder about, a lot of modern weapons are designed to defeat modern ships... I.E. torpedo's detonate under a ships keel so they lift up, break dropping into the void rather than trying to penetrated directly... But Iowa class ships were built a LOT differently than modern ships. There's an interesting write up about it I'm trying to track down which is hinting that a lot of modern weapons are less effective against Iowas than modern ships. A mk 48 HWT would not be kind to a BB |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 9:24:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've... been saying that for a long time... just not in this thread. More money for cheap battleships to turn defended beaches into undefended beaches. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. If you're that concerned about saving money, we should strike DDG-1000 and all other NSFS requirements for amphibious assaults of defended beaches that will never happen. Could preserve resources for combat capability that will actually be used. More money for cheap battleships to turn defended beaches into undefended beaches.
LPD hulls with 8" guns.
<ducks for cover> |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 10:28:45 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't get to play GQ OOD or qualify as TAO because the SWOs also were not capable of running the ship's tactical drills so I got to be the ITT lead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What can I say? On SAIPAN, the Special Details OOD was... me. Just me. ALL of them - GQ, Cond IA, Sea & Anchor, UNREP, whatever. Also had the permanent midwatch, because the aviator Captain liked to sleep at night. I didn't get to play GQ OOD or qualify as TAO because the SWOs also were not capable of running the ship's tactical drills so I got to be the ITT lead. We normally didn't have a TAO on SAIPAN... And how much is there to do as TAO on a 'Gator? "CIWS to AUTO! Launch chaff, reseed every 30 seconds!" Done.  We had BPDMS, but good luck with that thing. Only did station a TAO watch once - when we were off Lebanon for the TWA hijacking - and OPS almost had the Stinger det shoot down a Cessna with NBC News. The were busting the CTF restricted airspace though, so would have served them right.
Perhaps if LaSalle spent less time in port in Bahrain, they would have been more proficient at that steaming stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 10:31:36 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ahem... I beg to differ. At least do not paint all Naval Aviation communities with such a broad brush. The number 1-5 students in the SWOS Tactics Phase in my class were all P-3 TACCOs there to become CVN TAOs. A 300 knot brain in a 20 knot world. MPA has to know ASW, ASUW, ISR (PHOTOINT, ELINT, RADINT), MIW, SAR, Strike, Coordinated Operations, Combined Operations, etc. A P-3 Mission Commander is a detachment OIC as a LT operating from foreign countries independently and running a det of 20-40 people. In the air you're managing an 11 man crew with widely varied position responsibilities and duties. Developing a coordinated plan for the sensors and comms set up and employment, directing the flight station, reporting to other units., controlling several helos in a coordinated prosecution, weaponeering, navigation, flight rules, international and martime law, acoustics, radar propagation, tactics, etc., etc. Just for starters. On the GW the "Ship Driver of the Year" for the Atlantic was a P-3 Pilot. Hell - PACCOM is a P-3 guy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's because the warfare area responsibilities of aviators and submariners are significantly narrower than it is for surface warfare. Being thoughtful about it  , what starts as an ASW problem can become an AAW and ASW problem very quickly. Submarines always have a couple big advantages - one, you can't see the sneaky bastards, and two, they are much more aware of and able to exploit the sonar conditions than are surface ships.
Aviators - what can you say about them? All the arrogance of the AF's Zipper Suited Sun Gods, with an extra dose for landing on a moving postage stamp. The biggest thing for Aviators is "being a good stick" Not reponsible for anything outside their own cockpit until they hit LCDR. When I was a frocked LT, I had two aviator LCDRs as JOOD and JOOW in my watch section. One commented to me "this Shoe shit is hard!" The concept of managing abridge watch team, and the ship's routine and granting permission to the EOOW to do all manner of things from changing the steam and electrical plant configuration to purifying lube oil, transferring fuel from storage to service tanks, while monitoring 4 radio circuits and tracking contacts, and at the same time maneuvering not only our ship, but the entire formation, was a bit over whelming. Ahem... I beg to differ. At least do not paint all Naval Aviation communities with such a broad brush. The number 1-5 students in the SWOS Tactics Phase in my class were all P-3 TACCOs there to become CVN TAOs. A 300 knot brain in a 20 knot world. MPA has to know ASW, ASUW, ISR (PHOTOINT, ELINT, RADINT), MIW, SAR, Strike, Coordinated Operations, Combined Operations, etc. A P-3 Mission Commander is a detachment OIC as a LT operating from foreign countries independently and running a det of 20-40 people. In the air you're managing an 11 man crew with widely varied position responsibilities and duties. Developing a coordinated plan for the sensors and comms set up and employment, directing the flight station, reporting to other units., controlling several helos in a coordinated prosecution, weaponeering, navigation, flight rules, international and martime law, acoustics, radar propagation, tactics, etc., etc. Just for starters. On the GW the "Ship Driver of the Year" for the Atlantic was a P-3 Pilot. Hell - PACCOM is a P-3 guy. Yeah, OK... P-3 guys get a pass. Sorta. We had a P-3 guy as COMMO - he was genuinely shocked that he wasn't going to get per diem on a 6-month Med cruise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 12:39:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Did Dport get banned? Is he MIA or dead and I missed it? I figure even he could see the bat signal by now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 1:46:11 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A mk 48 HWT would not be kind to a BB Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip Also, one thing I wonder about, a lot of modern weapons are designed to defeat modern ships... I.E. torpedo's detonate under a ships keel so they lift up, break dropping into the void rather than trying to penetrated directly... But Iowa class ships were built a LOT differently than modern ships. There's an interesting write up about it I'm trying to track down which is hinting that a lot of modern weapons are less effective against Iowas than modern ships. A mk 48 HWT would not be kind to a BB There's an interesting damage assessment of the USS Arkansas after being hit by the baker bomb (subsea atomic tests) stating that even though it was flipped in the air but the boat was more or less "intact" and in one piece. That was a 1910 built Dreadnaught, and the Iowa's were built even stronger.  So, while I agree a Mk48 would not be kind to a Battleship, I don't think it would have the same catastrophic effects that people have come to expect from seeing footage of them hitting smaller much less robust vessels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 1:47:58 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LPD hulls with 8" guns. <ducks for cover> Quote HistoryQuoted: snip LPD hulls with 8" guns. <ducks for cover> |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:35:14 AM EDT
[#14]
everything is a good idea.
but its zero sum. gotta run with your best ideas. or, in the current environment, idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 7:53:45 AM EDT
[#15]
When was the last time the Navy used gunfire support?
I remember they shelled the crap out of 2 Iranian oil platforms in the late 80s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 8:16:59 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps if LaSalle spent less time in port in Bahrain, they would have been more proficient at that steaming stuff. In my 2 year FDNF tour, we spent ~40% of our time in homeport (not Bahrain). Lots of underway time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 8:24:44 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a lot what I was reading about, capitol ships like Iowa's and carriers don't take torpedo hits like smaller boats. There's an interesting damage assessment of the USS Arkansas after being hit by the baker bomb (subsea atomic tests) stating that even though it was flipped in the air but the boat was more or less "intact" and in one piece. That was a 1910 built Dreadnaught, and the Iowa's were built even stronger. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdfhttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdf http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/01/50/43/02_big.jpg So, while I agree a Mk48 would not be kind to a Battleship, I don't think it would have the same catastrophic effects that people have come to expect from seeing footage of them hitting smaller much less robust vessels. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip Also, one thing I wonder about, a lot of modern weapons are designed to defeat modern ships... I.E. torpedo's detonate under a ships keel so they lift up, break dropping into the void rather than trying to penetrated directly... But Iowa class ships were built a LOT differently than modern ships. There's an interesting write up about it I'm trying to track down which is hinting that a lot of modern weapons are less effective against Iowas than modern ships. A mk 48 HWT would not be kind to a BB There's an interesting damage assessment of the USS Arkansas after being hit by the baker bomb (subsea atomic tests) stating that even though it was flipped in the air but the boat was more or less "intact" and in one piece. That was a 1910 built Dreadnaught, and the Iowa's were built even stronger. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdfhttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdf http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/01/50/43/02_big.jpg So, while I agree a Mk48 would not be kind to a Battleship, I don't think it would have the same catastrophic effects that people have come to expect from seeing footage of them hitting smaller much less robust vessels. You don't understand how a Mk48 works. It uses the weight of the ship to destroy the ship. A battleship would fare poorly. You may be better suited commenting on things your are knowledgable of... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 8:26:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One of the nice things about being an aviator (former) is that I can do more than one thing at a time, Shoe. I haven't seen you be able to do more than one thing at a time yet. Maybe you should focus on one thing and be good at it before you start on the second thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 8:27:31 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did Dport get banned? Is he MIA or dead and I missed it? I figure even he could see the bat signal by now. I'm a bit worried about him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:01:46 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I haven't seen you be able to do more than one thing at a time yet. Maybe you should focus on one thing and be good at it before you start on the second thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One of the nice things about being an aviator (former) is that I can do more than one thing at a time, Shoe. I haven't seen you be able to do more than one thing at a time yet. Maybe you should focus on one thing and be good at it before you start on the second thing. Maybe that's because you're a shoe and only able to focus on one of the many things that I'm doing 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:03:22 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
gotta run with your best ideas. Which have to do with the red sun of Afghanistan... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:04:18 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a bit worried about him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did Dport get banned? Is he MIA or dead and I missed it? I figure even he could see the bat signal by now. I'm a bit worried about him. He's working for the man in his new job. Too busy to play these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:12:08 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I haven't seen you be able to do more than one thing at a time yet. Maybe you should focus on one thing and be good at it before you start on the second thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One of the nice things about being an aviator (former) is that I can do more than one thing at a time, Shoe. I haven't seen you be able to do more than one thing at a time yet. Maybe you should focus on one thing and be good at it before you start on the second thing. What is your area of expertise? And before you wonder why I'm asking about you and not the thread at hand, knowledge of your background helps color the conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:32:16 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't understand how a Mk48 works. It uses the weight of the ship to destroy the ship. A battleship would fare poorly. You may be better suited commenting on things your are knowledgable of... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip Also, one thing I wonder about, a lot of modern weapons are designed to defeat modern ships... I.E. torpedo's detonate under a ships keel so they lift up, break dropping into the void rather than trying to penetrated directly... But Iowa class ships were built a LOT differently than modern ships. There's an interesting write up about it I'm trying to track down which is hinting that a lot of modern weapons are less effective against Iowas than modern ships. A mk 48 HWT would not be kind to a BB There's an interesting damage assessment of the USS Arkansas after being hit by the baker bomb (subsea atomic tests) stating that even though it was flipped in the air but the boat was more or less "intact" and in one piece. That was a 1910 built Dreadnaught, and the Iowa's were built even stronger. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdfhttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdf http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/01/50/43/02_big.jpg So, while I agree a Mk48 would not be kind to a Battleship, I don't think it would have the same catastrophic effects that people have come to expect from seeing footage of them hitting smaller much less robust vessels. You don't understand how a Mk48 works. It uses the weight of the ship to destroy the ship. A battleship would fare poorly. You may be better suited commenting on things your are knowledgable of... Yet, Capitol ships like Battleships are built differently. Not only is there multiple strength decks, but the armor sides keep them from sagging and hogging out like a "normal" ship would.  Kind of goes a long ways to protection.... Also.... if you think weight breaks ships, especially the ships own wight, explain the Arkansas being flipped hundreds of feet in the air, and subsequently being pushed under and sank from a water column thousands of feet high crashing down on it capsizing but leaving the hull nearly intact... Also, even when used against more commonly designed vessels, it's not like Mk-48's instantly destroy ships... there's an economy of scale to deal with as well... the larger the ship, the more hits it's going to take to get anything done fast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:36:39 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also, even when used against more commonly designed vessels, it's not like Mk-48's instantly destroy ships... there's an economy of scale to deal with as well... the larger the ship, the more hits it's going to take to get anything done fast. Are you going to armor the radars and datalink antennas that allow your BBN to engage other targets? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 9:42:50 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you going to armor the radars and datalink antennas that allow your BBN to engage other targets? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also, even when used against more commonly designed vessels, it's not like Mk-48's instantly destroy ships... there's an economy of scale to deal with as well... the larger the ship, the more hits it's going to take to get anything done fast. Are you going to armor the radars and datalink antennas that allow your BBN to engage other targets? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:08:34 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going to armor aircraft and helo's on Carriers and Ambhibs so they can still fly? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Also, even when used against more commonly designed vessels, it's not like Mk-48's instantly destroy ships... there's an economy of scale to deal with as well... the larger the ship, the more hits it's going to take to get anything done fast. Are you going to armor the radars and datalink antennas that allow your BBN to engage other targets? You're the one asserting that armor is going to make the BBN survivable and effective. We don't armor up fighters any more because, while armor was effective against small caliber machine guns and cannons, it's not effective against modern air-to-air missiles and the limited amount of extra protection that the armor provides is not worth the cost in speed, maneuverabilty, range, and payload. My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:17:55 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. So basically, the same future tech that might actually make a battleship viable again would also turn into a tomb.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:18:25 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're the one asserting that armor is going to make the BBN survivable and effective. We don't armor up fighters any more because, while armor was effective against small caliber machine guns and cannons, it's not effective against modern air-to-air missiles and the limited amount of extra protection that the armor provides is not worth the cost in speed, maneuverabilty, range, and payload. My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip You're the one asserting that armor is going to make the BBN survivable and effective. We don't armor up fighters any more because, while armor was effective against small caliber machine guns and cannons, it's not effective against modern air-to-air missiles and the limited amount of extra protection that the armor provides is not worth the cost in speed, maneuverabilty, range, and payload. My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. Not to mention Battleships can take a hit from nukes a lot better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:41:07 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So basically, the same future tech that might actually make a battleship viable again would also turn into a tomb.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. So basically, the same future tech that might actually make a battleship viable again would also turn into a tomb.... Tech that would make a battleship viable again: time travel back to 1914. Battleships were reduced to a niche platform by WWII. That niche was shore bombardment ISO of an amphibious assault against a heavily defended beachhead. Something that the USMC doctrine of STOM infers that do not intend to execute in the future. BBs were also useful as a flaghsip because their superstructure allowed for higher mounting of antennae and more reliable, longer range communications - no longer relevant due to SATCOM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:51:07 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So basically, the same future tech that might actually make a battleship viable again would also turn into a tomb.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. So basically, the same future tech that might actually make a battleship viable again would also turn into a tomb.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 10:53:06 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tech that would make a battleship viable again: time travel back to 1914. Battleships were reduced to a niche platform by WWII. That niche was shore bombardment ISO of an amphibious assault against a heavily defended beachhead. Something that the USMC doctrine of STOM infers that do not intend to execute in the future. BBs were also useful as a flaghsip because their superstructure allowed for higher mounting of antennae and more reliable, longer range communications - no longer relevant due to SATCOM. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. So basically, the same future tech that might actually make a battleship viable again would also turn into a tomb.... Tech that would make a battleship viable again: time travel back to 1914. Battleships were reduced to a niche platform by WWII. That niche was shore bombardment ISO of an amphibious assault against a heavily defended beachhead. Something that the USMC doctrine of STOM infers that do not intend to execute in the future. BBs were also useful as a flaghsip because their superstructure allowed for higher mounting of antennae and more reliable, longer range communications - no longer relevant due to SATCOM. Also, as mentioned earlier, with new weapons comes new abilities to shoot farther inland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 11:30:21 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're the one asserting that armor is going to make the BBN survivable and effective. We don't armor up fighters any more because, while armor was effective against small caliber machine guns and cannons, it's not effective against modern air-to-air missiles and the limited amount of extra protection that the armor provides is not worth the cost in speed, maneuverabilty, range, and payload. My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Also, even when used against more commonly designed vessels, it's not like Mk-48's instantly destroy ships... there's an economy of scale to deal with as well... the larger the ship, the more hits it's going to take to get anything done fast. Are you going to armor the radars and datalink antennas that allow your BBN to engage other targets? You're the one asserting that armor is going to make the BBN survivable and effective. We don't armor up fighters any more because, while armor was effective against small caliber machine guns and cannons, it's not effective against modern air-to-air missiles and the limited amount of extra protection that the armor provides is not worth the cost in speed, maneuverabilty, range, and payload. My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. operating in squadrons and groups, is saving a 5 billion dollar ship, even if out of the fight, worth it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 11:30:31 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So by extension, that would mean any surface ship would be a tomb, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My position is that surface ship armor is no longer effective against a modern threat i.e. a supersonic ASCM with 500kg+ shaped charge warhead. Even if you were able to design armor thick enough to withstand a mach 2.5-mach 3 missile with a large, shaped charge warhead, you can't armor the systems you need to shoot the bad guys and protect yourself from getting hit again. So basically, the same future tech that might actually make a battleship viable again would also turn into a tomb.... Not if that ship doesn't armor its radar so it can't see... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 11:32:28 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good thing satellites are infallible, and can't be jammed or intercepted and destroyed Is SATCOM more enduring than long haul terrestrial comms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 11:33:25 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
operating in squadrons and groups, is saving a 5 billion dollar ship, even if out of the fight, worth it? Just tell me how the BBN will bring more capability per dollar... The discussion is not whether or not the carrier is vulnerable. It is. The discussion is whether or not a BB(N) is as/more capable at the same/less cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 11:36:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just tell me how the BBN will bring more capability per dollar... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
operating in squadrons and groups, is saving a 5 billion dollar ship, even if out of the fight, worth it? Just tell me how the BBN will bring more capability per dollar... I am not arguing that, I am asking what level of survivability is desirable. There is staying in the fight, and then there is salvaging the ship itself. Primarily against ASCMs I don't think any ship is surviving a torpedo under the keel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 12:21:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not arguing that, I am asking what level of survivability is desirable. There is staying in the fight, and then there is salvaging the ship itself. Every ounce of armor added is one less ounce of sensor, weapon, fuel, or person that the ship can carry. In WWII, armor was effective against some/most of the threats, at least from certain impact angles. Is that still the case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 12:57:24 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 1:09:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not arguing that, I am asking what level of survivability is desirable. There is staying in the fight, and then there is salvaging the ship itself. Primarily against ASCMs I don't think any ship is surviving a torpedo under the keel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
operating in squadrons and groups, is saving a 5 billion dollar ship, even if out of the fight, worth it? Just tell me how the BBN will bring more capability per dollar... I am not arguing that, I am asking what level of survivability is desirable. There is staying in the fight, and then there is salvaging the ship itself. Primarily against ASCMs I don't think any ship is surviving a torpedo under the keel. $5B worth of sensors and weapons buys you a lot more survivability than $5B worth of armor IMO. The USS Stark survived two missile hits and was returned to service. If even light unarmored ships can survive a hit, and a hit on an armored ship is still a mission kill, how much is the armor worth? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 1:56:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: $5B worth of sensors and weapons buys you a lot more survivability than $5B worth of armor IMO.
The USS Stark survived two missile hits and was returned to service. If even light unarmored ships can survive a hit, and a hit on an armored ship is still a mission kill, how much is the armor worth? Tens of thousands of votes in your district for being the congressman that brought the nostalgia of battleships back in service over the determined resistance of the entire naval establishment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:17:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Oh I love the idea of bringing back the battleships, I just don't think armor is the reason why. If anything, I think a BB is LESS survivable than a modern destroyer/cruiser since penetration into a powder magazine is a guaranteed loss with all or almost all hands going down with it. A single GBU-28 might consistently do the trick against a BB, and if it couldn't I'm sure a heavier bomb that could would be easily developed.
What I would do is re-sleeve three of the barrels into 16" smooth bore cannons that launch sub-caliber sabot shells at Mach 5 out to 100+ nmi. This would fill the role of rapid response fire support for troops in contact or high value targets. Then use the other six rifles for shelling the crap out of shorelines for the Marines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:22:56 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every ounce of armor added is one less ounce of sensor, weapon, fuel, or person that the ship can carry. In WWII, armor was effective against some/most of the threats, at least from certain impact angles. Is that still the case? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am not arguing that, I am asking what level of survivability is desirable. There is staying in the fight, and then there is salvaging the ship itself. Every ounce of armor added is one less ounce of sensor, weapon, fuel, or person that the ship can carry. In WWII, armor was effective against some/most of the threats, at least from certain impact angles. Is that still the case? we salvaged cole and stark. so there is some level of survivability. how they would do against moderns? Don't know. It would appear the solution now is, "Don't get hit." Streetfighter, if I read it correctly, argued that isn't an option. We have too few ships, that are too expensive to have expendable ships. LCS isn't streetfighter. Can we get enough active defenses to counter? I don't think so. Ships are overweight now, agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:24:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I would do is re-sleeve three of the barrels into 16" smooth bore cannons that launch sub-caliber sabot shells at Mach 5 out to 100+ nmi. This would fill the role of rapid response fire support for troops in contact or high value targets. Then use the other six rifles for shelling the crap out of shorelines for the Marines. Ballistic dispersion of an unguided round at 100+ nm is __________ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:26:29 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[ we salvaged cole and stark. so there is some level of survivability. how they would do against moderns? Don't know. It would appear the solution now is, "Don't get hit." Streetfighter, if I read it correctly, argued that isn't an option. We have too few ships, that are too expensive to have expendable ships. LCS isn't streetfighter. Can we get enough active defenses to counter? I don't think so. Ships are overweight now, agreed. The key is to kill your enemy before he kills you. If your enemy gets the first shot, defeat it and kill him while doing so. Same as it's always been. We just can't defeat his shot by absorbing it any more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:26:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I would do is re-sleeve three of the barrels into 16" smooth bore cannons that launch sub-caliber sabot shells at Mach 5 out to 100+ nmi. This would fill the role of rapid response fire support for troops in contact or high value targets. Then use the other six rifles for shelling the crap out of shorelines for the Marines. Ballistic dispersion of an unguided round at 100+ nm is __________ INS/GPS for cannon shells is a well-developed technology, and by using sub-caliber projectiles you get rid of the expense and complexity of folding fins. I don't know if semi-active laser is feasible for a projectile that fast, but it would be nice to have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:31:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
INS/GPS for cannon shells is a well-developed technology, and by using sub-caliber projectiles you get rid of the expense and complexity of folding fins. I don't know if semi-active laser is feasible for a projectile that fast, but it would be nice to have. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I would do is re-sleeve three of the barrels into 16" smooth bore cannons that launch sub-caliber sabot shells at Mach 5 out to 100+ nmi. This would fill the role of rapid response fire support for troops in contact or high value targets. Then use the other six rifles for shelling the crap out of shorelines for the Marines. Ballistic dispersion of an unguided round at 100+ nm is __________ INS/GPS for cannon shells is a well-developed technology, and by using sub-caliber projectiles you get rid of the expense and complexity of folding fins. I don't know if semi-active laser is feasible for a projectile that fast, but it would be nice to have. $53K per shell for Excalibur and that's to get to a max range of 14 miles. A shell that's going to get to 100+ nm is going to have to be much more hardened against heat and acceleration because those both going to be much greater to get out to that range. That's rail gun territory, unless you're talking about rocket-assisted projectiles which wasn't mentioned in the quoted post. Also, if that shell is going to get to 100+ nm, it's going to have to go very high. Like into GPS jamming high, if the threat country has that capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:45:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
$53K per shell for Excalibur and that's to get to a max range of 14 miles. A shell that's going to get to 100+ nm is going to have to be much more hardened against heat and acceleration because those both going to be much greater to get out to that range. That's rail gun territory, unless you're talking about rocket-assisted projectiles which wasn't mentioned in the quoted post. Also, if that shell is going to get to 100+ nm, it's going to have to go very high. Like into GPS jamming high, if the threat country has that capability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I would do is re-sleeve three of the barrels into 16" smooth bore cannons that launch sub-caliber sabot shells at Mach 5 out to 100+ nmi. This would fill the role of rapid response fire support for troops in contact or high value targets. Then use the other six rifles for shelling the crap out of shorelines for the Marines. Ballistic dispersion of an unguided round at 100+ nm is __________ INS/GPS for cannon shells is a well-developed technology, and by using sub-caliber projectiles you get rid of the expense and complexity of folding fins. I don't know if semi-active laser is feasible for a projectile that fast, but it would be nice to have. $53K per shell for Excalibur and that's to get to a max range of 14 miles. A shell that's going to get to 100+ nm is going to have to be much more hardened against heat and acceleration because those both going to be much greater to get out to that range. That's rail gun territory, unless you're talking about rocket-assisted projectiles which wasn't mentioned in the quoted post. Also, if that shell is going to get to 100+ nm, it's going to have to go very high. Like into GPS jamming high, if the threat country has that capability. Assuming linear acceleration, M982 exiting a 200" M777 barrel at 827 m/s will be the same force as 1650 m/s out of an 800" long 16"/50 naval cannon. A base bleed projectile with that muzzle velocity should be able to reach ~100nmi. A 500lb projectile at that velocity would be roughly equal to the muzzle energy of the 16" gun firing an AP projectile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:52:50 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The key is to kill your enemy before he kills you. If your enemy gets the first shot, defeat it and kill him while doing so. Same as it's always been. We just can't defeat his shot by absorbing it any more. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[ we salvaged cole and stark. so there is some level of survivability. how they would do against moderns? Don't know. It would appear the solution now is, "Don't get hit." Streetfighter, if I read it correctly, argued that isn't an option. We have too few ships, that are too expensive to have expendable ships. LCS isn't streetfighter. Can we get enough active defenses to counter? I don't think so. Ships are overweight now, agreed. The key is to kill your enemy before he kills you. If your enemy gets the first shot, defeat it and kill him while doing so. Same as it's always been. We just can't defeat his shot by absorbing it any more. Any enemy worth a fuck isn't going to have a first shot. Its going to be a salvo from hell. Staying power was still part of the equation along with defensive power. the other grumpy black shoe was very generous to give me a spare copy of Hughes' book. Which, along with Corbit and Mahan are my limit of knowledge. Kill your enemy before he kills you. But don't orbit a straight. we are going to get ass raped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2014 2:54:11 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assuming linear acceleration, M982 exiting a 200" M777 barrel at 827 m/s will be the same force as 1650 m/s out of an 800" long 16"/50 naval cannon. A base bleed projectile with that muzzle velocity should be able to reach ~100nmi Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I would do is re-sleeve three of the barrels into 16" smooth bore cannons that launch sub-caliber sabot shells at Mach 5 out to 100+ nmi. This would fill the role of rapid response fire support for troops in contact or high value targets. Then use the other six rifles for shelling the crap out of shorelines for the Marines. Ballistic dispersion of an unguided round at 100+ nm is __________ INS/GPS for cannon shells is a well-developed technology, and by using sub-caliber projectiles you get rid of the expense and complexity of folding fins. I don't know if semi-active laser is feasible for a projectile that fast, but it would be nice to have. $53K per shell for Excalibur and that's to get to a max range of 14 miles. A shell that's going to get to 100+ nm is going to have to be much more hardened against heat and acceleration because those both going to be much greater to get out to that range. That's rail gun territory, unless you're talking about rocket-assisted projectiles which wasn't mentioned in the quoted post. Also, if that shell is going to get to 100+ nm, it's going to have to go very high. Like into GPS jamming high, if the threat country has that capability. Assuming linear acceleration, M982 exiting a 200" M777 barrel at 827 m/s will be the same force as 1650 m/s out of an 800" long 16"/50 naval cannon. A base bleed projectile with that muzzle velocity should be able to reach ~100nmi And probably miss at the end. Either its dumb and you are doing some "how did the world begin" type math or its smart and its going to spoofed/jammed/or fooled just like a more effective ASCM |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
