YOKOHAMA, Japan (AP) -- Japan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier.
The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters. Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense - particularly in anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions - and to bolster the nation's ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Though the ship - dubbed "Izumo" - has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China.
The tensions over the islands, along with China's heavy spending on defense and military modernization, have heightened calls in Japan for beefed-up naval and air forces. China recently began operating an aircraft carrier that it refurbished after purchasing from Russia, and is reportedly moving forward with the construction of another that is domestically built.
Japan, China and Taiwan all claim the islands.
Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. That would be a departure for Japan, which has one of the best equipped and best trained naval forces in the Pacific but which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.
Japan says it has no plans to use the ship in that manner.
The Izumo does not have catapults for launching fighters, nor does it have a "ski-jump" ramp on its flight deck for fixed-wing aircraft launches.
I think there is a good chance Shinzo Abe continues to beef up Japan's military and pushes for an amendment to their constitution. I mean, how are they going to justify the unveiling of Jaegers and/or Gundams with their current pacifist requirements?
Interesting, to the uninitiated (myself) it could totally launch a plane from it... Seems like a lot of open space for something that doesn't have mechanical birds of some sort.
Lint wrote: Er, I thought that flying the Rising Sun Flag was a no-no? Or was that never so?
It was re-introduced to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense force sometime in the 1950s. It is still taboo, and maybe even offensive, in some countries like South Korea and China, but it was never officially banned.
Having trouble imagining any sort of fixed wing fighter (with the exception of an F-35B or a Harrier) taking off from that thing without catapults, its pretty damned tiny.
At best I could see a VTOL aircraft like a Harrier flying off it, but Japan has none of them and I am not sure where they are on the JSF project . Other than that it is just a helo carrier disguised as a frigate. China will say Japan is acting in a destabilizing way with launching this ship or they will say nothing as they have a real carrier and more on the way. My two cents at least.
How much space does your average fighter jet need to be able to take off? I'd have thought ~250 metres would have been adequate. What i know about fighter jets though equates to exactly dick. So no doubt immeasurably off.
Aye, looks like an anphib to me. Could pass for one of our LHC type things (the aircraft carrier's little brother). Sure as heck not a "destroyer" unless that flight deck is actually full of break away covers over missile pods racks or something.
Didn't see any sign of catapults...I wonder if you could launch a UAV off it. Might we be seeing a prototype for the world's first dedicated "drone carrier" I wonder? Probably not, helicopters or VTOL are still the most likely idea. But why do they want it? Japan and N Korea have been getting mad at each other a lot lately. Gearing up for war? Amphibious assault ship? Interesting.
Rising sun flag, fits the theme. Japan tired of getting walked on? Could be destabilizing influence. No worse than what Korea has already been doing. looking forward to seeing the outcome.
Sorry guys, stream of consciousness got going there, was getting my Mordin on (Mass Effect 2. Guy reminds me a lot of myself actually.)
Actually we have no proof it doesn't transform. Thats clearly why its a little weird. Its clearly a small SDF I protoype, complete with baby reflex cannon. Take that NK!
Snrub wrote: How much space does your average fighter jet need to be able to take off? I'd have thought ~250 metres would have been adequate. What i know about fighter jets though equates to exactly dick. So no doubt immeasurably off.
Well, assuming its a fighter jet loaded with fuel and ammunition, a hell of a lot more than 250 meters, even with a full afterburner takeoff... When I was at Langley AFB the F-22s needed 1500 feet of runway, I've heard F-18s need 2500ft, an F-35B could do it on 500 IIRC (for a rolling takeoff), but the conventional variants will be measured in thousands of feet... and thats for unarmed /unladen aircraft.
This is just my impression, but Drones wouldn't need as much space to take off as a normal plane. That could make this type of warship pretty versatile.
Launch jump jets and helicopters as well as drones.
Air superiority has been the way to win battles/wars so having something easily converted could be the way to go.
I still expect hidden hatches to open and massive missile swarms to fire from it.
I think that may be the idea: to fully cover what they really have underneath. Should check to see how much stuff is also under the waterline: a submarine carrier!
The Japanese just think of too many cool things than to "just" make it a small helicopter carrier.
With no cats and no (vastly inferior) ski jump, you're not getting conventional air off of it. No wires for recovery, either. If it's for anything other than helos or true VTOLs, they're doing it massively wrong.
It's a cute lil' 14 helo boat. It's not exactly power projection.
If I remember correctly, the two carriers are part of the SDSR with the intention of transitioning the Royal Navy from a regional, North Atlantic, USSR containment vessel to a true, blue water navy. I for one welcome the change, and see it as a positive step for a European ally to shoulder part of the defense load with the US.
Seaward wrote: With no cats and no (vastly inferior) ski jump, you're not getting conventional air off of it. No wires for recovery, either. If it's for anything other than helos or true VTOLs, they're doing it massively wrong.
It's a cute lil' 14 helo boat. It's not exactly power projection.
If I remember correctly, the two carriers are part of the SDSR with the intention of transitioning the Royal Navy from a regional, North Atlantic, USSR containment vessel to a true, blue water navy. I for one welcome the change, and see it as a positive step for a European ally to shoulder part of the defense load with the US.
I'd welcome the change if we could break them from their, "one launch at a time, ski jump only," obsession.
Seriously, Brits, we're pretty damn good at carrier ops. Take a page or two from our book. We'll be over here doing four ship launches and night traps any time you'd like to learn how.
Anyone who thinks that boats are a thing of the past needs their heads examined. A nation with any intention to protect its interests or engage in any kind of overseas commerce needs a real navy. Without it you will always be beholden to other states. Its no coincidence that the rise of states as world powers is closely linked to their navy. Rome: wrested control of the seas from carthage and turned the Mediterranean into their lake, allowing grains shipments to flow uninterrupted to Rome. Britain: by degrees established Naval superiority over the much richer and more populous French (serious 18th century France had almost 5 times the population of britain) and eventually became a near global hegemon because of it. Today the US has command of the seas whcih allows them to defend their interests and enforce tbheir will where they please. While planes are missiles in this day and age are theoretically more powerful think about this. Planes and missiles are limited by range and fuel. For all their land based SSMs systems china has its purely a defensive force, they can defend their coast but not project that power. the US can bring that same amount of missiles to your backyard and keep them there for as long as they like. That's true power projection.
"For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself."
If I remember correctly, the two carriers are part of the SDSR with the intention of transitioning the Royal Navy from a regional, North Atlantic, USSR containment vessel to a true, blue water navy. I for one welcome the change, and see it as a positive step for a European ally to shoulder part of the defense load with the US.
The UK has had a Blue water navy since before we coined the term and continues to do so.
I'd welcome the change if we could break them from their, "one launch at a time, ski jump only," obsession.
Seriously, Brits, we're pretty damn good at carrier ops. Take a page or two from our book. We'll be over here doing four ship launches and night traps any time you'd like to learn how.
That would be the book that the Royal Navy wrote prior to WW2, then revised for all the modern equipment we invented to make carriers viable in the jet age that we then let you have/take. I don't remember us having any problem we couldn't handle on our own - how about you?
Like the man said look at the Queen Elizabeth Class that is in production - all we need now is a decent bird to fly off of it.
notprop wrote: That would be the book that the Royal Navy wrote prior to WW2, then revised for all the modern equipment we invented to make carriers viable in the jet age that we then let you have/take. I don't remember us having any problem we couldn't handle on our own - how about you?
Like the man said look at the Queen Elizabeth Class that is in production - all we need now is a decent bird to fly off of it.
Caaaaaaan't flyyyyyyyyyy aaaaaaaat niiiiiiiiiiiight. And STOBAR sucks.
If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it
Like I say, hush hush we don't want Gerry finding out till we have them. God forbid the yanks have to save our Azzs again - assuming they turn up on time anyway.
Tibbsy wrote: If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it
They may be aircraft carriers, but they can still ram other ships
On the same day this was announced, the Philippines announced an upgrade to some of their destroyers as well. Interesting (strokes chin)
Tibbsy wrote: If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it
As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter! We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.
Tibbsy wrote: If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it
As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter! We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.
Maybe one of the Brits here could explain why your parliament seems so set on budget cutting your military out of existence?
Tibbsy wrote: If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it
As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter! We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.
Maybe one of the Brits here could explain why your parliament seems so set on budget cutting your military out of existence?
They want to budget cut everything out of existence But I think it's mainly because the military is such a big, easy target for budget cuts.
Tibbsy wrote: If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it
As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter! We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.
Maybe one of the Brits here could explain why your parliament seems so set on budget cutting your military out of existence?
Well I can't speak for those wielding the proverbial axe, but perhaps since we're practically joined at the hip to the military powerhouse that is US they feel they can neglect our armed forces when difficult budget decisions are being made.
As an British islander and fan of sea power I am bias towards strengthening the Royal Navy, however since it's the army that is generally being put in harms way I feel we should either give them whatever support they need or otherwise stop meddling overseas.
EmilCrane wrote: Anyone who thinks that boats are a thing of the past needs their heads examined. A nation with any intention to protect its interests or engage in any kind of overseas commerce needs a real navy. Without it you will always be beholden to other states. Its no coincidence that the rise of states as world powers is closely linked to their navy. Rome: wrested control of the seas from carthage and turned the Mediterranean into their lake, allowing grains shipments to flow uninterrupted to Rome. Britain: by degrees established Naval superiority over the much richer and more populous French (serious 18th century France had almost 5 times the population of britain) and eventually became a near global hegemon because of it. Today the US has command of the seas whcih allows them to defend their interests and enforce tbheir will where they please. While planes are missiles in this day and age are theoretically more powerful think about this. Planes and missiles are limited by range and fuel. For all their land based SSMs systems china has its purely a defensive force, they can defend their coast but not project that power. the US can bring that same amount of missiles to your backyard and keep them there for as long as they like. That's true power projection.
"For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself."
Sir Walter Raleigh
"Aircraft sink boats."
-That Nimitz guy
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tibbsy wrote: If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it
Golf course. Come on, I thought you guys were British.
notprop wrote: To hard for the mighty USN or never had a Brit work it out for you?
I meant the Brits can't do it.
The USN's the only navy in the world that routinely night traps. The French and the Brazilians got on the right track with CATOBAR boats, but they've still got a long way to go before they're truly a sea-air power.
Ski jumping just ain't the way to do it, for a variety of reasons. Amphib carriers like the Japanese have apparently decided on are great for certain things, but not for real power projection.
Tibbsy wrote: If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it
As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter! We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.
Maybe one of the Brits here could explain why your parliament seems so set on budget cutting your military out of existence?
The matter admits of no possible rational explanation.
RossDas wrote: We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.
They've flown off our boats a couple times, and they're not bad fighters, but I wouldn't think so. While they can handle a STOBAR deck, they're not truly designed for it.
Like I say, hush hush we don't want Gerry finding out till we have them. God forbid the yanks have to save our Azzs again - assuming they turn up on time anyway.
Here's an interesting thought regarding this new Japanese ship: in the event of a major change in their maritime self defence policy, what if it were possible to refit her extending the runway with an angled flight deck and ski-jump, allowing her to cater for fighter jets? That would represent a nice piece of forward planning by Japan ahead of indigenous 65,000 tonners rolling off the yards, and giving them a functional escort carrier and some experience in carrier ops in the meantime.
Yet larger than the preceding Hyuga class. I'm certainly no expert, but if the reported near 250m length is correct then that would put this new ship as being longer than both the Invincible class escort carrier, and HMS Hermes, the latter still being operated by the Indian navy.
Of course it could just be nothing more than a large copter-carrier with extra space for ground force projection.
RossDas wrote: Yet larger than the preceding Hyuga class. I'm certainly no expert, but if the reported near 250m length is correct then that would put this new ship as being longer than both the Invincible class escort carrier, and HMS Hermes, the latter still being operated by the Indian navy.
Of course it could just be nothing more than a large copter-carrier with extra space for ground force projection.
Yep, but still not big enough to handle non-STOVL air.
Like I say, hush hush we don't want Gerry finding out till we have them. God forbid the yanks have to save our Azzs again - assuming they turn up on time anyway.
*cough* Ahem...
I thought I had pre-empted enough to make that image unnecessary, clearly not.
How about for next time one that says;
USA - not late to the party since 1939 err I mean 1941!
YOKOHAMA, Japan (AP) -- Japan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier.
The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters. Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense - particularly in anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions - and to bolster the nation's ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Though the ship - dubbed "Izumo" - has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China.
The tensions over the islands, along with China's heavy spending on defense and military modernization, have heightened calls in Japan for beefed-up naval and air forces. China recently began operating an aircraft carrier that it refurbished after purchasing from Russia, and is reportedly moving forward with the construction of another that is domestically built.
Japan, China and Taiwan all claim the islands.
Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. That would be a departure for Japan, which has one of the best equipped and best trained naval forces in the Pacific but which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.
Japan says it has no plans to use the ship in that manner.
The Izumo does not have catapults for launching fighters, nor does it have a "ski-jump" ramp on its flight deck for fixed-wing aircraft launches.
I think there is a good chance Shinzo Abe continues to beef up Japan's military and pushes for an amendment to their constitution. I mean, how are they going to justify the unveiling of Jaegers and/or Gundams with their current pacifist requirements?
EmilCrane wrote: Anyone who thinks that boats are a thing of the past needs their heads examined. A nation with any intention to protect its interests or engage in any kind of overseas commerce needs a real navy. Without it you will always be beholden to other states. Its no coincidence that the rise of states as world powers is closely linked to their navy. Rome: wrested control of the seas from carthage and turned the Mediterranean into their lake, allowing grains shipments to flow uninterrupted to Rome. Britain: by degrees established Naval superiority over the much richer and more populous French (serious 18th century France had almost 5 times the population of britain) and eventually became a near global hegemon because of it. Today the US has command of the seas whcih allows them to defend their interests and enforce tbheir will where they please. While planes are missiles in this day and age are theoretically more powerful think about this. Planes and missiles are limited by range and fuel. For all their land based SSMs systems china has its purely a defensive force, they can defend their coast but not project that power. the US can bring that same amount of missiles to your backyard and keep them there for as long as they like. That's true power projection.
"For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself."
Sir Walter Raleigh
While this is true in the current reality, it isn't "absolutely" true, in that the technology exists to basically render traditional naval forces absolutely redundant (for the most part) in lieu of airpower, its just a question of applying doctrine and actual use of these technologies (rather than just the theoretical state they currently exist in) and finding the budget to make it happen.
While this is true in the current reality, it isn't "absolutely" true, in that the technology exists to basically render traditional naval forces absolutely redundant (for the most part) in lieu of airpower, its just a question of applying doctrine and actual use of these technologies (rather than just the theoretical state they currently exist in) and finding the budget to make it happen.
Darn it, there's an applicable 40k quote. I've spent about 15 minutes looking for it and found nothing. It goes like "Always seek the high ground. High orbit is the highest ground of all."
The given length of the deck (250m) exceeds that of the Invincible class Aircraft Carriers being operated by the Royal Navy until quite recently. According to two curators I just spoke to today at the National Maritime Museum, there is also apparently one more of this Japanese class of 'Destroyer' currently under construction.
In an emergency situation, the fitting of a catapult and ramp for aircraft launching wouldn't be too difficult a task. And since I do not think the Japanese Navy is run by fools, I would be heavily surprised if it had not been designed with such adaptations in mind (and possibly even with the suitable components to do so already being built or in storage).
Two such warships brings a whole new level of Japanese power projection to the region, and far outclasses the Chinese Varyag. As a result, the Chinese are already kicking off about this sudden shift in power dynamic.
Media in China are warning against Japan's "remilitarisation" after the country unveiled its biggest warship since World War II on Tuesday.
The huge Japanese flat-top destroyer, Izumo, has a flight deck nearly 250m (820ft) long and can reportedly carry more than nine helicopters.
The Liberation Army Daily and many Chinese military experts are calling the new-generation 22DDH helicopter carrier a "quasi-aircraft carrier" in disguise.
They believe that it could be refitted to support fighter jets if Japan's post-war pacifist constitution is changed in the future.
The vessel is also raising eyebrows in China Daily since it is the "same name as the flagship of the Japanese fleet that invaded China in the 1930s".
"This is yet another 'edge ball' played by the Japanese government... China can only respond to 'Izumo', this light aircraft carrier dressed as an 'escort vessel', by developing a real aircraft carrier," stresses the Global Times.
It would be nonsensical to suggest that the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support. Therefore the question to consider now would be what this indicates as to America and Japan's future stance over combating China.
It would be nonsensical to suggest that the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support.
I dare say Japanese engineers are capable enough to build their own aircraft carriers without US support, and I dare say it's not nonsensical either. In fact, I'm amazed that such a notion could even be entertained. "High tech" and "Japan" have been connected for quite some time, after all.
Ketara wrote: In an emergency situation, the fitting of a catapult and ramp for aircraft launching wouldn't be too difficult a task. And since I do not think the Japanese Navy is run by fools, I would be heavily surprised if it had not been designed with such adaptations in mind (and possibly even with the suitable components to do so already being built or in storage).
Okay.
Let's say you do install cats.
How do you recover launched aircraft on that deck?
I am, by the way, preeeeeetty personally familiar with flying planes off boats.
It would be nonsensical to suggest that the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support.
I dare say Japanese engineers are capable enough to build their own aircraft carriers without US support, and I dare say it's not nonsensical either. In fact, I'm amazed that such a notion could even be entertained. "High tech" and "Japan" have been connected for quite some time, after all.
They could... but, they don't have the "growing pains" that the US had to endure...
But, if I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet against Japan (or UK).
By they wouldn't be able to fund, research, build and test such technology with out losing their pacifist status. Of course if the US enabled the acquisition of such technology, then set it aside for future installation then that might be differant kettle of fish.
Then the Japs just need to change their status at some future point and install it. That said I read that it would take two years for the QE class carriers to be retro fitted with catapults. They have also been built with that possibility.
Does anyone have to? They're an independent state. It strikes me as odd to beholden them (however loosely we do these days) to the outcome of a War newly 3 quarters of a century ago.
(scratches head) are you saying aircraft can't sink battleships?
Currently... No. Which I know sounds bizarre are feth, but atm of anti-ship missiles currently in use, only the Russian Granit has sufficient penetrating power, and it's too large to be carried by aircraft. Or most submarines. In theory you could mission kill one via cumulative effects of ten to fifty hits with conventional ASW, or a lucky shot kill with, say, one of those new hyper penetration MOABs that the US is working on. To pull off either of these though would require the sacrifice of a VERY large number of aircraft, assuming the battleship has modern CIWS.
purplefood wrote: No as in, they haven't needed more than a self-defense force for so long it'd be nice if they didn't need a fully fledged military.
It be nice if no one needed one, but I guess my idea here is that that should be Japan's decision at this point (whether or not to build their own military force anew and to what extent they do so). Of course, I think at this stage its becoming increasingly obvious Japan has political traction with the idea.
It would be nonsensical to suggest that the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support.
I dare say Japanese engineers are capable enough to build their own aircraft carriers without US support, and I dare say it's not nonsensical either. In fact, I'm amazed that such a notion could even be entertained. "High tech" and "Japan" have been connected for quite some time, after all.
Try not immediately jumping to conclusions.
Firstly, Japan and America have had a pretty intertwined relationship for quite some time militarily (to understate). If the Japanese have just wheeled out a 250m long ship, it will not be a surprise in Washington. If the Japanese are building destroyer/carriers right now, it will be with the political blessing of the US. Were that not the case, and Washington opposed to the concept, there would have been considerably more argy bargy in the public eye before now over the issue.
Secondly, carrier technology and construction is a highly refined and difficult art. If it were particularly easy, the Chinese wouldn't gone to all the effort of dragging the Varyag down and round for analysis (and IIRC, they bought, studied, and broke up a British carrier on top of that). It takes time to learn how to build engines of the correct size and type, design aircraft to work off of them, train the pilots in appropriate aircraft, and so on.
Now you'll note I specified that 'the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support'. Focus on my phrasing, to be precise, 'these pseudo destroyers'.
I have no doubt that the Japanese could develop and begin constructing Carriers completely independently if they so wished. But if they did, they would not look like this, or be constructed along these lines. The Japanese would need to make at least one or two regular carriers first to develop and test the appropriate technologies and equipment. The fact that these two have been built in this way indicates clear co-operation with nations with carrier construction knowledge. Which would be the US.
To build on this point and answer Seaward as well, these ships are not designed to be used as carriers without modification. And even then, only VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier (or as has supposedly been quoted from Japanese sources, the F35B) would be capable of doing so in a functional sense. None the aircraft currently in use in the Japanese Air Self Defence Force would be able to do so at more than a pinch, even with a catapult and ramp installed to help things along.
That means that if these things were built to be capable of being modified overnight(relatively speaking) with pre-built components to function as carriers(as would be the logical course of design) , you would need to be able to acquire usable aircraft, and have had access to aircraft of that type previously to train your pilots. Which again points to the US. I have little doubt that if war suddenly breaks out with China, America will quite happily pass over some of those lovely little AV-8B Harrier II's they have lying around.
TL;DR, these things are only good for use as carriers if the Japanese have American design and resources behind them. Otherwise they're nothing more than expensive helicopter launch pads.
(scratches head) are you saying aircraft can't sink battleships?
Currently... No. Which I know sounds bizarre are feth, but atm of anti-ship missiles currently in use, only the Russian Granit has sufficient penetrating power, and it's too large to be carried by aircraft. Or most submarines. In theory you could mission kill one via cumulative effects of ten to fifty hits with conventional ASW, or a lucky shot kill with, say, one of those new hyper penetration MOABs that the US is working on. To pull off either of these though would require the sacrifice of a VERY large number of aircraft, assuming the battleship has modern CIWS.
(looks around) I guess its time to take the "Bama, Missouri, and Texas out of mothballs then. While we're at it, lets put some rail guns on those puppies!
(scratches head) are you saying aircraft can't sink battleships?
Currently... No. Which I know sounds bizarre are feth, but atm of anti-ship missiles currently in use, only the Russian Granit has sufficient penetrating power, and it's too large to be carried by aircraft. Or most submarines. In theory you could mission kill one via cumulative effects of ten to fifty hits with conventional ASW, or a lucky shot kill with, say, one of those new hyper penetration MOABs that the US is working on. To pull off either of these though would require the sacrifice of a VERY large number of aircraft, assuming the battleship has modern CIWS.
(looks around) I guess its time to take the "Bama, Missouri, and Texas out of mothballs then. While we're at it, lets put some rail guns on those puppies!
The DoD is actually debating that now... they originally had all these plans for these new advance LCS.
Since the sequestor and the budget realities... you may not be far from the truth as it would be easier to retrofit the old battleships. (which is an interesting exercise... I thought it'd be way more expensive to retrofit than to build from scratch).
Ketara wrote: Try not immediately jumping to conclusions.
Firstly, Japan and America have had a pretty intertwined relationship for quite some time militarily (to understate). If the Japanese have just wheeled out a 250m long ship, it will not be a surprise in Washington. If the Japanese are building destroyer/carriers right now, it will be with the political blessing of the US. Were that not the case, and Washington opposed to the concept, there would have been considerably more argy bargy in the public eye before now over the issue.
Secondly, carrier technology and construction is a highly refined and difficult art. If it were particularly easy, the Chinese wouldn't gone to all the effort of dragging the Varyag down and round for analysis (and IIRC, they bought, studied, and broke up a British carrier on top of that). It takes time to learn how to build engines of the correct size and type, design aircraft to work off of them, train the pilots in appropriate aircraft, and so on.
Now you'll note I specified that 'the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support'. Focus on my phrasing, to be precise, 'these pseudo destroyers'.
I have no doubt that the Japanese could develop and begin constructing Carriers completely independently if they so wished. But if they did, they would not look like this, or be constructed along these lines. The Japanese would need to make at least one or two regular carriers first to develop and test the appropriate technologies and equipment. The fact that these two have been built in this way indicates clear co-operation with nations with carrier construction knowledge. Which would be the US.
To build on this point and answer Seaward as well, these ships are not designed to be used as carriers without modification. And even then, only VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier (or as has supposedly been quoted from Japanese sources, the F35B) would be capable of doing so in a functional sense. None the aircraft currently in use in the Japanese Air Self Defence Force would be able to do so at more than a pinch, even with a catapult and ramp installed to help things along.
That means that if these things were built to be capable of being modified overnight(relatively speaking) with pre-built components to function as carriers(as would be the logical course of design) , you would need to be able to acquire usable aircraft, and have had access to aircraft of that type previously to train your pilots. Which again points to the US. I have little doubt that if war suddenly breaks out with China, America will quite happily pass over some of those lovely little AV-8B Harrier II's they have lying around.
TL;DR, these things are only good for use as carriers if the Japanese have American design and resources behind them. Otherwise they're nothing more than expensive helicopter launch pads.
If you're running Harriers or F-35Bs, you don't need cats or ramps, though. Only need those if you're trying to shoot conventional aircraft. And if you're trying to shoot conventional aircraft, you need a different deck configuration than they currently have for recovery.
I don't see one of these things being retrofitted into a conventional aircraft-capable carrier. I don't think it's possible.
If you're running Harriers or F-35Bs, you don't need cats or ramps, though. Only need those if you're trying to shoot conventional aircraft. And if you're trying to shoot conventional aircraft, you need a different deck configuration than they currently have for recovery.
I don't see one of these things being retrofitted into a conventional aircraft-capable carrier. I don't think it's possible.
Personally, I imagine that since Japan has signed onto the F-35 project, that's what will be being used.
But as someone who currently studies ship design on something of a professional level, I've long since learnt not to underestimate what a cunning architect can do. It's perfectly theoretically possible they've designed some kind of extension hook up to increase the deck length by another 50 metres whilst adding a ramp/landing arrestor wires/catapult. It would make it a little unstable, but like I said, it never pays to underestimate a naval architect.
The DoD is actually debating that now... they originally had all these plans for these new advance LCS.
Since the sequestor and the budget realities... you may not be far from the truth as it would be easier to retrofit the old battleships. (which is an interesting exercise... I thought it'd be way more expensive to retrofit than to build from scratch).
Last estimate was about 200m each to have their facilities brought in line with the current standard plus another 4m to have Iowa's #2 turret repaired. Total cost to build a battleship from the ground up is approx 8 billion dollars, but that's with all the bells and whistles including multiple VLS, six 127mm oto's, 15 phalanx systems, 5 SEARAM launchers... it's take a pilot with big balls to just crest the horizon with that around.
On the up side, the Marines would have to wade through the bits of enemy just to reach the beach.
purplefood wrote:No as in, they haven't needed more than a self-defense force for so long it'd be nice if they didn't need a fully fledged military.
The only reason they haven't had a full military is because we forced that into their current constitution. Not to mention the US has a treaty that pledges to defend Japan, so they really haven't had a need because of their strategic importance during the Cold War. In the modern world though, the Cold War is over, and global politics is not nearly as static. Politics, and especially politicians, are fickle, and if they are serious about defending the Senkaku Islands, I don't think the Japanese should assume the US is going to be willing defend those as well.
That's an interesting idea about reviving the battleship. There's a school of military thought that basically says "look at the technology currently in use. if offense > defense, build a lot of small platforms for redundancy. If defense > offense build a few large platforms with lots of features". We might be in a defense greater environment, at least for the near future.
That said, they still die to torpedoes...everything that floats dies to torpedoes
While it is possible for helicopters to carry long range anti-shipping missiles, their capability to participate in a surface naval battle, especially one involving contested air space, is quite limited. A ship of this size and configuration, equipped with helicopters, is much better as the core of an anti-submaine warfare task force o operating in support of amphibious warfare operation. Japan being a group of islands is particularly vulnerable to submarine warfare and in the event of a conventional war, may well need to perform amphibious landings in order to reclaim territory taken by enemy forces.
Japan has indeed put in an order for F-35s, however these are F-35As, the conventional take off and landing variant which is not suitable for use from a full sized aircraft carrier, let alone something the size of this, ramp or no ramp. So there is no suitable fixed wing aircraft available for operating from this ship. As a result it will need to rely on shore based aircraft to provide its air cover. This limits the effective combat range of this vessel and its air group to the same range as JASDF.
Were the suitable aircraft available, the small size of the air group compared to the potential adversaries this carrier will face (China has 1300+ Fighter and Strike aircraft in it's Air Force plus a further 200+ Fighter and Strike Aircraft in it's Navy, North Korea has 500+ Fighter and Strike aircraft, South Korea has 450+ Fighter and Strike Aircraft) means that to operate offensively there will need to a lot more than planned 2 of these ships of the class.
So based on the above, It's pretty obvious that this craft does not, nor will it every realistically have a power projection capability.
However, that does not mean that this ship doesn't serve the desires of expansionists within Japan. Japan has not build an aircraft carrier in 70 years. If they intend to build one in the future their ship builders and naval personnel will need experience in designing, building and operating large aircraft handling ships.
So, don't be worried about this ship, it actually is better suited to the defense of Japan than to any sort of expansion. It's the ships that come after this one that you have to worry about.
"Aircraft need a place to land."
-Also That Nimitz guy
When you're trying to fight a war halfway across the world its rather difficult to find such a place, and keep it supplied. Air power doesn't stick around, and besides, how do you keep planes and group troops supplied over oceans?
Also whoever said that battleships might be the wave of the future is touching on something that has been a major annoyance, namely that the USN decommissioned the Iowas. Anybody pay attention to the Norway campaign in WW2? Just me? Ok.
In 1940 the british were operating the HMS glorious, one of their aircraft carriers, off the coast of Norway. The weather got nasty and she had to recall her planes. At that point she was set upon by the Scharnhorst and Gneiscenau, a pair of german battlecruisers and destroyed. Her destroyer escort could do absolutely nothing to stop it either.
Carriers can't launch in rough seas, battleships can still fight in rough seas. Most modern anti-ship missiles would just ping off an Iowa and most modern surface vessels would be in deep trouble if attempting to stop an Iowa. Yet the US navy got rid of them? For stealth destroyers or something else equally as ridiculous?
"Aircraft need a place to land."
-Also That Nimitz guy
When you're trying to fight a war halfway across the world its rather difficult to find such a place, and keep it supplied. Air power doesn't stick around, and besides, how do you keep planes and group troops supplied over oceans?
Also whoever said that battleships might be the wave of the future is touching on something that has been a major annoyance, namely that the USN decommissioned the Iowas. Anybody pay attention to the Norway campaign in WW2? Just me? Ok.
In 1940 the british were operating the HMS glorious, one of their aircraft carriers, off the coast of Norway. The weather got nasty and she had to recall her planes. At that point she was set upon by the Scharnhorst and Gneiscenau, a pair of german battlecruisers and destroyed. Her destroyer escort could do absolutely nothing to stop it either.
Carriers can't launch in rough seas, battleships can still fight in rough seas. Most modern anti-ship missiles would just ping off an Iowa and most modern surface vessels would be in deep trouble if attempting to stop an Iowa. Yet the US navy got rid of them? For stealth destroyers or something else equally as ridiculous?
Well, that may slightly change in the next 20 years once we get all the kinks worked out with Railguns.
Then you can have Carriers that also sport a dozen or so Railguns, essentially making it both a battleship and a carrier simultaneously.
It's a shame that there's no 16" guns on the waves any more, as they're practically a terror weapon when it comes to supporting landings. I've been reading about how much the Germans hated HMS Rodney during D-Day and onwards - sitting off the coast lobbing salvos of sixteen inch shells 18 miles inland without fear of response. Even a miss could scatter 45 tonne tanks like toys, or bury soldiers alive. Assisted by intel from Bletchley Park and spotter planes, she stopped a lot of German armour from getting into the action and demoralised their troops.
Spoiler:
With regards to Japan I think a decision needs to be made soon about their military future - assuming it hasn't already been decided - as China moves steadily forward with their indigenous carrier development.
If railguns become shipmounted (Which they probably will) they may return battleships to the fore of many naval fleets...
With modern targeting and anti-air defences it'll be a red day when a battleship is destroyed...
"Aircraft need a place to land."
-Also That Nimitz guy
When you're trying to fight a war halfway across the world its rather difficult to find such a place, and keep it supplied. Air power doesn't stick around, and besides, how do you keep planes and group troops supplied over oceans?
Also whoever said that battleships might be the wave of the future is touching on something that has been a major annoyance, namely that the USN decommissioned the Iowas. Anybody pay attention to the Norway campaign in WW2? Just me? Ok.
In 1940 the british were operating the HMS glorious, one of their aircraft carriers, off the coast of Norway. The weather got nasty and she had to recall her planes. At that point she was set upon by the Scharnhorst and Gneiscenau, a pair of german battlecruisers and destroyed. Her destroyer escort could do absolutely nothing to stop it either.
Carriers can't launch in rough seas, battleships can still fight in rough seas. Most modern anti-ship missiles would just ping off an Iowa and most modern surface vessels would be in deep trouble if attempting to stop an Iowa. Yet the US navy got rid of them? For stealth destroyers or something else equally as ridiculous?
Japan is the place halfway around the world. They don't need carriers. They are a carrier.
1940 is not 2013. As noted some forces are all weather forces. Plus other ships will just launch a spray of cruise missiles at their target.
purplefood wrote: If railguns become shipmounted (Which they probably will) they may return battleships to the fore of many naval fleets...
With modern targeting and anti-air defences it'll be a red day when a battleship is destroyed...
It may depend upon the tonnage requirements for putting the railgun to sea. Since the essential purpose of a battleship is to field big guns and withstand attack from big guns, if no armour is sufficient proof against railgun fire then a greater number of smaller ships might be the preferred option.
The rule of cool, however, demands big ships with big guns!
Jefffar wrote: Some points to consider.
Japan has indeed put in an order for F-35s, however these are F-35As, the conventional take off and landing variant which is not suitable for use from a full sized aircraft carrier, let alone something the size of this, ramp or no ramp. So there is no suitable fixed wing aircraft available for operating from this ship. As a result it will need to rely on shore based aircraft to provide its air cover. This limits the effective combat range of this vessel and its air group to the same range as JASDF.
I believe Great Britain changed their mind over which F-35 variant they were intending on building twice fairly recently. It would be a simple matter for Japan to change its mind in the next few months. One must also consider (as I said before), the possibility of the adaptation of the carrier for other forms of aircraft, including the ones currently in the possession of the Japanese Airforce.
Were the suitable aircraft available, the small size of the air group compared to the potential adversaries this carrier will face (China has 1300+ Fighter and Strike aircraft in it's Air Force plus a further 200+ Fighter and Strike Aircraft in it's Navy, North Korea has 500+ Fighter and Strike aircraft, South Korea has 450+ Fighter and Strike Aircraft) means that to operate offensively there will need to a lot more than planned 2 of these ships of the class.
Sorry? That's something of a one sided calculation, i.e, all the planes of China and North Korea vs those transported by two carriers.
On top of that, I would suggest you examine the fuel capacities of the relevant aircraft from those nations, and how close their airfields are/the capacity of those airfields to all potential conflict zones. Logistics are a funny thing, but somewhat crucial.
So based on the above, It's pretty obvious that this craft does not, nor will it every realistically have a power projection capability.
Power projection involves a lot more than matching two potential mini-carriers against the combined airforces of China and North Korea.
purplefood wrote: If railguns become shipmounted (Which they probably will) they may return battleships to the fore of many naval fleets...
With modern targeting and anti-air defences it'll be a red day when a battleship is destroyed...
It may depend upon the tonnage requirements for putting the railgun to sea. Since the essential purpose of a battleship is to field big guns and withstand attack from big guns, if no armour is sufficient proof against railgun fire then a greater number of smaller ships might be the preferred option.
The rule of cool, however, demands big ships with big guns!
If small ships can get railguns that just means big ships can get bigger railguns!
purplefood wrote: If railguns become shipmounted (Which they probably will) they may return battleships to the fore of many naval fleets...
With modern targeting and anti-air defences it'll be a red day when a battleship is destroyed...
It may depend upon the tonnage requirements for putting the railgun to sea. Since the essential purpose of a battleship is to field big guns and withstand attack from big guns, if no armour is sufficient proof against railgun fire then a greater number of smaller ships might be the preferred option.
The rule of cool, however, demands big ships with big guns!
If small ships can get railguns that just means big ships can get bigger railguns!
Battleships with railguns that run the whole length of the ship mass effect style
Ketara wrote: I believe Great Britain changed their mind over which F-35 variant they were intending on building twice fairly recently. It would be a simple matter for Japan to change its mind in the next few months. One must also consider (as I said before), the possibility of the adaptation of the carrier for other forms of aircraft, including the ones currently in the possession of the Japanese Airforce.
Short of the mecha-carrier you described earlier, that's not possible. It's not large enough for conventional operations.
Ketara wrote: Power projection involves a lot more than matching two potential mini-carriers against the combined airforces of China and North Korea.
Exactly my point. The capabilities of these ships as planned or that the could be adapted to are not enough to represent any sort of practical power projection capability. Their air group is too small and the types that can be carried are too limited. While Japan could buy VTOL F-35s they haven't. While Japan could have made ski-jump ships, they haven't. The design of these ships is consistent with the defensive needs of Japan rather than some kind of attempt to develop the ability to expand her sphere of influence.
These ships do provide valuable experience for the development of a follow on class of larger carriers and assault ships a decade or so down the road. Watch for those if you think Japan is going to look at expanding again.
Ketara wrote: I believe Great Britain changed their mind over which F-35 variant they were intending on building twice fairly recently. It would be a simple matter for Japan to change its mind in the next few months. One must also consider (as I said before), the possibility of the adaptation of the carrier for other forms of aircraft, including the ones currently in the possession of the Japanese Airforce.
Short of the mecha-carrier you described earlier, that's not possible. It's not large enough for conventional operations.
As someone more familiar with ships than aircraft, I'll willingly bow to your experience if you tell me that current Japanese aircraft would be unable to land on a ships modified along the lines I gave earlier (aka, a selection of extra 50m deck space/arrestor wires/catapult/etc).
Assuming that is indeed the case, I would not be surprised to see a small selection of F35-B's being purchased in the near future.
Exactly my point. The capabilities of these ships as planned or that the could be adapted to are not enough to represent any sort of practical power projection capability. Their air group is too small and the types that can be carried are too limited. While Japan could buy VTOL F-35s they haven't. While Japan could have made ski-jump ships, they haven't. The design of these ships is consistent with the defensive needs of Japan rather than some kind of attempt to develop the ability to expand her sphere of influence.
'Sphere of influence' is quite different to 'power projection'.
Regardless, there are many potential scenarios worldwide in which the ability to swing a carrier by the neighbourhood and project localised airpower could be very useful. From retrieving hostages in Somalia to interfering in other conflicts further south in the South China Sea, these faux-destroyers offer Japan expanded operational capacities and political options. They're not going to suddenly allow Japan to conduct invasions in South America or China, but then I don't think anyone was suggesting that to begin with.
On rail guns: Rail guns are at current, despite the Navy';s efforts otherwise, a horizon to horizon weapon.
A 16" mark 7 can fire OVER the horizon at a target. Using modern Smart munitions, a 16" Mark 7 could conceivably hit a target 10 feet across. Or deliver a submunition payload. Or a tactical nuclear strike.
On Torpedoes: a torpedo is a threat to any surface ship. However, like with aircraft first you have to get through it's screening escorts, and submarine detection technology has some a long way since 1945. A lot of people like to point to the loss of the General Belgrano, but miss that this attack was a sub commander's wet dream, with an unaware target that had obsolete torpedo protection by 1940's standards, that was separated from it's escort and in poor visibility.
Like with the loss of the Roma, Perfect Storm scenarios will usually sink a ship, regardless of how modern or well defended it is.
Regarding submarines, one could also point to the performance of HMS Gotland while leased to the US Navy a couple of years ago. The US Navy obviously have learned since then (since that was the entire point), but with new generations of submarines being put into service the fundamental issue remains; subs are dangerous.
Seaward wrote: Hey, we know how to do naval aviation at night, which is more than can be said for anyone else.
We win.
Depends who you're asking, some of us are of the opinion that the right way to do naval aviation is to not do naval aviation ;P
In an emergency situation, the fitting of a catapult and ramp for aircraft launching wouldn't be too difficult a task.
It takes A LOT more than JUST a catapult and ramp to conduct fixed wing operations from a character, and even though its possible to retrofit everything these ships would need (provided they aren't set up with this capability in mind) a few months in drydock to make it happen.
And since I do not think the Japanese Navy is run by fools, I would be heavily surprised if it had not been designed with such adaptations in mind (and possibly even with the suitable components to do so already being built or in storage).
The Japanese arguably lost World War 2 BECAUSE its Navy was run by fools ;P
I am, by the way, preeeeeetty personally familiar with flying planes off boats.
Yes, yes, we know, you're a naval aviator, please check your ego at the door ;P (P.S. - Top Gun = WORST MOVIE EVER.)
Which I know sounds bizarre are feth, but atm of anti-ship missiles currently in use, only the Russian Granit has sufficient penetrating power, and it's too large to be carried by aircraft. Or most submarines. In theory you could mission kill one via cumulative effects of ten to fifty hits with conventional ASW, or a lucky shot kill with, say, one of those new hyper penetration MOABs that the US is working on. To pull off either of these though would require the sacrifice of a VERY large number of aircraft, assuming the battleship has modern CIWS.
I dunno if I agree fully. First of all, I assume by battleship you actually MEAN battleship (and I'll lump in Aircraft Carriers as well since they are similar enough in terms of defensive ability) which as far as I know are no longer in use with any fleet in any nation on the planet. This is an important distinction to make, because aircraft are more than capable of taking down frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (its regularly practiced via "sink-ex" on old decommissioned vessels). Now, in the case of these
As for sacrificing large numbers of aircraft, again questionable. First of all CIWS has a nasty habit of not working a large portion of the time. Thats not to say that it doesn't track and engage correctly, that is to say that the entire friggin system is broken and non-functional (or rather is "down for repair"), at least thats the case on the cruisers my friends have been on. Besides that, while I'm not too keen on the "stealth" aircraft craze, defensive systems have evolved to the point that an aircraft could get reasonably close without much risk. Also, I think you underestimate the capabilities of other missile systems. No, I doubt a single missile will bring one down, but that isn't really the point in modern naval warfare. Naval weapon systems are mostly designed to KILL the crew and cause DAMAGE to ship infrastructure, not to sink the ship itself. Why go through the effort of sending it to the bottom of the sea when you can just leave it a burning, bloody mess?
It is the year 2057. The Aliens have come, and they are not peaceful. Humanity's last hope is...the Texas!
I can think of a deadlier scenario than that. America's deadliest enemies (Canada and Vietnam) join forces and overrun the States. Only The Texas can save them!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regarding submarines, one could also point to the performance of HMS Gotland while leased to the US Navy a couple of years ago. The US Navy obviously have learned since then (since that was the entire point), but with new generations of submarines being put into service the fundamental issue remains; subs are dangerous.
The Falklands War showed that subs are probably THE most dangerous thing patrolling the seas these days, and that's not because some of them carry nukes I might be wrong.
I'm trying to dig up the information, but technically, we could put railguns on our ships now.
The problem now is technical (isn't it aways). The gun barrel (or rail) is only good for a few shots before it needs to be replaced. Either they figure out a way to shield the material better (technical) or there's a material that can withstand the heat/friction after each shot.
chaos0xomega wrote: Depends who you're asking, some of us are of the opinion that the right way to do naval aviation is to not do naval aviation ;P
That entirely cedes the ability to fight at sea, but okay.
20th century thinking.
Missiles are the way to go, launched from subs or ships. In the future lasers will help too.
Drones can fly from land or maybe launched cruise missile style fromt he above.
I'm waiting for sattellites to have the capacity to drop small bits of metal at high relativistic speeds, and of course, sharks with frigging lazers.
I dunno if I agree fully. First of all, I assume by battleship you actually MEAN battleship (and I'll lump in Aircraft Carriers as well since they are similar enough in terms of defensive ability) which as far as I know are no longer in use with any fleet in any nation on the planet. This is an important distinction to make, because aircraft are more than capable of taking down frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (its regularly practiced via "sink-ex" on old decommissioned vessels). Now, in the case of these
Well... no. A carrier, even a big US fleet carrier, has a laughable defense (passive or active) compared to a battleship's potential fitting. A carrier's defense is first and foremost it's aircraft, quickly followed by running away. In the late 80s and early 90's, in US Navy wargames, battleships successfully chased down and 'killed' fleet carriers, the only ships to do so other than subs, including other carriers.
As for sacrificing large numbers of aircraft, again questionable. First of all CIWS has a nasty habit of not working a large portion of the time. Thats not to say that it doesn't track and engage correctly, that is to say that the entire friggin system is broken and non-functional (or rather is "down for repair"), at least thats the case on the cruisers my friends have been on. Besides that, while I'm not too keen on the "stealth" aircraft craze, defensive systems have evolved to the point that an aircraft could get reasonably close without much risk. Also, I think you underestimate the capabilities of other missile systems. No, I doubt a single missile will bring one down, but that isn't really the point in modern naval warfare. Naval weapon systems are mostly designed to KILL the crew and cause DAMAGE to ship infrastructure, not to sink the ship itself. Why go through the effort of sending it to the bottom of the sea when you can just leave it a burning, bloody mess?
Well, first of all, you put your CIWS in stand alone mode when that happens (remember that each RIM and Phalanx gun can operate independently, as well as have manual [yes really]). It's not as effective but does work. Secondly, if the CIWS on a battleship is anything like it's other fire control systems, one system begin down wouldn't even slow it down. IIRC each battleship has something like 8 separate, redundant fire-control systems, and that's before you start shooting on manual. Secondly, a Nimitz class carrier carries 4 CIWS systems, IIRC. A battleship can carry something like 15 or more. and that's not counting the possibility of swapping out a turret for VLS or using a duel purpose system like the 127mm Oto for secondaries.
I ran the upgrade idea past some guys from RAAF, their (conservative) estimate was 45 planes to get a mission kill on it, without escorts, at 25% casualties, at least. Their basic plan was to harass it with smaller ASMs to try and swamp it with targets and keep it painted until they could drop several MOABs on it. They figured that would inflict sufficient damage to force it to withdraw.
And, no, I'm not underestimating ASM's power, but I do understand how they work and how a battleship works. Modern ASM work by detonating a small warhead charge against the hull of the ship, in theory allowing the missile access to the ship so that a larger explosive charge and the missiles remaining fuel can then be detonated internally, causing that firey mess you were talking about.
This approach does not work on US battleships due to the fact that to pass through the Panama canal, they use internal armor belts. This means that the missile's penetrating warhead explodes on the ships steel skin, but the secondary charge is then blocked from entering by a 17 inch thick or greater Class A armor. (think armor skirts).
This also does not take into account the sheer level of redundancy and reinforcement a battleship has, compared to modern ships. Remember that most modern ships are not built with taking large numbers of direct hits in mind.
Just a little example of something a battleship can survive:
This is the Wilson cloud from atomic test Baker. Several of the battleships present within 'ground zero' remained afloat, the though the USS Arkansas was flipped end over end by the bomb and sank, she's still largely intact on the seabed. USS Pennsylvania took on water but remained afloat, due to the nuke loosening a patch on a torpedo hit she had suffered earlier.
IIRC even a full sized railgun would be smaller than what battleships used to carry, especially when you take into account ammo storage. It just needs to have the power provided by the reactor and its ammunition(which is inert and not in danger of exploding if it gets hit by enemy fire)
Now you could build super sized railguns and put them on dedicated battleships, but they would probably be very rare beasts. Able to lob slugs hundreds of miles. One ship could probably cover the entire north Atlantic
But why, aside from how freaking cool it would be, would you spend tons of money on a dedicated battleship when you can get similar direct fire power projection by simply retrofitting an existing carrier with a few Railguns?
Because the battleship will be much less vulnerable. Of course, the moment someone else finishes a working naval Railgun that armour might not be enough anymore...
Grey Templar wrote: IIRC even a full sized railgun would be smaller than what battleships used to carry, especially when you take into account ammo storage. It just needs to have the power provided by the reactor and its ammunition(which is inert and not in danger of exploding if it gets hit by enemy fire)
Now you could build super sized railguns and put them on dedicated battleships, but they would probably be very rare beasts. Able to lob slugs hundreds of miles. One ship could probably cover the entire north Atlantic
But why, aside from how freaking cool it would be, would you spend tons of money on a dedicated battleship when you can get similar direct fire power projection by simply retrofitting an existing carrier with a few Railguns?
Speaking of Rail Guns...
Is it really going to be that effective? At sea level, you can only see about 3 miles before concave of the horizon... So, on a battleship, the gun would be what... 100ft from the sea? Then, it's effective range would be 12 miles..right?
Grey Templar wrote: Is it impossible to give a carrier the same type of armor that a battleship gets?
Are we really giving our main modern warships paper armor compared to outmoded battleships of yesteryear?
Probably, but given the sheer size of a supercarrier the top speed would likely be drastically affected. Also, there's still the issue of torpedoes being able to break the ship's keel.
Grey Templar wrote: IIRC even a full sized railgun would be smaller than what battleships used to carry, especially when you take into account ammo storage. It just needs to have the power provided by the reactor and its ammunition(which is inert and not in danger of exploding if it gets hit by enemy fire)
Now you could build super sized railguns and put them on dedicated battleships, but they would probably be very rare beasts. Able to lob slugs hundreds of miles. One ship could probably cover the entire north Atlantic
But why, aside from how freaking cool it would be, would you spend tons of money on a dedicated battleship when you can get similar direct fire power projection by simply retrofitting an existing carrier with a few Railguns?
Speaking of Rail Guns...
Is it really going to be that effective? At sea level, you can only see about 3 miles before concave of the horizon... So, on a battleship, the gun would be what... 100ft from the sea? Then, it's effective range would be 12 miles..right?
How effective would that be?
Railguns have a parabolic trajectory like any projectile. They can be lobbed over the horizon.
I saw an article once about the Naval Railgun project and they are saying the railgun has an effective range of 400ish miles with accuracy up to 12 meters from the target point.
Grey Templar wrote: IIRC even a full sized railgun would be smaller than what battleships used to carry, especially when you take into account ammo storage. It just needs to have the power provided by the reactor and its ammunition(which is inert and not in danger of exploding if it gets hit by enemy fire)
Now you could build super sized railguns and put them on dedicated battleships, but they would probably be very rare beasts. Able to lob slugs hundreds of miles. One ship could probably cover the entire north Atlantic
But why, aside from how freaking cool it would be, would you spend tons of money on a dedicated battleship when you can get similar direct fire power projection by simply retrofitting an existing carrier with a few Railguns?
Speaking of Rail Guns...
Is it really going to be that effective? At sea level, you can only see about 3 miles before concave of the horizon... So, on a battleship, the gun would be what... 100ft from the sea? Then, it's effective range would be 12 miles..right?
How effective would that be?
Railguns have a parabolic trajectory like any projectile. They can be lobbed over the horizon.
I saw an article once about the Naval Railgun project and they are saying the railgun has an effective range of 400ish miles with accuracy up to 12 meters from the target point.
Well...huh. I was under the impression that it was powerfull enough that it woundn't have that kind of trajectory. Dayum... 400 miles? o.O
We are talking a very steep parabolic trajectory to hit stuff. Its going to be hitting its targets practically vertical.
I should mention the 400 miles is only theoretical at this point. In the near future we're looking at something more in the range of 100 miles.
One test of the weapon had the projectile travel 7 kilometers after penetrating 1/8inch steel plate. this is the first railgun that is planned to be put into service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
The re-militarization of good old Yamato is a wonderful thing.
Mark my words - Article 9 of their constitution will be stricken, amended, or de facto nullified within 10 years.
From a realpolitik standpoint, we (the West) need a strong ally in the region to act as a bulwark against Chinese and Russian imperialism / expansionism. Not just economically strong. Militarily strong.
Both Japan and the U.S. recognize this, so all of Japan's moves towards re-militarization over the past decade have been made with the blessing of the U.S. (there have been many baby steps before this).
The benefits to Japan from an economic and morale standpoint will be tremendous. Their whole economy and society could stand a good kick in the ass, and re-militarization is just what the doctor ordered. Along with a hefty dose of nationalism.
Mark my words - Article 9 of their constitution will be stricken, amended, or de facto nullified within 10 years.
From a realpolitik standpoint, we (the West) need a strong ally in the region to act as a bulwark against Chinese and Russian imperialism / expansionism. Not just economically strong. Militarily strong.
Both Japan and the U.S. recognize this, so all of Japan's moves towards re-militarization over the past decade have been made with the blessing of the U.S. (there have been many baby steps before this).
The benefits to Japan from an economic and morale standpoint will be tremendous. Their whole economy and society could stand a good kick in the ass, and re-militarization is just what the doctor ordered. Along with a hefty dose of nationalism.
It's just great. I can't wait.
Alternatively we could quite pull our military out just trade with everyone in a nice peaceful manner. My dauighter was in diapers the last time we weren't activly in a war. Enough already.
Mark my words - Article 9 of their constitution will be stricken, amended, or de facto nullified within 10 years.
From a realpolitik standpoint, we (the West) need a strong ally in the region to act as a bulwark against Chinese and Russian imperialism / expansionism. Not just economically strong. Militarily strong.
Both Japan and the U.S. recognize this, so all of Japan's moves towards re-militarization over the past decade have been made with the blessing of the U.S. (there have been many baby steps before this).
The benefits to Japan from an economic and morale standpoint will be tremendous. Their whole economy and society could stand a good kick in the ass, and re-militarization is just what the doctor ordered. Along with a hefty dose of nationalism.
It's just great. I can't wait.
Alternatively we could quite pull our military out just trade with everyone in a nice peaceful manner. My dauighter was in diapers the last time we weren't activly in a war. Enough already.
I agree, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way :\
Grey Templar wrote: Is it impossible to give a carrier the same type of armor that a battleship gets?
Are we really giving our main modern warships paper armor compared to outmoded battleships of yesteryear?
I'll just start off by pointing out that I'm not a pro at these matters, so if I'm talking out my ass feel free to correct me.
I'd imagine that a carrier, being bigger and requiring greater internal space for aircraft than a battleship would need, would need more armour compared to its size. With increased size comes increased weight, which slows the ship down. Similarly, if the carrier has to carry fuel and weapons for the aircraft while the Railgun ammunition for the battleship is all solid, the battleship won't turn into a giant torch the moment someone manages to hit the ammunition stores.
Regarding the armour, according to Wikipedia the USS George H W Bush has 2.5" Kevlar armour over vital spaces. The USS Missouri has 9.5" of deck armour and a hull armour around 11-12", with the turrets boasting 17". Wiki doesn't say what material, but I'd assume it to be steel. The Nimitz class is a 100,000 ton monster with almost no armour; adding 12" of armour would probably weigh quite a bit.
Railguns have a parabolic trajectory like any projectile. They can be lobbed over the horizon.
I saw an article once about the Naval Railgun project and they are saying the railgun has an effective range of 400ish miles with accuracy up to 12 meters from the target point.
I have that article someplace. It's hilarious. They never do explain how the smart projectile will use it's wings to maneuver outside the Earth's atmosphere (for those who don't know aerodynamics, that's impossible, as wings require air pressure to work) or how the projectile will accelerate to faster than it's terminal velocity on reentry without burning up or using any sort of propellant. For it to work as advertised, it's have to impact traveling a faster than it's initial muzzle velocity.
Further, the rail-gun, while it has impressive pen, inflicts relatively little damage to an object the size of a ship. Any ship.
Battleships used a combination of class A and Class B steel armor. Previously, carriers used a small amount of class B.
Seaward: on why we don't use battleships anymore: that's three fold. The first is the historic pissing contest between carrier and admiral commanders. It went to the extreme that the Iowa's number 2 turret explosion and 50 odd dead sailors can be laid at it's feet. The second is that battleships have just one use: blowing things up. When it comes to peace time humanitarian missions, they suck. This means that they cost almost as much as a carrier, but are only useful during war. So a frugal country tends to buy them over battleships. The third is that battleship building is considered right up there with a nuclear weapons program as far as diplomacy goes. A battleship has, after all, just one use.
Seaward wrote: There's a reason we don't use battleships anymore. Just throwing it out there.
Expense in maintenance. Remember that they were recommissioned during the Gulf War and that it'd be cheaper to refit them than to build the Zumwalts and still result in greater firepower.
The Pyotr Veliky and the other battle cruisers of the Kirov class may or may not count as well, although they're obviously not American.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Pyotr Veliky and the other battle cruisers of the Kirov class may or may not count as well, although they're obviously not American.
I always love the language that Congress was told: 'It's a super heavy battlecruiser, not a battleship'. Technically true, as it has a very different weapon loadout compared ot US battleships, but interestingly enough, the only thing the US could come up with was battleships to counter it. It would annihilate every other ship in an entire carrier taskforce, but the battleships would run it down and kill it afterward. Hence the recommissioning and late-80's early 90's update to battleships. Interestingly enough they got barrel wear down so low per shot they gave up on that as a meaningful measurement of barrel life.
I dunno if I agree fully. First of all, I assume by battleship you actually MEAN battleship (and I'll lump in Aircraft Carriers as well since they are similar enough in terms of defensive ability) which as far as I know are no longer in use with any fleet in any nation on the planet. This is an important distinction to make, because aircraft are more than capable of taking down frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (its regularly practiced via "sink-ex" on old decommissioned vessels). Now, in the case of these
Well... no. A carrier, even a big US fleet carrier, has a laughable defense (passive or active) compared to a battleship's potential fitting. A carrier's defense is first and foremost it's aircraft, quickly followed by running away. In the late 80s and early 90's, in US Navy wargames, battleships successfully chased down and 'killed' fleet carriers, the only ships to do so other than subs, including other carriers.
...
During extensive wargames held in 1939 to 1945, battleships failed numerous times to chase down and "kill" carrier fleets.
I dunno if I agree fully. First of all, I assume by battleship you actually MEAN battleship (and I'll lump in Aircraft Carriers as well since they are similar enough in terms of defensive ability) which as far as I know are no longer in use with any fleet in any nation on the planet. This is an important distinction to make, because aircraft are more than capable of taking down frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (its regularly practiced via "sink-ex" on old decommissioned vessels). Now, in the case of these
Well... no. A carrier, even a big US fleet carrier, has a laughable defense (passive or active) compared to a battleship's potential fitting. A carrier's defense is first and foremost it's aircraft, quickly followed by running away. In the late 80s and early 90's, in US Navy wargames, battleships successfully chased down and 'killed' fleet carriers, the only ships to do so other than subs, including other carriers.
...
During extensive wargames held in 1939 to 1945, battleships failed numerous times to chase down and "kill" carrier fleets.
Assuming everyone's correct, why does 39 to 45 matter if they did fine in the 80s and 90s?
Railguns have a parabolic trajectory like any projectile. They can be lobbed over the horizon.
I saw an article once about the Naval Railgun project and they are saying the railgun has an effective range of 400ish miles with accuracy up to 12 meters from the target point.
I have that article someplace. It's hilarious. They never do explain how the smart projectile will use it's wings to maneuver outside the Earth's atmosphere (for those who don't know aerodynamics, that's impossible, as wings require air pressure to work) or how the projectile will accelerate to faster than it's terminal velocity on reentry without burning up or using any sort of propellant. For it to work as advertised, it's have to impact traveling a faster than it's initial muzzle velocity.
Further, the rail-gun, while it has impressive pen, inflicts relatively little damage to an object the size of a ship. Any ship.
Battleships used a combination of class A and Class B steel armor. Previously, carriers used a small amount of class B.
Seaward: on why we don't use battleships anymore: that's three fold. The first is the historic pissing contest between carrier and admiral commanders. It went to the extreme that the Iowa's number 2 turret explosion and 50 odd dead sailors can be laid at it's feet. The second is that battleships have just one use: blowing things up. When it comes to peace time humanitarian missions, they suck. This means that they cost almost as much as a carrier, but are only useful during war. So a frugal country tends to buy them over battleships. The third is that battleship building is considered right up there with a nuclear weapons program as far as diplomacy goes. A battleship has, after all, just one use.
That and the fact no battleship ever sank a US carrier, whereas aircraft... sank oodles of battleships and cruisers in the Pacific theater.
Other then that criminal British loss of a carrier (which SHOULD have resulted in the easy sinking of two German cruisers a hunderd miles or more away) not aware of another fleet carrier getting hit by shellfire. Gambier was sunk by Kurita's battle fleet but she was an escort carrier, and his force had taken heavy damage from the Taffy group and Sprague ordering everything into the air from his group a good distance away.
Well... no. A carrier, even a big US fleet carrier, has a laughable defense (passive or active) compared to a battleship's potential fitting. A carrier's defense is first and foremost it's aircraft, quickly followed by running away. In the late 80s and early 90's, in US Navy wargames, battleships successfully chased down and 'killed' fleet carriers, the only ships to do so other than subs, including other carriers.
Actually, a carrier has the best defense of any ship in the US Navy, its called a Carrier Battlegroup, a fleet of ships totalling some tens of billions of dollars and 10,000+ lives intended for no other purpose than to protect a ship worth half as much money and half as many lives. The aircraft, while originally intended to be a defensive system, have become primarily offensive in nature, though they do provide a certain element of defensive ability since a carrier always has a flight flying topcover. However, I'm going to need you to cite your source on those wargames, because that runs contrary to what I heard and read (keeping in mind that one of my degrees is in joint military studies, that actually means something). Likewise the idea that subs have successfully hunted a carrier is questionable as well, since nothing short of a nuclear armed torpedo could actually snap a carriers keel (its been studies) although a conventional torpedo would have the capacity to damage and possibly disable it.
Well, first of all, you put your CIWS in stand alone mode when that happens (remember that each RIM and Phalanx gun can operate independently, as well as have manual [yes really]). It's not as effective but does work. Secondly, if the CIWS on a battleship is anything like it's other fire control systems, one system begin down wouldn't even slow it down.
Again, you missed the point where I stated I didn't mean whether or not the radar, etc. was working, I meant the fact that individual CIWS units were broken, in that they would either be unable to traverse or rotate correctly, or the guns didn't cycle, or hell, the software was just flat out borked and unresponsive. The GAO even published a document a couple years back about how some 60% of the Navies surface fleet was unfit for combat operations, and this was one of the leading reasons.
ran the upgrade idea past some guys from RAAF, their (conservative) estimate was 45 planes to get a mission kill on it, without escorts, at 25% casualties, at least. Their basic plan was to harass it with smaller ASMs to try and swamp it with targets and keep it painted until they could drop several MOABs on it. They figured that would inflict sufficient damage to force it to withdraw.
The RAAF's available arsenal of aircraft and missile systems isn't exactly known to be "cutting edge".
And, no, I'm not underestimating ASM's power, but I do understand how they work and how a battleship works. Modern ASM work by detonating a small warhead charge against the hull of the ship, in theory allowing the missile access to the ship so that a larger explosive charge and the missiles remaining fuel can then be detonated internally, causing that firey mess you were talking about.
Some but not all... some of the ASM's out there are actually designed to pop up and come down directly from above, as (traditionally) the weakest part of a ships armor is its deck.
This approach does not work on US battleships due to the fact that to pass through the Panama canal, they use internal armor belts. This means that the missile's penetrating warhead explodes on the ships steel skin, but the secondary charge is then blocked from entering by a 17 inch thick or greater Class A armor. (think armor skirts).
I was under the impression that the internal armor belts on the US last Iowa's were removed not long before they were retired to reduce wait, but maybe I'm wrong on that one.
This is the Wilson cloud from atomic test Baker. Several of the battleships present within 'ground zero' remained afloat, the though the USS Arkansas was flipped end over end by the bomb and sank, she's still largely intact on the seabed. USS Pennsylvania took on water but remained afloat, due to the nuke loosening a patch on a torpedo hit she had suffered earlier.
Yes, the ships largely stayed afloat, but what you aren't accounting for is that the steam generated by the cloud, let alone the radiation, was such that it would have instantly cooked the crews of every ship in the area. Besides that a lot of the ships that didn't sink were heavily damaged and SINKING. Prinz Eugen for example sunk 5 months later, because the ship was so heavily irradiated that they couldn't decontaminate it so that they could repair leaks in the hull. Some of the other ships were pre-emptively beached before they could sink, and in all I believe only a handful of ships were actually decontaminated the rest either eventually sank on their own or were sunk because nothing could be done about the radioactive hull. Its also worth noting it was a relatively small nuclear devices, a bit larger than the ones we dropped on Japan, which are only a fraction of the size of the nuclear devices used today... it was also detonated 90 feet below the surface in shallow (180 ft depth) water, which has a big impact on the damage caused.
I'd imagine that a carrier, being bigger and requiring greater internal space for aircraft than a battleship would need, would need more armour compared to its size. With increased size comes increased weight, which slows the ship down. Similarly, if the carrier has to carry fuel and weapons for the aircraft while the Railgun ammunition for the battleship is all solid, the battleship won't turn into a giant torch the moment someone manages to hit the ammunition stores.
Regarding the armour, according to Wikipedia the USS George H W Bush has 2.5" Kevlar armour over vital spaces. The USS Missouri has 9.5" of deck armour and a hull armour around 11-12", with the turrets boasting 17". Wiki doesn't say what material, but I'd assume it to be steel. The Nimitz class is a 100,000 ton monster with almost no armour; adding 12" of armour would probably weigh quite a bit.
In a lot of cases, the 2.5" of kevlar is a more effective protection than a thicker plate of steel. Likewise, a 5" naval gun today has more penetrative power than a 16" Armor Piercing round from back in the day. I studied it in my naval weapons systems class but I can't recall off the top of my head what the relative capabilities are.
I have that article someplace. It's hilarious. They never do explain how the smart projectile will use it's wings to maneuver outside the Earth's atmosphere (for those who don't know aerodynamics, that's impossible, as wings require air pressure to work) or how the projectile will accelerate to faster than it's terminal velocity on reentry without burning up or using any sort of propellant. For it to work as advertised, it's have to impact traveling a faster than it's initial muzzle velocity.
The round would never actually leave thee atmosphere. I don't know what would ever give you the idea that it would, nor would it re-enter. Parabolic doesn't mean shot up near vertically to plunge back down near vertically. A parabolic curve can have a relatively shallow curve... I assure you the math works out...
Further, the rail-gun, while it has impressive pen, inflicts relatively little damage to an object the size of a ship. Any ship.
False. The kinetic energy transfer from slug to target is actually pretty tremendoes. K=.5mv^2. Mass might be small, but the V is tremendous.
notprop wrote: They're basically the same vessels as 39-45. Carriers on the other had have advanced considerably.
They're not that updated I guess.
Again, if they did fine last time anyone tried them (presumably after upgrades), why does 39 to 45 matter?
My point is that carriers of 39-45 were vastly weaker than carriers of 1980-1990, due to numerous improvements in electronics and aircraft over 40 years. Battleships however had not progressed to anything like the same degree.
Why then should we believe some wargames over real world experience?
notprop wrote: They're basically the same vessels as 39-45. Carriers on the other had have advanced considerably.
They're not that updated I guess.
Again, if they did fine last time anyone tried them (presumably after upgrades), why does 39 to 45 matter?
My point is that carriers of 39-45 were vastly weaker than carriers of 1980-1990, due to numerous improvements in electronics and aircraft over 40 years. Battleships however had not progressed to anything like the same degree.
Why then should we believe some wargames over real world experience?
Well last time battleships were at sea, they were upgraded with significant anti-air and anti-missile defenses in addition to their considerable existing armour that most modern anti-ship missiles are just not equipped to deal with. On the offensive side they were equipped with long ranged cruise missiles (which have an anti-ship capability) and nuclear weapons. So no, the battleship has not remained static since 1945.
During extensive wargames held in 1939 to 1945, battleships failed numerous times to chase down and "kill" carrier fleets.
And carrier fleets failed numerous times to catch and kill battleships too. The problem with comparing WW2 to now is there is no comparison. Performance even in battleships was upgraded significantly in the 1990's refits.
notprop wrote:They're basically the same vessels as 39-45. Carriers on the other had have advanced considerably.
They're not that updated I guess.
Yes and no. While they're the same hulls used in 1944-45, the Iowa class fast battleship isn't called that for no reason. The engine systems were upgraded with much of the rest of the ships in the late 80's early 90's, however, they were originally 8 babcocks and willcox non explosive boilers which had comparable output to a Nimitz class carrier.
Frazzled wrote:
That and the fact no battleship ever sank a US carrier, whereas aircraft... sank oodles of battleships and cruisers in the Pacific theater.
Other then that criminal British loss of a carrier (which SHOULD have resulted in the easy sinking of two German cruisers a hunderd miles or more away) not aware of another fleet carrier getting hit by shellfire. Gambier was sunk by Kurita's battle fleet but she was an escort carrier, and his force had taken heavy damage from the Taffy group and Sprague ordering everything into the air from his group a good distance away.
Gambier Bay and St Lo were both lost in the same action, though St Lo's killing blow was a kamikazi, she and several other members of the group were badly crippled as they fled. Their escorts were pretty much annihilated as well.
And as far as carriers sinking battleships etc this is true, but this was entirely due to the use of torpedo bombers (something no longer in use). Very few battleships were sunk by bomb hits outside Pearl Harbor.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Actually, a carrier has the best defense of any ship in the US Navy, its called a Carrier Battlegroup, a fleet of ships totalling some tens of billions of dollars and 10,000+ lives intended for no other purpose than to protect a ship worth half as much money and half as many lives. The aircraft, while originally intended to be a defensive system, have become primarily offensive in nature, though they do provide a certain element of defensive ability since a carrier always has a flight flying topcover. However, I'm going to need you to cite your source on those wargames, because that runs contrary to what I heard and read (keeping in mind that one of my degrees is in joint military studies, that actually means something). Likewise the idea that subs have successfully hunted a carrier is questionable as well, since nothing short of a nuclear armed torpedo could actually snap a carriers keel (its been studies) although a conventional torpedo would have the capacity to damage and possibly disable it.
I'll have to dig it out. I'll admit that I heard about it secondhand from some former crewmen of the New Jersey, but I also vaguely recall reading in the GAO battleship feasibility study mention of it. Remember on the torps that mission kill does not equate sink. (And you don't have to break a ships keel to sink it with torps. A good spread flooding enough compartments will do it just fine)
chaos0xomega wrote:
Again, you missed the point where I stated I didn't mean whether or not the radar, etc. was working, I meant the fact that individual CIWS units were broken, in that they would either be unable to traverse or rotate correctly, or the guns didn't cycle, or hell, the software was just flat out borked and unresponsive. The GAO even published a document a couple years back about how some 60% of the Navies surface fleet was unfit for combat operations, and this was one of the leading reasons.
Well, yes, if the weapons systems are not working at all, that's a serious problem, but hardly one unique to battleships. However, with even just passive resistance from armor a battleship is better equipped to survive a hit than a carrier is.
chaos0xomega wrote:
The RAAF's available arsenal of aircraft and missile systems isn't exactly known to be "cutting edge".
True, but they also have better training at eliminating warships than the US does. I'll take the word of pilots who have actually fired on ships, even target ships, over yours. Though if you like I can show you the target ships from RIMPAC and the actual damage that US munitions do. It's underwhelming.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Some but not all... some of the ASM's out there are actually designed to pop up and come down directly from above, as (traditionally) the weakest part of a ships armor is its deck.
Yes, sea skimmers. This is true, however, again, against a battleship, it's sub optimal. One 'weakest' is relative. The deck armor is a 'mere' 7 inches thick, or more than twice that of a carriers hull. And, again, the armor is covered by the bomb deck, with wood planks, so, again, premature detonation. Two the same deck includes the battleships turrets and the armored conning tower, which are actually the most heavily armored part of the ship.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I was under the impression that the internal armor belts on the US last Iowa's were removed not long before they were retired to reduce wait, but maybe I'm wrong on that one.
No, Iowa's belts are very firmly in place. She actually displaces more now than she did in WW2. (And how the HELL would you remove those without cutting the ship up for scrap?)
chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, the ships largely stayed afloat, but what you aren't accounting for is that the steam generated by the cloud, let alone the radiation, was such that it would have instantly cooked the crews of every ship in the area.
The steam bit is a misconception. While many exposed animals in the test suffered flash burns, the majority of them that died were actually killed by radiation poisoning. The only battleship that suffered immediate internal issues (IIRC) with rad levels inside the ship was Nevada, because it had an antiquated at the time ventilation system that dumped radioactive dust all through the ship. I have the declassified post shot reports for USS Pennsylvania and USS Nevada, though I'd have to find them.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Besides that a lot of the ships that didn't sink were heavily damaged and SINKING. Prinz Eugen for example sunk 5 months later, because the ship was so heavily irradiated that they couldn't decontaminate it so that they could repair leaks in the hull. Some of the other ships were pre-emptively beached before they could sink, and in all I believe only a handful of ships were actually decontaminated the rest either eventually sank on their own or were sunk because nothing could be done about the radioactive hull. Its also worth noting it was a relatively small nuclear devices, a bit larger than the ones we dropped on Japan, which are only a fraction of the size of the nuclear devices used today... it was also detonated 90 feet below the surface in shallow (180 ft depth) water, which has a big impact on the damage caused.
Yes, it caused much greater damage than a modern airburst would (an airburst which had already been tested and did very minor damage). That said: Actually the problem was with the decontamination procedure. They basically pumped the already radioactive water from the lagoon and sprayed it over the ships. This flooded even parts of the ships that were not radioactive with radioactive materials. Effectively it took was was largely minor surface contamination and made it fifty times worse. The few ships that were salvagable were hte ones that they did not treat in this manner or were far enough from ground zero that the water being pumped over them was (relatively) clean.
chaos0xomega wrote:
In a lot of cases, the 2.5" of kevlar is a more effective protection than a thicker plate of steel. Likewise, a 5" naval gun today has more penetrative power than a 16" Armor Piercing round from back in the day. I studied it in my naval weapons systems class but I can't recall off the top of my head what the relative capabilities are.
A 16"/50 mark 7 can pen 30 feet of concrete. A modern 5"/54 Mark 45 Mod 4 actually does about half that.
chaos0xomega wrote:
The round would never actually leave thee atmosphere. I don't know what would ever give you the idea that it would, nor would it re-enter. Parabolic doesn't mean shot up near vertically to plunge back down near vertically. A parabolic curve can have a relatively shallow curve... I assure you the math works out...
Notice the part where it's leaving the detectable atmosphere. At 500k feet this smart guided round isn't going to have anything to use to turn because it's into the exosphere.
I'm aware that a parabolic curve can have a very low angle. The problem is once a railgun munition starts dropping it's losing energy rather rapidly due to it's relatively low mass fighting wind resistance and gravity. Remember that while V is important, it's the inertia of m that actually keeps a slug going.
chaos0xomega wrote:
False. The kinetic energy transfer from slug to target is actually pretty tremendous. K=.5mv^2. Mass might be small, but the V is tremendous.
Except it doesn't. You're forgetting that at that V it's going to over penetrate and only a fraction of K will be imparted on a target.
-Guns with a range over the horizon that are big and nasty enough to sink just about anything else afloat.
-The ability to engage in direct heavy artillery support at a level beyond most ground units, and more sustained than air or missile strikes.
-Thick armour able to ward off strikes from all but dedicated weaponry.
Cons
-Susceptibility to repeat aerial attacks in an age dominated by air power.
-Heavy vulnerability to submarines.
-Vast cost of construction and maintenance.
Ketara wrote: Bringing back the Battleship (in a nutshell)
Pros
-Guns with a range over the horizon that are big and nasty enough to sink just about anything else afloat.
-The ability to engage in direct heavy artillery support at a level beyond most ground units, and more sustained than air or missile strikes.
-Thick armour able to ward off strikes from all but dedicated weaponry.
Cons
-Susceptibility to repeat aerial attacks in an age dominated by air power.
-Heavy vulnerability to submarines.
-Vast cost of construction and maintenance.
The vulnerability to submarines bit is arguable. As with carriers, it depends on it's group.
Pros: Cheaper than comparable ships for NGS.
Cons: Large crew. (Though depending on who you talk to this could be a pro or a con. There's a growing sentiment among surface commanders that 'optimal crewing' is leaving ships short handed in the event of emergency.)
In regards to the capability of the Izumo class to operate conventional aircraft:
The smallest carrier I know of that can operate conventional aircraft is the Kunzetsnov class. It can operate converted Su-27 fighters, which are as large if not larger than any fighter in the Japanese Air Self Defense Forces. So a craft that can operate the navalized Su-27 could reasonably expect to operate a navalized version of any current or projected future JASDF aircraft.
Here is the tale of the tape:
Displacement: Kuznetsov: 43,000 to 67,500 tonnes Izumo: 19,500 to 27,000 tonnes. So the Kuznetsov is about twice as heavy
Length: Kuznetsov: 305 m Izumo: 248.0 m So the Kuznetsov is about 20% longer, it also has a Ski-Jump bow.
Beam (width for you landlubber): Kuznetsov: 72 m Izumo: 38.0 m So the Kuznetsov is about twice as wide. This includes an angled flight tech which is essential to a carrier wanting to conduct simultaneous take off and landing operations.
So to operate conventional fighters, the Izumo would need to be considerably larger than it currently is and sport a number of significant modifications to it's structure. The modifications are extensive enough, and the capabilities of the Izumo as a carrier are limited enough (only about a dozen aircraft) that it would probably be more worthwhile to build a completely new carrier from scratch.
The vulnerability to submarines bit is arguable. As with carriers, it depends on it's group.
Note that I'm talking about the Battleship specifically. Not a battleship and eight attendant vessels, Otherwise it would be the pros and cons of a Fleet Group that happens to involve a battleship, and would be taking into account the pros and cons of destroyers, frigates, carriers, and so on as well.
Part of the reason why we don't use battleships anymore is because the US military has this habit of a few generals getting it into their heads that a single weapons system is all they need to win a war and they build that exclusively and attempt to get all other systems disbanded Eg, the "Fighter mafia" of the 1970s and the earlier "bomber mafia".
With regards to this ship I agree that its not likely to be an actual aircraft launching platform but it does have uses in supporting small scale operations elsewhere.
EmilCrane wrote: Part of the reason why we don't use battleships anymore is because the US military has this habit of a few generals getting it into their heads that a single weapons system is all they need to win a war and they build that exclusively and attempt to get all other systems disbanded Eg, the "Fighter mafia" of the 1970s and the earlier "bomber mafia".
I would say it has more to do with them being used exclusively as ship-to-shore artillery since the end of World War II, and it being a little much to keep funding them solely for that function.
djones520 wrote: Our destroyers and frigates today would also have little issue dealing with other surface warfare ships out there,unlike in WW2.
Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates have no defense against surface ships besides a 76mm gun, while destroyers have a better chance with anti-ship missiles you have to take itno account that battleships are going to be firing missiles right back, and have much better armor
The Oliver Perry class is pretty much phasing out, and today only makes up a small portion of our fleet. The Arleigh Burke is our primary surface combatant, and probably the best fighting ship to ever sail the seas.
djones520 wrote: Our destroyers and frigates today would also have little issue dealing with other surface warfare ships out there,unlike in WW2.
That's overselling the VLS and the 5" gun just a bit. Remember that the USN currently is very much NOT able to conduct close range firefights (compared to previous incarnations), and that several navies around the world specialize in exactly that. In a blue water fight USN would clean up most fleets, but in the littoral zone the USN would struggle in the face of serious opposition, Further, the USN does not have staying power in the face of a prolonged action. If it's not over in two hours, they're screwed, because that's about the max engagement length currently sustainable.
The Burke is a good ship, but calling it the best ever is a stretch.
djones520 wrote: Our destroyers and frigates today would also have little issue dealing with other surface warfare ships out there,unlike in WW2.
That's overselling the VLS and the 5" gun just a bit. Remember that the USN currently is very much NOT able to conduct close range firefights (compared to previous incarnations), and that several navies around the world specialize in exactly that. In a blue water fight USN would clean up most fleets, but in the littoral zone the USN would struggle in the face of serious opposition, Further, the USN does not have staying power in the face of a prolonged action. If it's not over in two hours, they're screwed, because that's about the max engagement length currently sustainable.
The Burke is a good ship, but calling it the best ever is a stretch.
We fight with air power at sea. We're good everywhere.
And carrier fleets failed numerous times to catch and kill battleships too. The problem with comparing WW2 to now is there is no comparison. Performance even in battleships was upgraded significantly in the 1990's refits.
What planet are you living on, because its not Earth. Here's a short list of battleships and that were given the face plant by aircraft
The following 22 pages are in this category, out of 22 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
AUSS Arizona (BB-39)
CUSS California (BB-44)
Italian battleship Conte di Cavour
HJapanese battleship Haruna
Japanese battleship Hiei
Japanese battleship Hyūga
IItalian battleship Impero
Japanese battleship Ise
JFrench battleship Jean Bart (1911)
KGreek battleship Kilkis
LGreek battleship Lemnos
MJapanese battleship Musashi
OUSS Oklahoma (BB-37)
SMS Ostfriesland
PRussian battleship Petropavlovsk (1911)
HMS Prince of Wales (53)
RItalian battleship Roma (1940)
SFrench battleship Strasbourg
TGerman battleship Tirpitz
UUSS Utah (BB-31)
WUSS West Virginia (BB-48)
YJapanese battleship Yamato
Frazzled wrote: Doesn't matter where they were bombed. Aircraft still killed 'em.
There's a number of mitigating circumstances with that list, most of them were bombed in harbor, not moving and in some cases not even firing back, also the two greek battleships aren't battleships.
Prince of wales didn't have its own aerial cover and never should have been sent to malayan waters without it, as in all things to do with warfare combined arms is a better approach than relying on one type of weapon exclusively
Frazzled wrote: Doesn't matter where they were bombed. Aircraft still killed 'em.
Aye, there's no getting away from the fact that it's far easier to get carrier launched planes into a position to kill a battleship than it is to get a BB in range to sink a carrier.
Frazzled wrote: Doesn't matter where they were bombed. Aircraft still killed 'em.
There's a number of mitigating circumstances with that list, most of them were bombed in harbor, not moving and in some cases not even firing back, also the two greek battleships aren't battleships.
Prince of wales didn't have its own aerial cover and never should have been sent to malayan waters without it, as in all things to do with warfare combined arms is a better approach than relying on one type of weapon exclusively
You can babble babble all you want but its still aircraft 20: battleship: 1
Now a battleship which is essentially a very powerful missile cruiser is nice, agreed. But how many cruise missiles can a flight from the Nimitz launch in comparison?
I thought the question was of Aircraft carriers running down battleships?
If that's the case then the circumstances are pertinent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Tirpitz was taken out by high altitude bombers flown from Britain with specially designed payloads (after being damaged by midget subs iirc).
notprop wrote: I thought the question was of Aircraft carriers running down battleships?
If that's the case then the circumstances are pertinent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Tirpitz was taken out by high altitude bombers flown from Britain with specially designed payloads (after being damaged by midget subs iirc).
So again not relevant to an AC vs BS comparison.
Sure it is. Carriers launch aircraft. Aircraft kill ships. Land based aircraft can also kill ships.
Moral of the story, aircraft kill ships.
Again, how many air craft carriers were sunk by battleships in return? Yea thats what I thought you said.
Interesting side note. When the Brits bombed the Tirpitz, RN fighters flying CAP for the bombers were flying Vought F4U corsairs. The Vought Corsair, the only man made thing close to the greatness of wiener dogs.
What planet are you living on, because its not Earth. Here's a short list of battleships and that were given the face plant by aircraft
Out of how many attempts? Tirpitz they made four or five goes at before they finally succeeded. and was killed by land based bombers while sitting, not carriers while out maneuvering.
USS Arizona (BB-39) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
USS California (BB-44) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
Italian battleship Conte di Cavour [Obsolete WW1 battleship, torpedoed]
Japanese battleship Haruna [Sunk at anchor while undergoing repairs following running around]
Japanese battleship Hiei [crippled by shell fire from USS San Francisco, aircraft attacks throughout the day failed to yield any serious damage but ship could not be towed to safety and was scuttled by her escorting destroyers]
Japanese battleship Hyūga [was not sunk by aircraft, was scuttled in shallow water by her crew]
Italian battleship Impero [Impero was only 28%^ complete when Italy capitulated. When captured, the hulk was already half sunk through use as a target ship. She was struck though by aircraft during a bombing raid, but this was not the cause of her sinking]
Japanese battleship Ise [gutted and designated a floating anti-aircraft battery, Ise was in fact sunk on the third try by USN aircraft]
French battleship Jean Bart (1911) [Obsolete pre WW1 battleship, not only as was pointed out, bombed in harbor, but also had been used as a target ship by the Germans and was barely seaworthy.]
Greek battleship Kilkis [Former USS Mississippi, she was a pre WW1 battleship deemed obsolete by the Greek Navy that had been disarmed and used for training before a rather rudimentry effort was made to make her a flaoting AA battery. Manned by naval cadets, she did not managed to avoid Ju 88 bombers.].
Greek battleship Lemnos [former USS Idaho, an obsolete pre WW1 battleship, she had been disarmed and used as a floating barrak for the Greek naval academy, which also had use of Kilkis.]
Japanese battleship Musashi [19 torpedo and 17 bomb hits to cause sufficient flooding to overwhelm Japanese DCTs and cause the Japanese to give the order to abandon ship.]
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
SMS Ostfriesland [Unmanned target ship, no attempt at damage control made]
Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1911) [obsolete pre-WW1 battleship sunk at anchor]]
HMS Prince of Wales [amazingly lucky shot with torpedo caused propeller shaft to damage engine rooms and flood ship]
Italian battleship Roma (1940) [Again, one in a million shot with a Fritz X managed to disable all firefighting gear on ship, all electric on ship, ships engines, AND setting fires from end to end and detonating a magazine, in that order. Ship had made no effort at defense having mistaken the aircraft for friendlies]
French battleship Strasbourg [scuttled wreck that had been re-floated and towed to port before being bombed by allied aircraft and re-sunk]
German battleship Tirpitz [Took an absurd amount of effort in terms of aircraft and munitions to kill her while she sat at anchor, including direct hits from 2k pound tallboys with no result. Hydrostatic shock finally caused enough leaks to cause her to flood and capsize, after six months of air attacks.]
USS Utah (BB-31) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
USS West Virginia (BB-48) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
Japanese battleship Yamato [Capsized due to torpedo hits, as without air cover and having lost too many escorts due to either mechanical failure on the way or enemy fire, there really wasn't anything to stop the Torp bombers from lining up their targets. Most of the hits above the surface did largely cosmetic damage to Yamato. Interesting note on this: this battle was a case of the pissing contest between carrier and battleship admirals. It was not carriers who had orders to engage Yamato, but rather Taskforce 57, a large body of battleships who had these orders. However, the carrier commander of Taskforce 58, without orders, launched his own attack, and then told his CO about it after it was already on the way. Spruance was not convinced that 7 carriers would be enough [and it wouldn't have been if the Japanese ships had sufficient AA or air cover] and so had six battleships, 7 cruisers and 21 destroyers on hand to make sure of it.]
Actually, the moral of the story is torpedoes kill ships. Though occasionally specialist munitions dropped from aircraft against unmoving targets do so too.
The one advantage I will give to the battleship is that it doesnt use missiles. Guns, besides being considerably cheaper than missiles to purchase, operate, reload, and maintain, also have a much much larger ammunition capacity than vls cells. You know what an Arleigh Burke thats fired off all its missiles is? A target.
What planet are you living on, because its not Earth. Here's a short list of battleships and that were given the face plant by aircraft
Out of how many attempts? Tirpitz they made four or five goes at before they finally succeeded. and was killed by land based bombers while sitting, not carriers while out maneuvering.
(shortened)
Again, how many carriers were sunk by battleships?
silence...crickets chirping...in the distance a wiener dog yawns.
The one advantage I will give to the battleship is that it doesnt use missiles. Guns, besides being considerably cheaper than missiles to purchase, operate, reload, and maintain, also have a much much larger ammunition capacity than vls cells. You know what an Arleigh Burke thats fired off all its missiles is? A target.
And they do that remarkably quickly. Pricewise, a 16" shell costs about $500. A missile can cost millions. An Iowa class can old something like 300 rounds per gun.\ in it's magazines.
Again, how many carriers were sunk by battleships?
silence...crickets chirping...in the distance a wiener dog yawns.
Glorious, Gambier Bay.
Now, my question for you: how many battleships (not sitting at harbor or as motionless target ships) were sunk by weapons of a type used by modern aircraft?
The one advantage I will give to the battleship is that it doesnt use missiles. Guns, besides being considerably cheaper than missiles to purchase, operate, reload, and maintain, also have a much much larger ammunition capacity than vls cells. You know what an Arleigh Burke thats fired off all its missiles is? A target.
And they do that remarkably quickly. Pricewise, a 16" shell costs about $500. A missile can cost millions. An Iowa class can old something like 300 rounds per gun.\ in it's magazines.
Yep, pretty awesome*. Thats why the Arizona and Hood literally blew up when a bomb/shell hit one of its magazines. Its like a B52 strike going off inside the ship.
*By awesome I mean absolutely horrific if you're on it.
Frazzled wrote: Its like a B52 strike going off inside the ship.
What exactly do you think happens now when that VLS takes a hit? KABOOM. (Plus the extra bonus of burning rocket fuel.)
And you still have not answered my question: How many battleships have been sunk by weapons of a type still used by aircraft? Jets don't generally drop torps.
The light weight torps dropped by helos (or deployed via something like ASROC) are pretty useless against surface ships with even the most basic anti-torp protections, due to their extremely light warheads.
Glorious was sunk by cruisers and it was fundamentally criminal. If I layer in the list of cruisers sunk by aircraft the list is going to get really really long. Gambier Bay was an escort carrier being chased by most of the Japanese surface fleet at the time off the coast of the Phillipines. It took multiple battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, to surprise and sink an escort carrier and some destroyer escorts. If you keep going you'll notice that fleet was hammered repeatedly by aircraft after, and they had to retire, never to come out again. Not exactly a glorious moment for the JN.
Frazzled wrote: Its like a B52 strike going off inside the ship.
What exactly do you think happens now when that VLS takes a hit? KABOOM. (Plus the extra bonus of burning rocket fuel.)
And you still have not answered my question: How many battleships have been sunk by weapons of a type still used by aircraft? Jets don't generally drop torps.
Its a false argument. There hasn't beena signficant naval battle since WWII. But lets look at naval casualties in the last few decades. Don't see any sunk by shellfire. Cruise missiles and bombs seem to do very well however...
BaronIveagh wrote: Now, my question for you: how many battleships (not sitting at harbor or as motionless target ships) were sunk by weapons of a type used by modern aircraft?
I don't believe battleships have been used in modern naval warfare. Largely because they're superfluous and at great risk.
I don't believe battleships have been used in modern naval warfare. Largely because they're superfluous and at great risk.
There's been exactly 1. The Roma was killed through a 'Perfect Storm' scenario by a Fritz X, an early smart bomb, though the Warspite was hit later by a similar round and damaged, she was not 'mission killed' per se, though she did undergo repairs afterward.
What Frazz is skipping around is that battleships very very rarely die to hits above the waterline. Battleships are designed to be battered to pieces by shell hits and keep working. By the USN's own admission, they are the most survivable ships in existence. However, like any other ship, punch enough holes in the bottom and she sinks.
Frazz is bringing up the 'how many carriers did battleships kill?' issue without bothering to acknowledge that carriers at the time were generally faster than battleships, and typically stayed out of range, even if they were utterly depleted of munitions and unable to engage. This ceased being the case with the launch of the Iowa class, but due to the fact a fleet is only as fast as it's slowest ships, battleship taskforces were saddled with slow moving Pre WW1 relics that simply could not keep up. This is why the existing carrier kills are small is simply that the carriers made a point to stay out of range and or run, unless caught by surprise. Operating with similarly fast vessels, a fast battleship the Iowas can run down even a fairly modern carrier.
Saying that this is a false argument ignores that the majority of ships sunk by early smart bombs and ASM have generally been lightly armored destroyers and transports, or been sitting targets. The majority of combat kills on battleships has been from torps, and even the fighting in the Falklands bares this out to a degree. (And also that well trained and equipped DCTs are still a necessity in this day and age).
Ok, so battleships are slower (scratches head about that with the IOWA class), shorter range and have less of an effective range of target acquisition.
So they're better than carriers...why? Because they have big guns? That never ever ever saved them from.
You can't catch a carrier by surprise.
A carrier has a substantially greater combat effective range.
A carrier has a substantially greater strike capabality.
Battleships are good against other ships. However, until new technology is developed carriers kill them.
Frazzled wrote:
You can't catch a carrier by surprise.
Untrue. And that exact issue was brought up in Proceedings a year or two back. Carriers can in fact be ambushed, it just depends on a working knowledge of how they operate and where they supply. You can, for example, jump them in bad weather or other occasions where they cannot move at launch speeds.
Frazzled wrote:
A carrier has a substantially greater combat effective range.
A carrier has a substantially greater strike capabality.
The first is true.
The second, however, should read that a carrier has greater first strike capability.
Seaward wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote: Operating with similarly fast vessels, a fast battleship the Iowas can run down even a fairly modern carrier.
Provided the air wing's ashore, this is potentially true, given that the Iowa is a knot and a half faster than the Nimitz.
If the air wing's embarked? Not even a contest.
The entire wing or just the usual load-out? Remember that a Nimitz doesn't usually carry it's max combat aircraft, and of the standard number kept on board, only 15 of which can be fitted with ASM powerful enough to be a viable threat. If you factor in both ships escorts per PACEX 89, you're looking at a win for the Iowa. If she's carrying max possible combat loadout, it's a little dicier and depends on weather conditions, how far out initial detection is, and how bad aircraft losses are in the initial attack vs damage to ships.
Frazzled wrote:
You can't catch a carrier by surprise.
Untrue. And that exact issue was brought up in Proceedings a year or two back. Carriers can in fact be ambushed, it just depends on a working knowledge of how they operate and where they supply. You can, for example, jump them in bad weather or other occasions where they cannot move at launch speeds.
Ok, I’ll give. There is a theoretical possibility you could ambush a carrier. Outside of theory land, that’s a no.
Frazzled wrote:
A carrier has a substantially greater combat effective range.
A carrier has a substantially greater strike capabality.
The first is true.
The second, however, should read that a carrier has greater first strike capability.
Any strike capability. Their detection range is the range of their radar or the radar of their aircraft searching for you. The strike range is the range of their aircraft (I believe that includes refueling but not positive) + the cruise missile range the aircraft are carrying. That’s at least two or three feet more than a battleship.
Seaward wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Operating with similarly fast vessels, a fast battleship the Iowas can run down even a fairly modern carrier.
Provided the air wing's ashore, this is potentially true, given that the Iowa is a knot and a half faster than the Nimitz.
If the air wing's embarked? Not even a contest.
The entire wing or just the usual load-out? Remember that a Nimitz doesn't usually carry it's max combat aircraft, and of the standard number kept on board, only 15 of which can be fitted with ASM. If you factor in both ships escorts per PACEX 89, you're looking at a win for the Iowa. If she's carrying max possible combat loadout, it's a little dicier and depends on how how far out initial detection is and how bad aircraft losses are in the initial attack vs damage to ships.
Ok so now you’re arguing the carrier isn’t carrying its full complement of aircraft in a wartime situation? Can I argue the battleship forgot to load up on shells and missiles before leaving port? You’re just reaching at straws now.
Plus we’ve completely glossed over whether or not those aircraft are carrying the joy of fusion bombs…
Remember that a Nimitz doesn't usually carry it's max combat aircraft, and of the standard number kept on board, only 15 of which can be fitted with ASM powerful enough to be a viable threat.
Nooooooope.
If you factor in both ships escorts per PACEX 89, you're looking at a win for the Iowa. If she's carrying max possible combat loadout, it's a little dicier and depends on weather conditions, how far out initial detection is, and how bad aircraft losses are in the initial attack vs damage to ships.
There I profoundly disagree, but it's pretty irrelevant. We don't have a use for battleships anymore beyond floating batteries for naval gunfire support, and they're too expensive to justify that narrow use. Anything they can do something else can do equally as well or better.
At this point aircraft are basically a glorified recoverable first stage on missiles. Build a missile that has the range and targeting capacity of an aircraft mounted armament while being less expensive and we will see "missile carriers" being the predominant military platform. That said, an aircraft's loiter capability is still a valuable asset.
notprop wrote: Aircrews looking pretty expensive these days, should we get rid in favour of drones?
Drones win on the rule of cool as well, plus are just the sort of expendable system to attack a battleship.
But battleships with an aged crew and a maverick at the helm can defeat aliens so its a bit of a stalemate really.
That movie was so bad you don't even get to make jokes about it.
Me and a friend of mine had a ridiculously long drawn out discussion about the motivation of the aliens in that movie. We ended up deciding that the aliens are driven by a 3 class system like Plato's Republic (why some aliens wear different armor and why they didn't intervene while the aliens were fighting the dramatic 1 vs 1 combat at the end of the movie) and that what we fought off in the movie was actually a mining fleet that had no idea the planet they were approaching was actually inhabited (seriously, look at that movie, doesn't the alien's weapons make more sense as mining equipment?)
dementedwombat wrote: At this point aircraft are basically a glorified recoverable first stage on missiles. Build a missile that has the range and targeting capacity of an aircraft mounted armament while being less expensive and we will see "missile carriers" being the predominant military platform. That said, an aircraft's loiter capability is still a valuable asset.
That indeed is a good argument. We have a version now - boomers. They've been staggeringly successful. Missile frigates have also been quite successful.
Now change the aircraft to drones. Does that make aircraft carriers just drone launchers- aka another type of cruise missile launcher?
dementedwombat wrote: At this point aircraft are basically a glorified recoverable first stage on missiles. Build a missile that has the range and targeting capacity of an aircraft mounted armament while being less expensive and we will see "missile carriers" being the predominant military platform. That said, an aircraft's loiter capability is still a valuable asset.
That indeed is a good argument. We have a version now - boomers.
I do love me a boomer cruise. "go spin donuts in the Pacific at 5 knots. We'll see you back in 6 months."
notprop wrote: Aircrews looking pretty expensive these days, should we get rid in favour of drones?
Drones win on the rule of cool as well, plus are just the sort of expendable system to attack a battleship.
But battleships with an aged crew and a maverick at the helm can defeat aliens so its a bit of a stalemate really.
That movie was so bad you don't even get to make jokes about it.
I thought that was an motivational film about how you can be a jackass, have that umbrella bird as eye candy but still be able to be awesome and blow gak up. You know the Amurikan dreem!
Frazzled wrote:
Any strike capability. Their detection range is the range of their radar or the radar of their aircraft searching for you. The strike range is the range of their aircraft (I believe that includes refueling but not positive) + the cruise missile range the aircraft are carrying. That’s at least two or three feet more than a battleship.
Under ideal conditions, yes. However, that detection range drops near resupply points, in bad weather, in areas with a large amount of 'noise' or with the use of marine grade radar absorbent paint or coating. (yes there is such a thing).
Frazzled wrote:
Ok so now you’re arguing the carrier isn’t carrying its full complement of aircraft in a wartime situation? Can I argue the battleship forgot to load up on shells and missiles before leaving port? You’re just reaching at straws now.
No, I know that Nimitz class carriers don't carry their maximum number of combat aircraft because they need room for utility aircraft. There's a difference between their maximum possible number of combat aircraft and what they can practically carry on a cruise.
Frazzled wrote:
Plus we’ve completely glossed over whether or not those aircraft are carrying the joy of fusion bombs…
Or whether the battleship is carrying W23 nuclear weapons and beehive rounds.
Seaward wrote:
Nooooooope.
Current cruise is 64 aircraft of all types, including 10-14 super hornets and two squadrons of 12-14 hornets. Harpoons and Mavericks are not going to cut it. This isn't some trawler or aluminum superstructure 'warship'. This is the ship selected when someone asked 'What do we have that can withstand being hit with everything a Kirov class can launch and then run it down and kill it"?
Seaward wrote:
There I profoundly disagree, but it's pretty irrelevant. We don't have a use for battleships anymore beyond floating batteries for naval gunfire support, and they're too expensive to justify that narrow use. Anything they can do something else can do equally as well or better.
Please point me to what does NGS better? Because according to GAO and the Navy's released papers, LCS's are inferior in every way to a battleship (including price). I know the Navy is 'warheads on foreheads' but they're also 'ten min and it's over, one way or the other'. By that logic we have no need for surface ships, or infantrymen anymore, because we have stuff that can do all the things they can better. For about ten min.
Current cruise is 64 aircraft of all types, including 10-14 super hornets and two squadrons of 12-14 hornets.
That's based on pre-GWOT configurations when the S-3B was still around. It's actually usually four or five strike fighter squadrons. Frequently that can be two Navy Super Bug squadrons and a Marine 18C and 18D squadron apiece, and then another miscellaneous Navy squadron.
Harpoons and Mavericks are not going to cut it. This isn't some trawler or aluminum superstructure 'warship'. This is the ship selected when someone asked 'What do we have that can withstand being hit with everything a Kirov class can launch and then run it down and kill it"?
Harpoons and Mavericks aren't the only shots in the locker, fortunately. I think it's also important to remember that these are ships that had no trouble sinking to air power in World War II. They've had some fancy upgrades since then, but they're still eighty year-old designs that will die to air.
Please point me to what does NGS better? Because according to GAO and the Navy's released papers, LCS's are inferior in every way to a battleship (including price). I know the Navy is 'warheads on foreheads' but they're also 'ten min and it's over, one way or the other'. By that logic we have no need for surface ships, or infantrymen anymore, because we have stuff that can do all the things they can better. For about ten min.
Nothing's better at acting as a big floating artillery battery, but so what? We don't need anything to be. We don't teach infantry how to form a square to stop a cavalry charge anymore, either. Time marches on, and it boils down to this: a carrier simply provides more flexibility and more return on investment.
The big battleship killers carried by aircraft in WWII were armor piercing bombs. The modern Bunker Buster has greater penetration than those bombs and is precision guided for greater accuracy.
So there are battleship killers available for use.
Seaward wrote: I think it's also important to remember that these are ships that had no trouble sinking to air power in World War II. They've had some fancy upgrades since then, but they're still eighty year-old designs that will die to air.
You are missing the point: The thing the Navy used to do that allowed them to do that? They don't do anymore. Before air attacks played to a battleship's weakness, IE strike below the waterline. Modern attacks play to it's strengths. And saying 'it's an 80 year old design' shows ignorance to how old some 'modern' weapons really are.
Seaward wrote: We don't need anything to be.
If we don't, then we've wasted billions on the LCS program. Not that I don't think it was staggering waste of money anyway. 'We need something to do the same thing as a battleship, but not be a battleship. Cost 3 times what a battleship does for a fraction of the power? Sure!'. The reality is that the Navy cannot provide prolonged fire support for amphibious operations. Something that would desperately be needed in an invasion of, say, North Korea.
Jefffar wrote:The big battleship killers carried by aircraft in WWII were armor piercing bombs. The modern Bunker Buster has greater penetration than those bombs and is precision guided for greater accuracy.
So there are battleship killers available for use.
Wrong and no. If you look at battleship kills during WW2, bombs almost always did very little damage, it was multiple torpedo hits that succeed. There were incidents of armor piercing bombs hitting sitting targets for good effect, but at sea they almost always failed to do serious damage. Most battleships built after aircraft carriers became a viable threat include bomb decks in their defenses designed to cause premature detonation.
Secondly, most AP bombs of sufficient size to do damage to a target this large are either laser guided or GPS. The problem is that GPS generally sucks against moving targets, and laser requires aircraft to loiter while painting the target, while dodging AA fire.
While it's not a perfect examination, look at aircraft losses suffered during the Falkland's war, and tell me that modern AA vs Modern fighters would not suffer a similar rate of attrition.
The Argentinians had nothing resembling modern Electronic Warfare and SEAD capabilities to reduce the effect of the British air defenses. The British also had fighter cover. Also the British lost some ships.
BaronIveagh wrote: You are missing the point: The thing the Navy used to do that allowed them to do that? They don't do anymore. Before air attacks played to a battleship's weakness, IE strike below the waterline. Modern attacks play to it's strengths. And saying 'it's an 80 year old design' shows ignorance to how old some 'modern' weapons really are.
We don't need to strike below the waterline anymore. JDAM BLU-109s will do the job. We already know they will.
(We can still hit below the waterline, though.)
If we don't, then we've wasted billions on the LCS program. Not that I don't think it was staggering waste of money anyway. 'We need something to do the same thing as a battleship, but not be a battleship. Cost 3 times what a battleship does for a fraction of the power? Sure!'. The reality is that the Navy cannot provide prolonged fire support for amphibious operations. Something that would desperately be needed in an invasion of, say, North Korea.
We have plenty of ways of making it very deadly to stick around and defend a coastline when the Marines decide they want to take it.
The problem is that GPS generally sucks against moving targets, and laser requires aircraft to loiter while painting the target, while dodging AA fire.
What AA fire? Those Harpoons you talked down earlier? They're for taking out the escorts.
And if you really want to compare Argentinian air power to what the Navy can do, I think we're on different wavelengths.
We have plenty of ways of making it very deadly to stick around and defend a coastline when the Marines decide they want to take it.
There are many varied and interesting bombs and missiles that the US airforce can drop on a place, that is true.
None of them can quite recreate the same effect as a barrage from a battleship though. A battleship is capable of a sustained level of bombardment that is incredibly damaging, both physically and psychologically upon an enemy, that bombs and missiles simply cannot quite equal. (as seen in the Gulf War).
Note that I'm not taking sides here particularly. I just feel it is important to point out that the battleship does have a potential role that the airforce cannot simply replace with bombs and missiles. Whether that role is worth the risk of an inordinately expensive and potentially vulnerable craft is another debate altogether.
The battleship is a redundant system. No one is saying it cannot do the job. The issue is we already have a ton of other things, that aren't 70 years old, that can do the job.
They also don't require a crew of 2800 trained personnel to man them. The amount of money that costs is astronomical. That is almost an entire Wing's worth of personnel in the AF. The 36 F-16's that you'll have from that will be a lot more useful then a single Battleship.
So in a climate where we are already having to cut manning down to bare bone minimums, there no justification what so ever to have those ships anymore. Especially when no one else out there does as well.
djones520 wrote: The battleship is a redundant system. No one is saying it cannot do the job. The issue is we already have a ton of other things, that aren't 70 years old, that can do the job.
No, we don't. That's sort of the problem. Why do you think that billions have been spent of LCS programs?
The 36 F-16's that you'll have from that will be a lot more useful then a single Battleship.
Unless they can shoot back. Taking a defended position does entail a large number of SAMs these days, and a near guarantee that close support WILL come under fire. While I don't believe NK's army headcount for a moment, if they're even half what they claim it is, to land there, as an example, would have to deal with 5 mobile SAMs per mile of shoreline and 20 gun emplacements. (Because they have been digging in for....50 years now.) While their airforce is laughable, sensibly, they have been going out of their way to bring in more and more AA missiles.
So in a climate where we are already having to cut manning down to bare bone minimums, there no justification what so ever to have those ships anymore. Especially when no one else out there does as well.
Nice to know Russia is 'nobody' and that Germany and Italy and Mexico (who have all been trying to find something that does what a battleship does) are potential 'nobodies'. That said, compared to the cost of advancing the LCS program to the point it is as useful as a battleship will be more expensive than operating those 2k crewman battleships.
whembly wrote: Baron... isn't it why we have these guys?
Well, 2 things: those guys, in an invasion situation, will be bombing C&C, airfields, and static missile radar and artillery positions that we know of. (SOP will also see the Navy pretty much piss away most of it's cruise missiles at similar targets in the first 2 hours and require resupply) Second, those guys are actually not as radar invisible as we'd like them to be. The Serbians found a nifty trick that makes them visible on old Soviet era gear, which is how they were able to shoot down a stealth during Bosnia.
The Russians? Their Navy is a joke. They have a handful of Missile Cruisers, and a single Aircraft Carrier. They no longer operate any big gun ships. And that is the largest threat to our naval supremacy out there.
The Mexican Navy's largest ship is a Destroyer, and their only future plans include small, fast, intercepting ships. Germany is the same. Their only future development plans for combat shipts are for Frigates and Corvettes.
Again, there is no naval threat out there that warrants an active battleship component, and it's other uses are not enough to warrant the cost of it's continued existance.
djones520 wrote: The Russians? Their Navy is a joke. They have a handful of Missile Cruisers, and a single Aircraft Carrier. They no longer operate any big gun ships. And that is the largest threat to our naval supremacy out there.
The Mexican Navy's largest ship is a Destroyer, and their only future plans include small, fast, intercepting ships. Germany is the same. Their only future development plans for combat shipts are for Frigates and Corvettes.
Again, there is no naval threat out there that warrants an active battleship component, and it's other uses are not enough to warrant the cost of it's continued existance.
You totally misunderstood what I was taking about. All of those Navies are trying to create ships that do what a battleship does to a shore position, without building a battleship. So far, everyone who's tried to fill this role with something else has discovered they have a failure or a cost overrun so high as to make battleships look inexpensive. What's the Zumwalt up to? 4 billion each now? Still not a ship delivered? The Navy has had to ask Congress to ignore the law four times now to keep the various LCS programs going? And for what? A stealth ship that has to be in full view of the beach to hit the target and will sink if hit even once while firing (and only has, by the Navy's admission, 1/20th the firepower of a battleship)? How about those other options? Oh, wait, they had to be sent to the Great Lakes because they were dissolving in sea water.
The Germans tried a work around by mounting Tank Turrets on their version of it. That didn't turn out so well and they cut funding as soon as it reached 300m per ship.
The simple fact is that each of these programs has failed, and under US law, if the Navy cannot produce a working equivalent to the battleship, they have to recommission them. And so far, they've been failing miserably.
And, no, China is the biggest threat out there. Unlike Russia, they're not bankrupt and they are expanding their Navy rapidly.
I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding how the Battleship thing works.
Congress has ordered that the Navy
1.Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
2.The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
3.Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
4.The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.
There is no mandate that they be replaced, or that they will be reactivated if a suitable replacement is not found.
Edit: Scratch that, I found you are referring to the 1996 NDAA.
Edit: Scratch that, I found you are referring to the 1996 NDAA.
I do, on occasion, know some things. When the US Congress allowed the Navy to take battleships off the books, they laid down some rules for it and what the Navy had to do in return. So far the USN is not meeting it's obligations, though they finally did get the AGS mostly working, the fact of the matter is the real issue is and always has been the platform. To fire the AGS, the Zumwalt has to flood ballast tanks and reduce the ships freeboard to a little under 2 feet. This means that it cannot fire under surface conditions rougher than absolute glass.
Further, with ballast flooded, she's very vulnerable to hits and her design, while very stealth, cannot self right if she starts to list. Her hull design was abandoned by most Navies following the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, due to it's tendency to sink when hit, even if the pumps can keep up.
djones520 wrote: The battleship is a redundant system. No one is saying it cannot do the job. The issue is we already have a ton of other things, that aren't 70 years old, that can do the job.
I repeat, not quite.You can drop bombs and lob missiles, and those are grand and worthwhile things on their own accord. But they're not quite the same thing as a 16 inch Battleship cannon and cannot quite replace it. Why?
Firstly a Battleship is capable of a sustained bombardment for more or less as long as is necessary. Being a giant floating artillery platform, it's located on site, and can keep pounding a target until it says uncle. It doesn't particularly need to worry about running out of fuel within the hour, or ammunition.
Secondly, that sustained nature is somewhat more traumatising to an enemy than the bomb or missile. In the Gulf War, the battleships had a far more detrimental effect on enemy morale than the bombers generally speaking. IIRC a quote from one of the Iraqi chaps, it centred around the fact that missiles/bombs hit before you knew they were coming, and were gone after a short period of time. A battleship stayed there, and kept blowing chunks out of trenches and buildings for more or less as long as it wanted to with relative impunity.
In true WW1 style, being hit by large calibre artillery over a prolonged period can do funny things to the people having to go through it.
Thirdly, whilst not overly applicable right now (as the US is fairly dominant currently), one has to consider the potential of a battleship in an area with contested airspace. If your bombers are at risk of being shot down by fighter craft or anti-aircraft systems and you're engaged with an enemy with even vaguely equivalent technology, your bombers may suddenly not be entirely much use, as you may be risking losing half of them just to pot a few holes in a warship that can easily take a few hits. And missiles don't particularly fill that hole, as hitting a moving target with a missile is quite hard (as the Chinese have been finding whilst trying to develop anti-carrier missiles).
Finally, being basically an oversized shell, the ordnance used by a battleship is actually not particularly expensive. When compared to missiles and bombs that achieve anywhere near the same level of damage and effect, they cost an absolute fraction in comparison.
Now as I said earlier, whether these advantages outweigh the maintenance/construction costs, and the relative vulnerability of a battleship to certain other ships is another question altogether. It's also one that I don't even begin to consider myself qualified enough to have an opinion on right now. But to claim that the airforce can do the same job as a battleship is quite simply not accurate.
I'm aware they do. I'm aware it's not terribly threatening.
Threatening? No I suppose that if you assume they won't work they're not. But then what weapon system is when it's broken. Missiles are not terribly threatening when they fail either.
Citation needed.
In fact, citation needed for the majority of this conversation.
Gen. Michael Hagee (Commandant, USMC at the time he made this statement) "Our aviation is really quite good, but it can, in fact, be weathered." General Hagee further testified before Congress taht the lack of battleships for fire support put the Marines on the beach at 'considerable risk'.
PX Kelly, (Gen, USMC,ret, former Commandant of USMC) "I would hate to see a premature demise of the battleships . . . without a suitable replacement on station. In my personal experience in combat, the battleship is the most effective naval fire support platform in the history of naval warfare."
Or just consult GAO-05-39R 'Information on Options for Naval Surface Fire Support'.
"Marine Corps supports the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 and supports the Navy's modernization efforts to deliver a sufficient NSFS capability that exceeds that of the Iowa class battleships"
That's cute. I think it's more worthwhile to actually hit defensive installations and move on, personally.
That's Pont Du Hoc. Those ARE hits. That entire area was filled with trenches and bunkers and snipers and machine-gun nests and they were pouring down fire on a place called Utah Beach. You may have heard of it. As far as 'Hitting the position and moving on', she then blasted artillery positions on the Vierville Road, before nearly running up on the beach so as to fire directly down Dog 1 at 3k yards range. On top all those things she was also receiving wounded and prisoners from off the beach.
This is Pont Du Hoc and this is what a battleship bombardment of a fortified position looks like... 70+ years later.
Those craters are from just 14" shells? I wonder if the 'super heavy' 16" rounds used by America would have an increased effect on shore bombardment over the sixteen inch shells used by other navies.
Finally, being basically an oversized shell, the ordnance used by a battleship is actually not particularly expensive. When compared to missiles and bombs that achieve anywhere near the same level of damage and effect, they cost an absolute fraction in comparison.
Another advantage of a shell is that it's not vulnerable to ECM stuff.
BaronIveagh wrote: Threatening? No I suppose that if you assume they won't work they're not. But then what weapon system is when it's broken. Missiles are not terribly threatening when they fail either.
See, here's the thing; shipborne AD can be dealt with. We practice dealing with it. It's a lot like land-based AD, only less scary.
What does scare me, though, if I'm part of a strike package, is opposing air power.
Gen. Michael Hagee (Commandant, USMC at the time he made this statement) "Our aviation is really quite good, but it can, in fact, be weathered." General Hagee further testified before Congress taht the lack of battleships for fire support put the Marines on the beach at 'considerable risk'.
PX Kelly, (Gen, USMC,ret, former Commandant of USMC) "I would hate to see a premature demise of the battleships . . . without a suitable replacement on station. In my personal experience in combat, the battleship is the most effective naval fire support platform in the history of naval warfare."
Or just consult GAO-05-39R 'Information on Options for Naval Surface Fire Support'.
"Marine Corps supports the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 and supports the Navy's modernization efforts to deliver a sufficient NSFS capability that exceeds that of the Iowa class battleships"
So the Marines support something even better than the Iowa class. Not surprising. They haven't needed it since the Korean War, but they still support it. They support a lot of things, but we're not taking Normandy anymore.
They also support the DD(X), which isn't bad in concept but flawed in execution. We don't need to pepper a coastline with craploads of high caliber shells anymore, because we know how to be more precise.
That's Pont Du Hoc. Those ARE hits. That entire area was filled with trenches and bunkers and snipers and machine-gun nests and they were pouring down fire on a place called Utah Beach. You may have heard of it. As far as 'Hitting the position and moving on', she then blasted artillery positions on the Vierville Road, before nearly running up on the beach so as to fire directly down Dog 1 at 3k yards range. On top all those things she was also receiving wounded and prisoners from off the beach.
Great. Should we keep the longbow around because it did so well at Crecy, too?
We don't do coastal defense like that anymore. Anyone who does is wasting a massive amount of resources, given our ability to simply go around or over it or utterly destroy it from the air. And destroy it from the air we absolutely can, because the smaller boats can absolutely do the SEAD gunnery required.
Keeping battleships around on the off chance we get sucked into The Final Countdown doesn't make fiscal sense and provides us with an extremely expensive boat with extremely limited modern capability.
We don't need to strike below the waterline anymore. JDAM BLU-109s will do the job. We already know they will.
You mean the same ones that took seven direct hits to sink a tank landingcraft during Resultant Fury back in '04?
And how many hits did it take to remove the ships ability to carry out its mission and or fight back? Most ships are too damaged to carry out their mission long before they are put on the bottom.
YOKOHAMA, Japan (AP) -- Japan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier.
The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters. Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense - particularly in anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions - and to bolster the nation's ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Though the ship - dubbed "Izumo" - has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China.
The tensions over the islands, along with China's heavy spending on defense and military modernization, have heightened calls in Japan for beefed-up naval and air forces. China recently began operating an aircraft carrier that it refurbished after purchasing from Russia, and is reportedly moving forward with the construction of another that is domestically built.
Japan, China and Taiwan all claim the islands.
Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. That would be a departure for Japan, which has one of the best equipped and best trained naval forces in the Pacific but which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.
Japan says it has no plans to use the ship in that manner.
The Izumo does not have catapults for launching fighters, nor does it have a "ski-jump" ramp on its flight deck for fixed-wing aircraft launches.
I think there is a good chance Shinzo Abe continues to beef up Japan's military and pushes for an amendment to their constitution. I mean, how are they going to justify the unveiling of Jaegers and/or Gundams with their current pacifist requirements?
1. Did Abe even considers the potential range of Chinese anti-naval long range missiles mounted on trucks? similar ones that able to mount Weishi MLRS? one accounts said it outreaches the best USN Arcraft carriers!!
2. Even so, didn't he consider building new Yamato designed to launch cruise missiles and UAVs that outranges chinese antinaval mechanism?
OK he had learned the lessons in the war against the USA some 70 years ago but the Carrier superiority over Battleships were because technologies to make cruise missiles that outranges naval aircrafts were not available yet. Vergeltungwaffens aren't designed to be launched from ship decks. the technologies to make UAVs were only experimentals. Today it's different.
RossDas wrote:
Those craters are from just 14" shells? I wonder if the 'super heavy' 16" rounds used by America would have an increased effect on shore bombardment over the sixteen inch shells used by other navies.
The super heavy I'm not sure of. I know it has superior penetration compared to the 16"/45.
Seaward wrote:
See, here's the thing; shipborne AD can be dealt with. We practice dealing with it. It's a lot like land-based AD, only less scary.
What does scare me, though, if I'm part of a strike package, is opposing air power.
SAMs and CIWS at once don't scare you?
Seaward wrote:
So the Marines support something even better than the Iowa class. Not surprising. They haven't needed it since the Korean War, but they still support it.
Well, first of all they found them very useful in Gulf War 1 and Vietnam as well. At one point New Jersey was in combat for a continuous 47 days during Vietnam. According to Marine Corps estimates, 80% of over 1 thousand aircraft losses during Vietnam could have been prevented with battleships on station. However, inter-service rivalry caused DoD to withdraw NJ and decommission her rather than return her for a second tour.
During the first Gulf War, according to declassified reports, Missouri had a very high rate of success engaging targets despite, mines, Silkworms, and internal fighting between the Navy and USMC/US Army, not being hampered by the limitations of the Tomahawk, which was found in declassified documents to have a much lower success rate than was painted by the Pentagon at the time, due to the nature of how it travels to target, among other things.
Seaward wrote:We don't do coastal defense like that anymore. Anyone who does is wasting a massive amount of resources, given our ability to simply go around or over it or utterly destroy it from the air. And destroy it from the air we absolutely can, because the smaller boats can absolutely do the SEAD gunnery required.
You overlook issues like China (who are apparently wasting a *lot* of time and money then) and North Korea (who have had a lot of time on their hands anyway since the armistice). The actual assumption by the armed forces is that the USMC will only ever have to infiltrate in small teams against a nearly undefended shoreline, which can be supported by that limited gunnery you talk about. This works if you're dealign wit ha very big shore and insufficent troops to defend it. However, atm there is NO viable option for a 'Forced Entry' scenario where we have to actually go ashore against a defended coastline, except the firepower of a battleship. I'll take the word of a CO of the USMC on whether or not US air strikes can be weathered by an enemy or not over yours, Seaward, because he would be a man who would know.
Jefffar wrote:
And how many hits did it take to remove the ships ability to carry out its mission and or fight back?
Against a destroyer sinkex a few years back? Two to do enough damage that she would be forced to withdraw, but only because one damaged her munitions elevator, rendering her gun useless. In a shore bombardment she'd have been out of the picture, though VLS would have been operational right up to the four harpoon hits (mind you this is all IIRC). It's hard to say with a battleship though, because of it's heavier passive defenses and more extensive redundancies. You can mission kill a destroyer or even a cruiser fairly easily, because they only have a small number of weapon systems to damage or destroy. A battleship however, can remain a more or less viable threat despite a LOT of damage. Historically, you would not believe the damage these things can take and keep fighting, or how long it can take even a mortally wounded battleship to actually die.
Battleships can also be rendered ineffective with surprisingly little firepower as well. I suggest you read up on the Battle of the Denmark Straight in that battle the British sent a Battleship and a Battlecruiser to engage a German Battleship accompanied by a heavy cruiser.
There were quite a few ineffective hits, but two very notable ones.
First, the British Battlecruiser Hood was struck by a lucky hit that passed through a weak point in her armour and caused her to explode.
Second, the German Battleship Bismark had her fuel tank torn open by a hit, the resulting fuel leak forced her to attempt to return to port , a mission kill.
In both cases, a single hit resulted in the opponent being unable to continue on it's mission.
Later, another single lucky hit by an air-launched torpedo damaged the Bismark's rudder, preventing her from making the trip back to port, a mobility kill on top of the mission kill.
Yes it took later hundreds of hits to put her completely out of action and her crew scuttled her, but that first single hit during the Battle of the Denmark Strait forced her to abandon her mission and she did not attack a single convoy (her primary objective). It also means that the British force that engaged the Bismark at Denmark Strait, despite suffering much higher loses, accomplished their mission, giving them a strategic victory even if they suffered a tactical loss.
Ultimately, even as tough a ship as the Bismark is vulnerable to a single hit.
Second, the German Battleship Bismark had her fuel tank torn open by a hit, the resulting fuel leak forced her to attempt to return to port , a mission kill.
Incorrect. The hit actually damaged the fuel line, making it so she couldn't access her forward fuel tanks. She did leak fuel, however. Combined with a failure to refuel previously, plus the DCTs being refused permission to effect repairs at sea, combined with the fact the element of surprise was lost, which the Germans believed to be key to the mission's success, Bismark withdrew. It was not 'just' the hit to her fuel.
And, yes, a lucky hit in the right spot can mission kill or sink pretty much anything (Luck beats skill and preparation every time). But you can't depend of the sort of long shot like Bismark's rudder hit or Prince of Wales' propeller shaft tearing apart the engine room. To use a modern incident where this STILL happens, HMS Sheffield shouldn't have sunk from the Exocet hit she took (it failed to detonate), but the dud missile happened to sever the main fire main on board, which combined with poor DCT training and equipment, doomed her to burn for six days.
You don't prepare for long shots, very true. But a bunker buster doing severe damage to an armored ship like a battleship isn't a long shot. It's a real possibility.
My point is you don't need to count on massive target overmatch to win a battle. As long as the weapon can reasonably be expected to hit and do damage (ie the BLU-116) then it can be expected that mission kills and mobility kills can and will happen.
No weapon system is invulnerable, not even a battleship.
Jefffar wrote: You don't prepare for long shots, very true. But a bunker buster doing severe damage to an armored ship like a battleship isn't a long shot. It's a real possibility.
My point is you don't need to count on massive target overmatch to win a battle. As long as the weapon can reasonably be expected to hit and do damage (ie the BLU-116) then it can be expected that mission kills and mobility kills can and will happen.
No weapon system is invulnerable, not even a battleship.
True, but my point was not that they were invincible, just that they're far superior than any of the other options for close fire support and can withstand a great deal more damage than anything else afloat and remain operational. Outside of one of those lucky shots, even JDAMs would take quite a few hits to even mission kill it. Cumulative effects of even a very large number of mavericks can beat one to a mission kill, even if they can't sink it.
A lot of people like to look at those nice photos of a destroyer or frigate cut in half by a harpoon, and go 'Oh, that will kill a battleship' without understanding why that's not the case. Iowa class battleships in particular are basically covered in a system that works a lot like armor skirts, and this does include the deck in later classes.
Seaward might mock the idea of a battleship with AA on it, but if you swap out her secondaries and obsolete AA for modern CWIS, VLS, and RIM, you're flying into the teeth of a ship with more AA firepower than every escort in the average carrier taskforce put together, plus the added ability to withstand most hits that get through. The Russians can pack over 100 SAMs in the tubes on a slightly smaller ship. I think it safe to say that a battleship can also carry enough seasparrows to pose a real threat to a carrier or land based aircraft engaging it..
Why would CIWS scare me? We generally don't try to land on the target.
SAMs - especially what few a single ship can launch - do not scare me anywhere as badly as opposing fighters, no, especially not in the scenario we're discussing. The problem with seaborne SAMs is that you know where they're coming from, which makes defending a lot easier, since we still base a great deal of it on "break hard at four seconds out." You're not going to get spiked by some unknown installation in an area you weren't expecting.
Our own basic theory on battlegroup air defense is that if the bad guys get through our air, we're in for an extremely rough time. Relying on SAMs to do the job of fleet protection at sea is suicidal.
Well, first of all they found them very useful in Gulf War 1 and Vietnam as well.
We found B-2s useful during the Gulf War and even GWOT, doesn't mean we needed 'em.
During the first Gulf War, according to declassified reports, Missouri had a very high rate of success engaging targets despite, mines, Silkworms, and internal fighting between the Navy and USMC/US Army, not being hampered by the limitations of the Tomahawk, which was found in declassified documents to have a much lower success rate than was painted by the Pentagon at the time, due to the nature of how it travels to target, among other things.
So did the A-6. The F-14 was also effective, as were Wild Weasels. We don't use any of them anymore because time marches on.
The Brits used destroyers and cruisers in southeast Iraq during their operations there in the latest round of unpleasantness, and it turns out they do the job just fine.
I have no doubt that Missouri shelled away happily and effectively during the Gulf War. Using that conflict as a litmus test of efficacy is flawed for many, many reasons, though.
You overlook issues like China (who are apparently wasting a *lot* of time and money then) and North Korea (who have had a lot of time on their hands anyway since the armistice). The actual assumption by the armed forces is that the USMC will only ever have to infiltrate in small teams against a nearly undefended shoreline, which can be supported by that limited gunnery you talk about. This works if you're dealign wit ha very big shore and insufficent troops to defend it. However, atm there is NO viable option for a 'Forced Entry' scenario where we have to actually go ashore against a defended coastline, except the firepower of a battleship. I'll take the word of a CO of the USMC on whether or not US air strikes can be weathered by an enemy or not over yours, Seaward, because he would be a man who would know.
Yeah. North Korea's doing it, so it must be efficient. Are you actually serious with that argument?
A former commandant of the Marines would be a man who would know. Know who else would be? Every CNO who's signed off on dumping battleships. The weight of expert opinion swings both ways, dude, and the Marines always have their hair on fire over at least twenty different things at once. They wouldn't be Marines if they had a budget to speak of and everything they wanted from their sister service. But they make do. Maybe, for example, they don't reenact Saving Private Ryan just because guys on the internet still think we're fighting World War II?
The basic argument that you're making for battleships is that we can't win a war we're never going to fight using pre-GWOT Marine amphib doctrine without them, and even that ain't true, in addition to not being terribly relevant. Much of the Marines' perspective is based on the assumption that they'll be doing their self-contained combined arms thing with only incidental Navy support, and we don't fight that way anymore across the board. ANGLICO pushed everybody in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just Marine air.
As to the notion that there is "NO viable option for a 'Forced Entry' scenario where we have to actually go ashore against a defended coastline, except for the firepower of a battleship,' all I can do is wonder what the hell you're reading to draw such wildly inaccurate conclusions.
Second, the German Battleship Bismark had her fuel tank torn open by a hit, the resulting fuel leak forced her to attempt to return to port , a mission kill.
Incorrect. The hit actually damaged the fuel line, making it so she couldn't access her forward fuel tanks. She did leak fuel, however. Combined with a failure to refuel previously, plus the DCTs being refused permission to effect repairs at sea, combined with the fact the element of surprise was lost, which the Germans believed to be key to the mission's success, Bismark withdrew. It was not 'just' the hit to her fuel.
lil questions.
1. By WW2, did Diesel powered warship exists yet? ... apart of submarines.
2. Bismarc is oil-fired steamship. when did the sticky fuel oil replaces coal as a fuel for steamship? and what is a logic that supports the design of Bismarc to be oil-fired steamship rather than coal firing? by then Mechanical coal conveying systems already existed by now. What is a logic that said fuel oil is superior naval steam boiler fuel than coal? a logic for Germany of the 1930s where .. I don't think they have domestic petroleum deposits. they have to import oils elsewhere (possibly Soviets... and for that reasons (out of many), Hitler decided to invade Soviet in the late 1941...
The domestic fuel deposit that Germany has abundant of is coal. ALOT OF. by the 1930s the mechanical stokers made the operations of coal firing steam boilers less labor incentives. OK a system of coal conveyers aren't simple but sticky fuel oil needs hot steam to make it flow. after that it can be easily conveyed by pipe systems to the fluid fuel burners at firebox... OK this makes fuel oil a better fuel than coal but what else? the two are equally dirrty (some even said coals are actually cleaner)
Also in the navy and maritime industry, did the Diesel engine (... it is said that Diesel engine that burns fuel oil exists) completely replaced oil-fired steam engines ? latest googling revealed this.
What are the purposes of these oil-fired boilers (i think it burns No-6 fuel oil). if not heating fuel oil to the said diesel engine then does it means oil-fired steamsthip still exists and remain in use?
1. If Bismarc is coal-fired steamship, will it has better chance against the Royal Navy and flee to the Norway before being scuttled offshore?
2. About Yamato. it is also steamship if the 1930s. but the Wikipedia doesn't say anything about its steam boiler except the manufacturer (And poor fuel efficiency). is it oil-firing too? (again! the only oil deposit the Empire of Japan has an access to is its colony of Manchuria. by 1930s coal can still be dug domestically, or can be mined at Manchuguo. if not by importing. where else could the Jap gets the oil from? and how?
Reasons why Japan went war against the United States in WW2.
SAMs - especially what few a single ship can launch - do not scare me anywhere as badly as opposing fighters, no, especially not in the scenario we're discussing.
You're saying that something that can mount more than 10 armored box launchers + VLS full of goodness 'a few'? That's over 200 in the tubes.
The problem with seaborne SAMs is that you know where they're coming from, which makes defending a lot easier, since we still base a great deal of it on "break hard at four seconds out." You're not going to get spiked by some unknown installation in an area you weren't expecting.
Ok, this I can't deny. Attack from an unexpected quarter is always bad.
We don't use any of them anymore because time marches on.
That's pretty misleading as those have been replaced by (in theory) superior systems (or in the F-14's case when someone with enough gold braid got pissed at Grumman and told them to take their upgrade package and shove it up their ass. While the F-18 is a great all arounder, and less expensive, consistent with modern naval doctrines, it is not as good in the role of a specialist interceptor, though more recent upgrade packages have been working on that.)
Battleships in their role were replaced by absolutely nothing. DD(X) has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist, and it's few products have utterly failed to meet the Corps requirements for close fire support. With the Navy's utter refusal to even examine the cost benefits or possibilities of battleship reactivation, the USMC is hoping against hope that something else comes up.
The Brits used destroyers and cruisers in southeast Iraq during their operations there in the latest round of unpleasantness, and it turns out they do the job just fine.
The Brits on the Faw is not a good comparison because resistance was extremely light other than in the port of Umm Qasr itself. There a relatively small element held them up for a few days until the mine sweepers could clear enough of the field around the city, and let the destroyers get close enough. A battleship could have opened fire immediately.
Yeah. North Korea's doing it, so it must be efficient. Are you actually serious with that argument?
No, my argument is NK is someplace that US Marines might conceivably have to land one day, has a gak airforce but lots of mobile SAMs, but also no problem ordering their troops to try and sit tight and hold the beach in the face of US air strikes and missiles. Plus they have enough of them that despite the losses they would incur, it's a viable tactic.
A former commandant of the Marines would be a man who would know. Know who else would be? Every CNO who's signed off on dumping battleships.
The same ones that signed off on using Iowa as a dumping ground for poorly performing sailors and supplied it with munitions that were due for disposal due to becoming unstable from to advanced age and substandard storage? The ones that leave the Navy to fat consulting paychecks from Raython and McDonnell Douglas, and BAE Systems, all of whom have made billions on the failed programs to replace the battleship? Those ones? The same ones who testified that the loss of Marines on the beach in a forced entry scenario was an acceptable risk, and that their only 'Plan B' in the event that they could not take the beach was a tactical nuclear strike?
The CNO's that signed off on the the elimination of battleships immediately post WW2 did so because they believed that nuclear weapons and carriers ability to deliver them made battleships obsolete. Despite the fact this was disproven, they fought and argued every time the Army and Marines begged and pleaded with DoD to have them dragged back out, never mind the lives and aircraft saved. Because the internal back room politics of the Navy were more important than the lives of the men on the ground (and in the air). Vietnam made it blatantly obvious with the internal maneuverings regarding the New Jersey, which was doing the job fantastically without sacrificing the lives of pilots.
Seaward wrote: ANGLICO pushed everybody in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just Marine air.
Funny you bring them up, they had been partially phased out because they 'would never be needed again' either. Amazing how actual war can adjust military thinking.
On oil boilers: Fraz beat me to it, but there's also the advantage that it makes designing the interior layout of the ship easier as well, and fuel lines take up less space than coal conveyers, and are less prone to mechanical problems.
Looks like we are getting ready to invade Spain with our helicopter carrier (if only it were a helicarrier ) sailing into the med: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23663262
BaronIveagh wrote: Phalanx will engage aircraft as well, at up to 10 miles. And can hit aircraft going supersonic.
Dunno who told you this, but you should punch them in the jimmy.
You're saying that something that can mount more than 10 armored box launchers + VLS full of goodness 'a few'? That's over 200 in the tubes.
Yep, sure am. Quantity may have a quality all its own, but, say, 600 SA-3s? Fire away. Ain't gonna hit anything.
That's pretty misleading as those have been replaced by (in theory) superior systems (or in the F-14's case when someone with enough gold braid got pissed at Grumman and told them to take their upgrade package and shove it up their ass. While the F-18 is a great all arounder, and less expensive, consistent with modern naval doctrines, it is not as good in the role of a specialist interceptor, though more recent upgrade packages have been working on that.)
It's not misleading. Missions become not as essential as they once were, and gear with less focused capability takes on additional roles. It's the way it works, because we don't always orient towards fighting World War II again. The Hornet and the Rhino aren't anywhere near as effective as the F-14 at fleet defense, but the Bear isn't going to be coming over the pole anytime soon, and we're not going to need something capable of downing gakloads of bombers and cruise missiles, so, we dumped it. It was a beast to maintain, and ten up Rhinos is better than seven down Tomcats. Which sucks, as I like the F-14 as much as anybody - my dad flew it for twenty years, and it was the plane that inspired me to pursue naval aviation, but alas, the last guys eligible for Tomcats went through Pensacola a full two years before my class.
As someone intimately familiar with the Super Bug, I'm curious which upgrade package you think puts it anywhere in the realm of the F-14 in that role. We know it's not as good, but we also know we don't need it to be.
The Brits on the Faw is not a good comparison because resistance was extremely light other than in the port of Umm Qasr itself. There a relatively small element held them up for a few days until the mine sweepers could clear enough of the field around the city, and let the destroyers get close enough. A battleship could have opened fire immediately.
Considering we're unlikely to face anything but light resistance at sea, I'm still not hearing anything that makes this sound like anything other than a decent trade.
No, my argument is NK is someplace that US Marines might conceivably have to land one day, has a gak airforce but lots of mobile SAMs, but also no problem ordering their troops to try and sit tight and hold the beach in the face of US air strikes and missiles. Plus they have enough of them that despite the losses they would incur, it's a viable tactic.
Fortunately, the Air Force has toys to deal with that sort of 'plan.' So do we, for that matter. They're not 15' inch guns, so I know you believe they're not viable, but they very much are.
The same ones that signed off on using Iowa as a dumping ground for poorly performing sailors and supplied it with munitions that were due for disposal due to becoming unstable from to advanced age and substandard storage? The ones that leave the Navy to fat consulting paychecks from Raython and McDonnell Douglas, and BAE Systems, all of whom have made billions on the failed programs to replace the battleship? Those ones? The same ones who testified that the loss of Marines on the beach in a forced entry scenario was an acceptable risk, and that their only 'Plan B' in the event that they could not take the beach was a tactical nuclear strike?
See, this is why this conversation's ultimately pointless. You're parroting back half-heard conspiracy bs as though it's fact, and all of it's coming from your unshakeable belief that World War II ships are still ABSOLUTELY VITAL to all modern warfare. Despite the fact that they haven't been vital in ANY modern warfighting, we're still playing this fantasy-based Cold War simulation for some reason.
The loss of Marines - or sailors, or airmen, or soldiers - in ANY military operation is always a risk, so I'm not sure why that raises your eyebrows so much. What, you want to become like the Army and deal with whatever the Navy's analogue would be to their Apache fiascos?
The CNO's that signed off on the the elimination of battleships immediately post WW2 did so because they believed that nuclear weapons and carriers ability to deliver them made battleships obsolete.
And the ease with which we can kill them from the air.
Honestly, I half-expect you to start arguing for the return of horse cavalry because we used donkeys in Afghanistan. Yeah, battleships can shell shores. They shelled things in Vietnam. They didn't in Afghanistan. Iraq 2.0 didn't turn into catastrophe because we lacked them. The war against North Korea that will never happen will not be lost because we were unable to field battleships.
Make that worth the cost, and they'll stick around.
Funny you bring them up, they had been partially phased out because they 'would never be needed again' either. Amazing how actual war can adjust military thinking.
Well, no. They were "phased out" because reorganization happens from time to time. Three Force Reconnaissance companies have been deactivated, not because the Marines decided they don't need FORECON anymore, but because most of the guys went on to form the starting core of MARSOC. Stuff gets shuffled around. Hell, DEVGRU's technically deactivated.
Dunno who told you this, but you should punch them in the jimmy.
Much as I'd like to punch DARPA 'in the jimmy' (I have beef with them about incompetence surrounding Walrus HULA)... Mind you, it does depend on the weapon system working correctly
As someone intimately familiar with the Super Bug, I'm curious which upgrade package you think puts it anywhere in the realm of the F-14 in that role. We know it's not as good, but we also know we don't need it to be.
Didn't say it was yet, said they were working on improving it in that capability. Block III will be (supposedly) Frankenstiening elements of F-35 and F15SE into it and reducing wave drag. Since F-35 CATOBAR is looking less attractive due to the issue that they're absurdly difficult to effect repairs in the field, apparently they're giving the Block III option more serious attention than previously.
Considering we're unlikely to face anything but light resistance at sea, I'm still not hearing anything that makes this sound like anything other than a decent trade.
It's not the resistance at sea that's the big issue. It's the resistance on shore.
Fortunately, the Air Force has toys to deal with that sort of 'plan.' So do we, for that matter. They're not 15' inch guns, so I know you believe they're not viable, but they very much are.
I'm sure they do, and I'm sure you think that, and I'm equally sure that if it doesn't work a lot of men will lose their lives finding out. Rather bluntly I'd rather have a proven weapon system that we know will work in exactly this circumstance as a backup.
The loss of Marines - or sailors, or airmen, or soldiers - in ANY military operation is always a risk, so I'm not sure why that raises your eyebrows so much. What, you want to become like the Army and deal with whatever the Navy's analogue would be to their Apache fiascos?
Losing men in combat is a reality. However, losing men in combat because you don't feel it's worth the cost to give them the weapons proven to do the job is something else all together. The Navy is hardly unique in this, but they do it with such balls regarding other branches of the service as to make it worth mention.
Seaward wrote: The war against North Korea that will never happen will not be lost because we were unable to field battleships.
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance, God himself couldn't sink this ship, Hitler will be content with Czechoslovakia, the Russians could never develop the bomb, China would never cross the border, Saigon will never fall, Castro will never last, and terrorists could never launch a major attack on American soil.
Plan for all contingencies, and equip accordingly. Remember that even the most advanced professional military in the world can be beaten under the right circumstances. The Viet Cong did, after all, manage to sink a carrier in Saigon harbor, even if it was only a CVE. And they hardly could be considered a major naval power.
BaronIveagh wrote: Much as I'd like to punch DARPA 'in the jimmy' (I have beef with them about incompetence surrounding Walrus HULA)... Mind you, it does depend on the weapon system working correctly
Let's see the reference, or at least the shop that made that claim. I'm currently my company's DARPA point of contact because I know some guys from the Navy currently there.
Didn't say it was yet, said they were working on improving it in that capability. Block III will be (supposedly) Frankenstiening elements of F-35 and F15SE into it and reducing wave drag. Since F-35 CATOBAR is looking less attractive due to the issue that they're absurdly difficult to effect repairs in the field, apparently they're giving the Block III option more serious attention than previously.
Much of what you just said is remarkably inaccurate. A lot of it sounds like F-16.net pipedreaming, and none of the proposed Block III upgrades help out the Rhino where it really needs it in an air-to-air scenario.
I'm sure they do, and I'm sure you think that, and I'm equally sure that if it doesn't work a lot of men will lose their lives finding out. Rather bluntly I'd rather have a proven weapon system that we know will work in exactly this circumstance as a backup.
Hey, as long as you foot the bill, I'm sure they wouldn't turn it down.
Losing men in combat is a reality. However, losing men in combat because you don't feel it's worth the cost to give them the weapons proven to do the job is something else all together.
It is. Fortunately, it's not the case. The myopic assumption that there's only one tool for any given job has been belied by all modern warfighting. We're not using spotter balloons to get our battlefield reconnaissance anymore, for example. Nor Higgins boats for amphib assaults, despite the fact that they worked the last time battleships were relevant.
Seaward wrote: Plan for all contingencies, and equip accordingly.
Yeah, that's great, but this is the fleet. We're never going to have enough money to equip for all contingencies. No one's even capable of planning for all contingencies.
Fortunately, the Air Force has toys to deal with that sort of 'plan.' So do we, for that matter. They're not 15' inch guns, so I know you believe they're not viable, but they very much are.
A naval aviator just acknowledged that the Air Force is a necessary component of America's military machine, now I've seen everything.
On a side note, the F-14 was a pig, great for taking down bombers, but it wasn't the air-to-air dogfighter that everyone wishes/thinks it was.
Let's see the reference, or at least the shop that made that claim. I'm currently my company's DARPA point of contact because I know some guys from the Navy currently there.
I want to say it was Raytheon Pomona, but I'm not sure off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find the actual paper. (For really out there gak, Lockheed is saying thy have managed to create a working fusion reactor they're testing).
Seaward wrote: A lot of it sounds like F-16.net pipedreaming, and none of the proposed Block III upgrades help out the Rhino where it really needs it in an air-to-air scenario.
Hey, as long as you foot the bill, I'm sure they wouldn't turn it down.
LOL actually they did. And utterly refused to do a cost benefit study or any other examination of the issue, even when asked to by GAO. You talk about myopia, but there's also such a thing as willful blindness.
It is. Fortunately, it's not the case. The myopic assumption that there's only one tool for any given job has been belied by all modern warfighting. We're not using spotter balloons to get our battlefield reconnaissance anymore, for example. Nor Higgins boats for amphib assaults, despite the fact that they worked the last time battleships were relevant.
That's very snide of you but battleships were 'relevant' a lot more recently than that, at least to those on the ground. Second, 'modern war fighting' is a nice buzzphrase, but COIN is not a traditional war. While the US has enjoyed a certain degree of success in it, to assume that more 'traditional' sorts of conflict are impossible is a dangerous assumption.
Yeah, that's great, but this is the fleet. We're never going to have enough money to equip for all contingencies. No one's even capable of planning for all contingencies.
You'd be amazed the number of plans stacked up at the Pentagon by guys with time on their hands. You know that they even have one for Grey Goo scenarios?
I want to say it was Raytheon Pomona, but I'm not sure off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find the actual paper. (For really out there gak, Lockheed is saying thy have managed to create a working fusion reactor they're testing).
"Working" as in "proof of concept" or "working" as in "generating significantly more power than it uses"?
Yeah, that's great, but this is the fleet. We're never going to have enough money to equip for all contingencies. No one's even capable of planning for all contingencies.
In all honesty, America generally tries. I can't imagine what unlikely union of enemies at the moment could ever threaten America enough to justify the number of carrier strike groups currently in existence(twelve).
On that train of thought of pure economics, I think that decommissioning four or five carrier strike groups, and using the money to add a battleship to/generally expand each of those remaining would be a sensible thing to do.
"Working" as in "proof of concept" or "working" as in "generating significantly more power than it uses"?
Working as in proof of concept for a compact fusion reactor (it's tiny compared to some tokamaks). They hope to have a prototype working as in 'producing significantly more power than it uses' within the next two to four years.
"Working" as in "proof of concept" or "working" as in "generating significantly more power than it uses"?
Working as in proof of concept for a compact fusion reactor (it's tiny compared to some tokamaks). They hope to have a prototype working as in 'producing significantly more power than it uses' within the next two to four years.
"Working" as in "proof of concept" or "working" as in "generating significantly more power than it uses"?
Working as in proof of concept for a compact fusion reactor (it's tiny compared to some tokamaks). They hope to have a prototype working as in 'producing significantly more power than it uses' within the next two to four years.
The international scientific consensus is that sustainable fusion power is at least 30-50 years away... if those guys have something else which will be ready in 2-4 years I think it is Nobel Prizes all round...
So, a ship that is good at hitting stuff 20 miles away is better than a ship that is good at hitting stuff 200 miles away when it comes to supporting land warfare?
"Working" as in "proof of concept" or "working" as in "generating significantly more power than it uses"?
Working as in proof of concept for a compact fusion reactor (it's tiny compared to some tokamaks). They hope to have a prototype working as in 'producing significantly more power than it uses' within the next two to four years.
The international scientific consensus is that sustainable fusion power is at least 30-50 years away... if those guys have something else which will be ready in 2-4 years I think it is Nobel Prizes all round...
And the international scientific concensus said New York would be underwater in 30-50 years*. I don't put to much stock in international scientific concensus. Not to say I'm disagreeing with the thought that Fusion is a long ways down the road.
Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder if it is easier to put mines in coastal waters or in deep ocean waters.
Shallow water, of course. Usually though they have to be cleared as a matter of course before a landing can begin though anyway, after having been identified via air or sat recon. That is what mine sweepers are for, and they're currently in use. *And here an obligatory shout out to the crew of the USS Avenger.*
Kilkrazy wrote: So, a ship that is good at hitting stuff 20 miles away is better than a ship that is good at hitting stuff 200 miles away when it comes to supporting land warfare?
In some cases, yes, as a battleship can provide continuous fire support without having to fly home and reload.
aircraft are good at killing single positions, but not so great at destroying large areas of entrenchments, which a battleship can through massive continuous bombardment that can be sustained for days on end.
Planes simply can't keep a sustained bombardment up. It took many months to reduce German cities to rubble with an air campaign. A single battleship could do the same in a couple days.
Grey Templar wrote: aircraft are good at killing single positions, but not so great at destroying large areas of entrenchments, which a battleship can through massive continuous bombardment that can be sustained for days on end.
Planes simply can't keep a sustained bombardment up. It took many months to reduce German cities to rubble with an air campaign. A single battleship could do the same in a couple days.
A single battleship COULD NOT do that, hence why they didn't. And our bombing technology then was an aboslute joke compaired to what it is now. 100 aircraft would go up to destroy one factory. Today 1 aircraft could destroy 5 factories with zero issues.
A single battleship COULD NOT do that, hence why they didn't. And our bombing technology then was an aboslute joke compaired to what it is now. 100 aircraft would go up to destroy one factory. Today 1 aircraft could destroy 5 factories with zero issues.
For the five factories bit, I have to ask you to define 'factory' and 'destroy'. Because if you want to tell me that a single aircraft could have leveled, say, the ball-bearing factories at Schweinfurt I'm going to just laugh at you. I might not know aircraft as well as you, but I do know explosions, and not much short of a B52 would have any meaningful impact on operations that large, because this is the old days were talking about and factory complexes could cover several square miles.
A single battleship flatten a city? No. Well, given a few months, maybe. However reducing cities via battleship bombardment was actually much faster. Because the Allies did do it, in Japan.
This is about 4 salvos. The target in this case is the Pentagon. I think it safe to say that the target would have been flattened. Time to fire off this much ordinance: less than 3 min.
I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.
EmilCrane wrote: I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.
This argument has been going on since long before the internet.... LOL
Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first
EmilCrane wrote: I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.
This argument has been going on since long before the internet.... LOL
I'm aware, naval history is the one thing I do know, I mean that no one wins internet arguments and considering that while we are all somewhat knowledgeable on the subject in different ways no matter what conclusion we come to it won't matter a bit unless one of us is highly placed in congress or the DoD
chaos0xomega wrote: A naval aviator just acknowledged that the Air Force is a necessary component of America's military machine, now I've seen everything.
It very much is. The Navy can't churn out the best aviators in the world if they don't occasionally get to do aggressor training against inferior pilots in superior aircraft.
Plus, since the Navy's got the sexy and practical, someone needs to fly the unsexy and practical or sexy and impractical.
On a side note, the F-14 was a pig, great for taking down bombers, but it wasn't the air-to-air dogfighter that everyone wishes/thinks it was.
It wasn't an F-15, but it was a surprisingly capable dogfighter by the time the D hit. As long as you didn't get suckered into bleeding energy, it had a shot against anything.
LordofHats wrote: Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first
And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.
LordofHats wrote: Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first
And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.
Exactly, who needs a battleship when you can drop ICBM's from airplanes now!
And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.
Point of fact, DoD did that on their authority, and told Congress it was a fait accompli, and Congress didn't put up any resistance because they're having their own drama and Bush signed it into law.
LordofHats wrote: Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first
And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.
Exactly, who needs a battleship when you can drop ICBM's from airplanes now!
EmilCrane wrote: I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.
EmilCrane wrote: I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.
This argument has been going on since long before the internet.... LOL
I'm aware, naval history is the one thing I do know, I mean that no one wins internet arguments and considering that while we are all somewhat knowledgeable on the subject in different ways no matter what conclusion we come to it won't matter a bit unless one of us is highly placed in congress or the DoD
oh contraire, the guy arguing with the other guy who got that guy to say he was going to go berserk and attack a school or something, won, because he siced the police on him. I have to respect that.
LordofHats wrote: Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first
And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.
Exactly, who needs a battleship when you can drop ICBM's from airplanes now!
BTW: Seaward, tell me again how my views on the incestuous relationship between Navy command and Defense contractors is just me parroting conspiracy theories? Because this month's Armed Forces Journal disagrees with you.
BaronIveagh wrote: BTW: Seaward, tell me again how my views on the incestuous relationship between Navy command and Defense contractors is just me parroting conspiracy theories? Because this month's Armed Forces Journal disagrees with you.
BTW: Seaward, tell me again how my views on the incestuous relationship between Navy command and Defense contractors is just me parroting conspiracy theories? Because this month's Armed Forces Journal disagrees with you.
Of course it is. If we're pulling out battleships, old Sherman tanks, and Civil War Napoleon cannon we've already lost. Time to form up the ragtag fleet for a lonely quest for a place called Earth because the Cylons are nuking Caprica.
Of course it is. If we're pulling out battleships, old Sherman tanks, and Civil War Napoleon cannon we've already lost. Time to form up the ragtag fleet for a lonely quest for a place called Earth because the Cylons are nuking Caprica.
Well.... first, those Israeli rebuilt Shermans can pack a fething wallop. They took the gun out of a French AMX 13, so that's a rapid fire 75mm that can pierce the side of a variety of currently in service MBTs (admittedly not including the Abrams).
Secondly, again, fail comparison: the Sherman and the Napoleon were replaced by something that does the same thing, but better. The battleship was not, as absolutely nothing does NGFS like a battleship. Which does free up aircraft to go do more important things like bomb the enemy's runways and C&C which are usually further inland.
Seaward wrote:
Armed Forces Journal believes a lot of kooky gak.
Still, nice to see currently serving, ranking officers writing articles that agree with me. I particularly like the part where he brings up the ranking officers in charge of the failed projects going on to post military positions with the same companies that benefited most from the failed effort.
Kilkrazy wrote: I wonder if it is easier to put mines in coastal waters or in deep ocean waters.
Strategically better in coastal waters.
To clarify, its strategically better to place them in coastal waters because it can deny use of ports, etc. BUT the reality is that most ocean travel occurs along just a handful of "highways" due to them being the optimum passage by which to go from point A to point B, so in that sense, seeding deep ocean waters is actually easier (since its much easier to say... fly a B-52 over the mid-atlantic and air-drop mines than it would be to attempt the same within site of shore), and wouldn't you know it we have mines designed for just that purpose.
Kilkrazy wrote: So, a ship that is good at hitting stuff 20 miles away is better than a ship that is good at hitting stuff 200 miles away when it comes to supporting land warfare?
Well, it depends on what you're trying to do I suppose. Personally I wouldn't put much stock in the bombardment of something 200 miles away, we're talking some serious accuracy needed to pull that off, and at the point you're 200 miles inland you likely already have howitzer batteries and some serious air support options available to you anyway.
Planes simply can't keep a sustained bombardment up. It took many months to reduce German cities to rubble with an air campaign. A single battleship could do the same in a couple days.
Dresden burned to the ground after a night... and theres a couple Japanese cities that would like to have a word with you as well...
It very much is. The Navy can't churn out the best aviators in the world if they don't occasionally get to do aggressor training against inferior pilots in superior aircraft.
Plus, since the Navy's got the sexy and practical, someone needs to fly the unsexy and practical or sexy and impractical.
Well played, I ROFL'd, totally and demonstrably false mind you, but well played nonetheless
It wasn't an F-15, but it was a surprisingly capable dogfighter by the time the D hit. As long as you didn't get suckered into bleeding energy, it had a shot against anything.
What we learned from Vietnam however is that air-to-air engagements with another fighter will require you to bleed energy in a turning engagement. People like to point out the Iran-Iraq war and the nonsense in Libya as evidence that the F-14 was a better plane than its given credit for, BUT the reality is both the Libyan and Iraqi pilots were pretty suicidal... they flew straight and level approaches at full speed, likely figuring they didn't have to maneuver cuz... yknow, missiles are fething magic and will kill anything. The Navy (and the Iranians) showed them otherwise. The other major advantage of the F-14 was the AIM-54, which as I understand it was of questionable effectiveness against anything smaller than a 747, but it meant (provided it worked as intended and the pilots were actually authorized to fire them without visual id first) that the F-14 really never did have to bleed speed in the first place.
Seaward, tell me again how my views on the incestuous relationship between Navy command and Defense contractors is just me parroting conspiracy theories? Because this month's Armed Forces Journal disagrees with you.
I'm not defending the Navy (as General LeMay once said "The Soviets are our adversaries, the Navy is our enemy.") but its kind of unfair to single them out for an "incestuous relationship" with the defense industry when pretty much the entire US armed forces are involved in one big incestuous orgy...
BTW, y'all should look into the Air Forces "Prompt Global Strike" program. They're attempting to use a hypersonic cruise missile (probably based on the waverider program) as a conventional replacement for nuclear-tipped ICBM's, except apparrently they're claiming they can get multi-kiloton level (small nuclear device) level yields out of it (and at a budget price!). I doubt it'll be anywhere near as cost-effective or sustainable as parking a battleship, but it changes the equation a bit.
I'm not defending the Navy (as General LeMay once said "The Soviets are our adversaries, the Navy is our enemy.") but its kind of unfair to single them out for an "incestuous relationship" with the defense industry when pretty much the entire US armed forces are involved in one big incestuous orgy...
True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.
BTW, y'all should look into the Air Forces "Prompt Global Strike" program. They're attempting to use a hypersonic cruise missile (probably based on the waverider program) as a conventional replacement for nuclear-tipped ICBM's, except apparrently they're claiming they can get multi-kiloton level (small nuclear device) level yields out of it (and at a budget price!). I doubt it'll be anywhere near as cost-effective or sustainable as parking a battleship, but it changes the equation a bit.
I don't really buy those yields, unless someone has made a a tremendous advancement in conventional explosives (though it might be FAE based, but still), and even if they had, it also changes how much firepower a battleship can lay down if it can be applied to a 16" shell. I want to file this one away with Hot Eagle which included (I gak you not) the ability to deploy a 13 marines via drop pod anywhere on Earth in half an hour. AFAIK the project was cancelled due to budgetary reasons (insert joke about the cost of a USMC battle-barge or strike cruiser here).
True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.
The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it
The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it
This will be a very broad statement, but: generally the Corps likes to stick with what works until something comes along that's proven to be clearly superior and just as dependable.
True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.
The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it
Using the M60A1 for so long instead of the M1A1 is another example. I think they just have a "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." mentality. Sometimes that's good to have,but not all of the time.
chaos0xomega wrote: What we learned from Vietnam however is that air-to-air engagements with another fighter will require you to bleed energy in a turning engagement. People like to point out the Iran-Iraq war and the nonsense in Libya as evidence that the F-14 was a better plane than its given credit for, BUT the reality is both the Libyan and Iraqi pilots were pretty suicidal... they flew straight and level approaches at full speed, likely figuring they didn't have to maneuver cuz... yknow, missiles are fething magic and will kill anything. The Navy (and the Iranians) showed them otherwise. The other major advantage of the F-14 was the AIM-54, which as I understand it was of questionable effectiveness against anything smaller than a 747, but it meant (provided it worked as intended and the pilots were actually authorized to fire them without visual id first) that the F-14 really never did have to bleed speed in the first place.
Partially true. We learned that you have to bleed energy if you get involved in knife-fighting due to a combination of extremely restrictive ROE and not bothering to teach anybody how to dogfight anymore. Every fighter's got its own performance characteristics, and if you're not fighting in a manner that favors your plane, you're going to lose.
I personally think the F-14 was a better dogfighter than the Super Hornet currently is, despite the latter's nimbleness. If somebody takes the fight vertical on you in a Super Bug, you're in a world of hurt. Of course, in both cases, the AIM-9X makes up for a world of deficiencies, and I think the F-14 would've been an incredibly difficult platform to beat if it'd ever gotten mated to the JHMCS and the 9X.
Partially true. We learned that you have to bleed energy if you get involved in knife-fighting due to a combination of extremely restrictive ROE and not bothering to teach anybody how to dogfight anymore.
But somehow we didn't learn not to stand around for ten years getting plastered by an insurgency while politicians play footsie.
True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.
The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it
Budget considerations? The USMC is bigger than the British army (but not better ) and the British Army has a budget of what? £80 Billion? I don't think money is a problem for the USMC, especially, when the entire military budget is $600 billion per annum.
LOL no. (though there are a few noted exceptions that might give the USMC a run for their money one on one, most of those have been reduced in the reorg of 2006 or disbanded entirely, The Black Watch being of note in this regard was reduced to a single battalion.)
True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.
The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it
Budget considerations? The USMC is bigger than the British army (but not better ) and the British Army has a budget of what? £80 Billion? I don't think money is a problem for the USMC, especially, when the entire military budget is $600 billion per annum.
The US Marine Corp is actually equal size once you factor reserves in, and their budget is around 30 billion, so less then half the British Armies.
I'm not defending the Navy (as General LeMay once said "The Soviets are our adversaries, the Navy is our enemy.") but its kind of unfair to single them out for an "incestuous relationship" with the defense industry when pretty much the entire US armed forces are involved in one big incestuous orgy...
True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.
Just going to throw it out there: This is in part due to the Navy's culture, where it breeds its officers as being "a world apart" from the enlisted. The Navy is, culturally, ass-backwards. Its the only branch where its a matter of policy for the officers to eat before enlisted, let alone the fact that the officers eat in a "wardroom" while the sailors go to the "mess", plus the seperate berthings, etc. etc. etc.
I don't really buy those yields, unless someone has made a a tremendous advancement in conventional explosives (though it might be FAE based, but still), and even if they had, it also changes how much firepower a battleship can lay down if it can be applied to a 16" shell. I want to file this one away with Hot Eagle which included (I gak you not) the ability to deploy a 13 marines via drop pod anywhere on Earth in half an hour. AFAIK the project was cancelled due to budgetary reasons (insert joke about the cost of a USMC battle-barge or strike cruiser here).
Well, I think part of it is that the yield is amplified by the kinetic energy generated on impact by a cruise missile traveling at Mach 20 (supposedly), which if you think about it isn't entirely unreasonable (the yield from those speeds, not necessarily the speed itself).
The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it
They have nothing to do with it because its too heavy to really be useful. M1's are technically "too heavy" as well, but they are used in a different manner doctrinally speaking, and in such limited quantities, that they can justify it. In any case, you should look up the EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) it might make you think twice about your stance.
I personally think the F-14 was a better dogfighter than the Super Hornet currently is, despite the latter's nimbleness. If somebody takes the fight vertical on you in a Super Bug, you're in a world of hurt. Of course, in both cases, the AIM-9X makes up for a world of deficiencies, and I think the F-14 would've been an incredibly difficult platform to beat if it'd ever gotten mated to the JHMCS and the 9X.
To this I will agree, but thats more because I think that the Super Hornet isn't a very good fighter in general (its much better in the ground attack role, hence the F/A designation, though it still ain't got gak on an A-10).
Budget considerations? The USMC is bigger than the British army (but not better ) and the British Army has a budget of what? £80 Billion? I don't think money is a problem for the USMC, especially, when the entire military budget is $600 billion per annum.
I don't really know the numbers for our allies all that well, but I do know that the USMC's problem (like the rest of the armed forces) is personnel costs.
What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft? 
