Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oil better. More efficient.

Plus
Coal dust in half empty bunkers can go BOOM in a big way.

What we need are carriers which can launch planes with 16 inch railguns.

 Seaward wrote:

Why would CIWS scare me? We generally don't try to land on the target.

Phalanx will engage aircraft as well, at up to 10 miles. And can hit aircraft going supersonic.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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That's pretty misleading as those have been replaced by (in theory) superior systems (or in the F-14's case when someone with enough gold braid got pissed at Grumman and told them to take their upgrade package and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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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

Force projection ho!

 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.

Isn't most of the land more than 20 miles from the sea?

How much of the land is more than 200 miles from the sea?

 Seaward wrote:

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

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

Could be, but it's what I read.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

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"?

Grey Goose scenario? Wait is someone threatening Grey Goose Vodka? NOooooooooooooo!

Barbarians! If they mean to have a war, let it begin here!

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"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.

FUSION?

Or didn't you mean the Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors?

I wonder if it is easier to put mines in coastal waters or in deep ocean waters.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"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...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder if it is easier to put mines in coastal waters or in deep ocean waters.

Strategically better in coastal waters.

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?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"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.


*slight exagerration

whembly wrote:
FUSION?

Or didn't you mean the Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors?

No, Fusion.

http://www.fusenet.eu/node/400

https://www.solveforx.com/moonshots/solve-for-x-charles-chase-on-energy-for-everyone

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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

whembly wrote:
FUSION?

Or didn't you mean the Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors?

No, Fusion.

http://www.fusenet.eu/node/400

https://www.solveforx.com/moonshots/solve-for-x-charles-chase-on-energy-for-everyone

Duuuuude.

That's AWESOME!

If it works... that'll solve many, many things.

 djones520 wrote:


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.

Anyone else think they should just get a room at this point?

... just askin'.

 Forar wrote:
Anyone else think they should just get a room at this point?

... just askin'.

You're right. We are way off topic, aren't we?

Hey... what if we were more comfortable doing it in public?

 Forar wrote:
Anyone else think they should just get a room at this point?

... just askin'.

Maybe some of us like to watch