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.

 djones520 wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And then North Korea becomes radioactive in response.

Which feth up South Korea even more, because guess were the winds are pushing all that radioactivity.

Towards Japan. Wind flow is typically west to east in the Northern Hemisphere.

Congratulations. You've just indirectly nuked and irradiated two key US allies.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
If Kim Jong Un was really that crazy he'd have done something already. There's no indication he'd be willing to die or see his country (as he envisions it) destroyed. Why everyone is so paranoid about a country that mostly wants to be left alone is beyond me. It's not as if North Korea is going around destabilising large portions of the world. I fail to see the threat many people seem to see in them.

The threat of North Korea isn't necessarily that they're going to nuke someone, though when their government eventually collapses due to internal rebellion and food shortages, the head of a state founded on a cult of personality might easily decide to go out with a bang. If the situation the North Korean people get into becomes dire enough, politically they might have no choice but to do more than posturing. They'll be caught between needing to keep their people focused on an external enemy and wanting to keep their power. It'll basically be "Abdicate/be torn apart by starving peasants" or "go out in a blaze of glory".

But the real danger is that North Korea's nuke could fall into the wrong hands. The nukes might get stolen or sold to people who will use them against the US or other nations. A well funded Islamic terrorist cell could potentially get their hands on a nuclear weapon, or at least nuclear material to make a dirty bomb. This is the same reason a nuclear Iran is a problem.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Range of Zumwalt cannon: 83 nautical miles. Range of Amazon Brigade: less than 83 nautical miles.

Well...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a23738/uss-zumwalt-ammo-too-expensive/

The long range rounds cost just north of $800k EACH meaning that an entire magazine load costs almost as much as the ship. It should be noted on top that the Zumwalt can expend ALL it's ammo is less than 30 min. Without this ammo the ship has a range of a little over 20 miles. And no armor or protection beyond stealth, so... yeah, floating coffin even against NKs beach artillery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The threat of North Korea isn't necessarily that they're going to nuke someone, though when their government eventually collapses due to internal rebellion and food shortages, the head of a state founded on a cult of personality might easily decide to go out with a bang. If the situation the North Korean people get into becomes dire enough, politically they might have no choice but to do more than posturing. They'll be caught between needing to keep their people focused on an external enemy and wanting to keep their power. It'll basically be "Abdicate/be torn apart by starving peasants" or "go out in a blaze of glory".

I hate to remind you but that's already happened, between 1994 and 1998, and the result was..... well, the Kim's stayed in power. To give an idea of scale, between 280k and 3.5m people died, out of population of 22 million.

Why do you care about the gun? it is a destroyer, its purpose is to fire long range cruise missiles with ranges over a thousand miles. NK artillery is never hitting it because it can bombard Pyongyang while sitting comfortably in the bay of Tokyo.

And armor is an obsolete concept for warships.

Tyran wrote:
Why do you care about the gun? it is a destroyer, its purpose is to fire long range cruise missiles with ranges over a thousand miles. NK artillery is never hitting it because it can bombard Pyongyang while sitting comfortably in the bay of Tokyo.

Why bother with the multibillion dollar ship then instead of just launching the missiles from land at that point?

Also, coordinating a cruise missile strike over hundreds of miles is a might bit trickier and more expensive than bringing local radar guided counterbattery fire to bear.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And then North Korea becomes radioactive in response.

Which feth up South Korea even more, because guess were the winds are pushing all that radioactivity.

Towards Japan. Wind flow is typically west to east in the Northern Hemisphere.

Congratulations. You've just indirectly nuked and irradiated two key US allies.

Well how else are we going to get this Godzilla vs. Kong thing started?
Actually I'd blame the North Koreans for that. Thats like blaming British for errant shells landing in France during WWII.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


So, we're talking a swarm of 2,800,000 drones, each carrying about 1/2 pound of C4.

There's no realistic way of piloting that many.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


So, we're talking a swarm of 2,800,000 drones, each carrying about 1/2 pound of C4.

There's no realistic way of piloting that many.

Skynet could...

Suddenly the human/machine war takes a horrible new turn...

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Why do you care about the gun? it is a destroyer, its purpose is to fire long range cruise missiles with ranges over a thousand miles. NK artillery is never hitting it because it can bombard Pyongyang while sitting comfortably in the bay of Tokyo.

Why bother with the multibillion dollar ship then instead of just launching the missiles from land at that point?

Also, coordinating a cruise missile strike over hundreds of miles is a might bit trickier and more expensive than bringing local radar guided counterbattery fire to bear.

If you wanted to deliver real counter battery fire, closer to shore. theres a ship for it,
its called a Iowa class... some times you need the old veteran.

armour can take anyshells short of a nuke NK can fire, and its guns can lay down punishing fire on any gun dumb ernough to try and fire on it at longer ranges.
multiple protected 5 inch guns can lay down a storm on anything closer. its fast for its size, and can work in close while further out the modern ships act as her AA sheild.

When the Iowa class was retired, Congress, at the Marines behest, made a stipulation that the Navy would replace it with a ship that still had the capability to do on-shore bombardment meeting certain criteria.

The Zumwalt was supposed to fill that role. That's why it's a bit of a sticking point.

 djones520 wrote:
When the Iowa class was retired, Congress, at the Marines behest, made a stipulation that the Navy would replace it with a ship that still had the capability to do on-shore bombardment meeting certain criteria.

The Zumwalt was supposed to fill that role. That's why it's a bit of a sticking point.

umm theres not many, it has less guns... sure its high tech but its direct gun firepower is a fraction of the class its ment to replace.
got lots of missiles yes but even then, Iowa is 4.5 times her size...

she can carry and sustain for quite abit longer id wager

It's all about the gun, the missiles don't matter.

The Zumwalt is just another piece of the bad spending machine at the end of the day.

navy... just saw that mush a round! 32, now... even less than the UK has of Destroyers.

just load it up with some good ols regular ammo and use a decent gunplot system to compensate. they made accurate fire control radar in the 40's.

Given volume, age and ease of use. few hundred dollers max a round surely to produce some 155mm ammo these days.
heck probbly millions in stockpile.

I wonder if they could take the Iowa's main gun shells and put a satellite based targeter on it like the AirForce did. Satellite guided artillery....

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why bother with the multibillion dollar ship then instead of just launching the missiles from land at that point?

Also, coordinating a cruise missile strike over hundreds of miles is a might bit trickier and more expensive than bringing local radar guided counterbattery fire to bear.

Because you want a mobile platform so your missiles aren't sitting ducks and so you can move around engage other targets because North Korea isn't the only possible target for your missiles, and the easiest way to move missiles is by sea.

And expensive? yes, but range is basically priceless in war, because out-ranging your opponent means you can safely kill them while being out-ranged means you can do little but die.

 Frazzled wrote:
I wonder if they could take the Iowa's main gun shells and put a satellite based targeter on it like the AirForce did. Satellite guided artillery....

we could go all Hydra, build some giant track units and transform it into the largest land going warmachine ever built. then drive it at isis...
worth it just to see the looks on there faces seeing 50,000 + tons of mobile fortress.

back to sense,
aye, the only issue is finding systems that can withstand the extreme muzzle velocity and force those big guns make.
there sending em out at over the speed of sound.

That would indeed be a problem. On the other hand we have proximity fuses that do that.

2,690 feet per second (820 m/s) with 1,900 lb (862 kg) HC shell
2,500 feet per second (762 m/s) with 2,700 lb (1,225 kg) AP shell

so thats what a 16 inch 50 calibre Navel rifle can throw at at its enemies.

The speed of sound is about 343 metres per second.
You are throwing over a ton out at just shy of Mach 2, or bit over 1500 MPH .

so .. by that insane maths.
any tech needed needed to be hardened alot,

Its amazing how much effert they went to built this much screw you, im going to throw a volkswagon at you at Mach 2 because im that angry.

Indeed. Its almost like the human race is not sane...

 Frazzled wrote:
I wonder if they could take the Iowa's main gun shells and put a satellite based targeter on it like the AirForce did. Satellite guided artillery....

Guys...guys... forget the Iowa...

Behold the Montana class!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana-class_battleship

Intended armament would have been 12 16-inch (406 mm) Mark 7 guns in four 3-gun turrets, up from the Iowas' three 3-gun 16s. With an increased anti-aircraft capability and thicker armor belt, the Montana class would have been the largest, best-protected, and most heavily armed U.S. battleships ever, the only class to come close to rivaling the Empire of Japan's immense Yamato-class battleships.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I wonder if they could take the Iowa's main gun shells and put a satellite based targeter on it like the AirForce did. Satellite guided artillery....

Guys...guys... forget the Iowa...

Behold the Montana class!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana-class_battleship

Intended armament would have been 12 16-inch (406 mm) Mark 7 guns in four 3-gun turrets, up from the Iowas' three 3-gun 16s. With an increased anti-aircraft capability and thicker armor belt, the Montana class would have been the largest, best-protected, and most heavily armed U.S. battleships ever, the only class to come close to rivaling the Empire of Japan's immense Yamato-class battleships.

eh, Donald Trump loves cool things, whats the harm in building one?
lol..

 jhe90 wrote:


eh, Donald Trump loves cool things, whats the harm in building one?
lol..

Well, Russia (and China) would love it, and Trump loves what Putin loves.

Of course, maybe no one told him that the reason Russians (and the Chinese) would love it is as a target for their anti-ship missiles.

Battleships will probably make somewhat of a comeback when anti-missile and aircraft lasers become more commonplace. Enough to where the only reliable way of killing stuff will be bombardment projectiles like artillery and railguns that cannot be shot down by a laser.

Tyran wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


eh, Donald Trump loves cool things, whats the harm in building one?
lol..

Well, Russia (and China) would love it, and Trump loves what Putin loves.

Of course, maybe no one told him that the reason Russians (and the Chinese) would love it is as a target for their anti-ship missiles.

It'll take more than one of those to sink the Iowa/Montana, according to Milblogs... that's if the anti-air fails.

The big reason why these ships aren't built anymore is that, they're slow. Which is kinda amazing, as you'd think they could've figure out how to make them faster.

Besides, is there a need for those cannons? Those won't go far inland...right?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Battleships will probably make somewhat of a comeback when anti-missile and aircraft lasers become more commonplace. Enough to where the only reliable way of killing stuff will be bombardment projectiles like artillery and railguns that cannot be shot down by a laser.

It will probably lack almost all the armor of WW2 Battleships in favor of more lasers and speed.

And a laser can shot down artillery rounds. Railguns would be harder, but still possible.

 whembly wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


eh, Donald Trump loves cool things, whats the harm in building one?
lol..

Well, Russia (and China) would love it, and Trump loves what Putin loves.

Of course, maybe no one told him that the reason Russians (and the Chinese) would love it is as a target for their anti-ship missiles.

It'll take more than one of those to sink the Iowa/Montana, according to Milblogs... that's if the anti-air fails.

The big reason why these ships aren't built anymore is that, they're slow. Which is kinda amazing, as you'd think they could've figure out how to make them faster.

Besides, is there a need for those cannons? Those won't go far inland...right?

if the rail guns work out as planned 100 miles
but with a bigger ship, bigger power plants and such you might be able to get further as they advance.

not much, vs some missiles no. we can do 100miles easy,
but has advantage its impossible to stop once fired and means no fuels or explosives on that part of ship.

It could still have a lot of armor while still being faster and more maneuverable. Lasers and railguns would save a lot of weight, which means you could up-armor and still be faster. Not to mention any armor advances you could make over WW2 battleships.

And IIRC, the end result of the Railgun project is supposed to be 400 miles targeting capabilities.

 whembly wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


eh, Donald Trump loves cool things, whats the harm in building one?
lol..

Well, Russia (and China) would love it, and Trump loves what Putin loves.

Of course, maybe no one told him that the reason Russians (and the Chinese) would love it is as a target for their anti-ship missiles.

It'll take more than one of those to sink the Iowa/Montana, according to Milblogs... that's if the anti-air fails.

The big reason why these ships aren't built anymore is that, they're slow. Which is kinda amazing, as you'd think they could've figure out how to make them faster.

Besides, is there a need for those cannons? Those won't go far inland...right?

Physics are a bitch.

And depends where it hits. The missile could hit non-essential parts and do basically nothing beyond punching a hole, or it could take out something important like the bridge, radar or better yet the ammunition.

Of course if it hits a good spot you have problems. The issue is thats pretty iffy on a moving target, you're pretty much just hoping for center mass and if you hit a vital area good for you. Battleships are meant to take repeated poundings and not sink. If you're trying to take out a battleship, you generally don't target specific areas, you just target with tons of firepower and try to attrition it down.

The nice thing about a battleship armed with railguns and lasers is you don't have an armory to get hit and explode catastrophically. Railgun rounds are literally just hunks of metal, no explosives necessary. Just pure kinetic energy.

It would still have a power plant. So while with less explosive results, it can still be crippled.

Also it is far easier to hit vital areas in a mobile target with a missile than with a railgun. Railguns are meant for coastal bombardment of fixed positions, not to engage enemy mobile warships.