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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Agiel wrote:


Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).

And, according to Congressional testimony is where it failed, it's range was nothing like the numbers the Navy had targeted. It's effective range was not actually significantly greater than the 16"/50.

Also, C-802 can be carried by aircraft, however, given it's characteristics as a kinetic penetratior, and the fact it aims for the waterline, an Iowa class is effectively immune to it. Only a Granit has a screaming prayer, among anti ship missiles, of penetrating an Iowa where her belt's thickest, and even it's a bit iffy. Remember battleships are, in theory, armored against their own weapons. A 16"/50 firing a super heavy round can pen 30 feet of concrete. The next highest, Granit, can pen about 20 feet and only recently have the Russians refitted heavy bombers to carry a single missile aloft. It's THAT big.

Many current Gen Anti ship missiles would struggle with the configuration of Iowa's armor, with an internal belt and outer skin. This effectively acts as spaced armor, and most antiship missiles depend on a shaped charge to get the missile into the ship, so...

However, even a pop up that drops the missile on deck would find issues with a battleships bomb deck. (Remember many BBs were built to take hits from plunging shots and bombs, so there's a space where, in theory, even an AP bomb would explode.) Bombings were attempted against Tirpitz, but only succeeded when they missed, hydro-static shock from a bunker buster buckling the hull.

Remember that Roma, the only battleship killed with a precursor to smart bombs, actually died from an electrical failure that shut off all firefighting gear and set every magazine on fire. And, before you say 'that was X years ago' the Iraqis tried Silkworm on Mighty Mo. It didn't work.

More or less the fact that it "failed" is probably a lie. A weapon with 80nm range is a lot more effective if your opponent doesn't think you have one. Do you really think they went through the process to create a ship around a weapon system if the weapon didn't work? I don't buy that.

Agiel wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that.

Ahem.

Do you know how much those munitions cost? As much as a cruise missile, making them utterly useless. The only advantage that gun artillery has over missile artillery is supposed to be the low costs. If you take that only advantage away... Well, the US Navy came to the predictable conclusion and scrapped the munitions.
So yeah. The Zumwalt could have bombarded shore-based targets. But other ships can do that just fine as well using their cannon and cruise missiles. The Zumwalt might have been a bit better at it, but it's increase in capability would not be all that stellar, and to me definitely not justifying the crazy costs, especially considering how rare naval artillery bombardments are. Considering how much the ammo for the Zumwalt's cannons cost, it is cheaper for the Navy to just use cruise missiles instead. And now with the ammo gone, the Zumwalt's guns are useless, leaving it even worse at shore bombardment than say an Arleigh Burke-class. The US military has evidently realised this as well considering they abandoned the Zumwalt in favour of re-starting Arleigh Burke production.

To be honest, if they wanted a ship for bombarding shore targets, I believe they should have focused on that, and leave out all of the stealth stuff (which on a thing as big, slow, and obviously visible as a destroyer that fires really big guns and is stuffed full of electronics and incredibly powerful radar is of questionable utility in the first place). The Zumwalt is a classic victim of overengineering. They wanted too many things from a ship, resulting in a ship that can do lots of things but none of them good. Well, except winning prizes in a "ugly ship" contest maybe.

Agiel wrote:


Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).

A ship is big, a ship is slow. A ship is highly visible. It will always be tracked by satellites. Meaning that if you face an enemy with a radar that can pick up the Zumwalt's radar signature, they will already know that said small radar signature is not a fishing trawler at all. Not to mention that a warship, being a warship, is jammed full of incredibly powerful radars which will make it light up as a very bright beacon to anti-radiation missiles anyway. Basically, there are a myriad ways to track and target something as big as a destroyer beyond radar. That is why the whole idea of a "stealth destroyer" is kinda silly, and why navies across the world use submarines instead if they want stealth.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

What? Do explain?

Iowa's turret no 2 explosion.


As far as the timeline for the Zumwalt, you might want to read the laws passed regaurding the decomissioning of the Battleships. Effectivly, the Navy was required to produce, within a certain amount of time, a replacement.

Iowa and Wisconsin were kept until 2005 until being decommissioned in favor of DDX.

Also, I think you have a typo, you probably meant WW2. And boy do I recommend the study done on the effectiveness of BBs vs Cruisers in gunfire support roles that was done in Korea.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Agiel wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that.

Ahem.

Do you know how much those munitions cost? As much as a cruise missile, making them utterly useless. The only advantage that gun artillery has over missile artillery is supposed to be the low costs. If you take that only advantage away... Well, the US Navy came to the predictable conclusion and scrapped the munitions.
So yeah. The Zumwalt could have bombarded shore-based targets. But other ships can do that just fine as well using their cannon and cruise missiles. The Zumwalt might have been a bit better at it, but it's increase in capability would not be all that stellar, and to me definitely not justifying the crazy costs, especially considering how rare naval artillery bombardments are. Considering how much the ammo for the Zumwalt's cannons cost, it is cheaper for the Navy to just use cruise missiles instead. And now with the ammo gone, the Zumwalt's guns are useless, leaving it even worse at shore bombardment than say an Arleigh Burke-class. The US military has evidently realised this as well considering they abandoned the Zumwalt in favour of re-starting Arleigh Burke production.

To be honest, if they wanted a ship for bombarding shore targets, I believe they should have focused on that, and leave out all of the stealth stuff (which on a thing as big, slow, and obviously visible as a destroyer that fires really big guns and is stuffed full of electronics and incredibly powerful radar is of questionable utility in the first place). The Zumwalt is a classic victim of overengineering. They wanted too many things from a ship, resulting in a ship that can do lots of things but none of them good. Well, except winning prizes in a "ugly ship" contest maybe.

Not everyone can be as sexy as the Kirov, lets not hull-shame.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean when you can just fling 80 rim-66s and watch it die in fire, with no possible counter attack. Or 80 Tomahawks. Turns out VLS is sort of OP.

I'm a bit curious how you think either of those would even disable it RIM-66 is just going to detonate on the surface. Tomahawks with submunitions might seriously damage it's antenna arrays, but since it's guns can fall back to the optical and calculated fire, it's only reducing it's accuracy.

Battleships in combat with destroyers and cruisers might be hit hundreds of times by non penetrating shots.

This is hilariously false. I mean if they fire only into the belt amour sure. In actuality they fire into the superstructure causing ammunition fires, destoyering communications, and generally ruining eveyrones day. Just ask the Hiei what dealing with destroyers is like.

Incorrect. The first hit was between frames 100 and 108 and penetrated the ship entirely, exploding under her keel, and caused flooding in her aft engine room and two boiler rooms. The second hit landed between frames 123 and 136 hitting the forward engine room. This started, among other things, an electrical fire in turret 2's magazine, which then detonated, blowing turret 2 completely off the ship. Which then sank, for obvious reasons. I refer you to the findings following her loss and the discovery of the wreck.

incorrect. The hit to the boiler room was caused by an underwater explosion, this is still a hit to the boiler room. Electical fires were caused in the rear of the ship. It was the forward magazine that exploded caused by the forward engine fire.

Further, the fritz X was unusual in that it had a remote control system so the bombardier could guide it to the target. It was not 'just' a glide bomb.

That's *literally* what a glide bomb is mate.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Agiel wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that.

Ahem.

Do you know how much those munitions cost? As much as a cruise missile, making them utterly useless. The only advantage that gun artillery has over missile artillery is supposed to be the low costs. If you take that only advantage away... Well, the US Navy came to the predictable conclusion and scrapped the munitions.
So yeah. The Zumwalt could have bombarded shore-based targets. But other ships can do that just fine as well using their cannon and cruise missiles. The Zumwalt might have been a bit better at it, but it's increase in capability would not be all that stellar, and to me definitely not justifying the crazy costs, especially considering how rare naval artillery bombardments are. Considering how much the ammo for the Zumwalt's cannons cost, it is cheaper for the Navy to just use cruise missiles instead. And now with the ammo gone, the Zumwalt's guns are useless, leaving it even worse at shore bombardment than say an Arleigh Burke-class. The US military has evidently realised this as well considering they abandoned the Zumwalt in favour of re-starting Arleigh Burke production.

To be honest, if they wanted a ship for bombarding shore targets, I believe they should have focused on that, and leave out all of the stealth stuff (which on a thing as big, slow, and obviously visible as a destroyer that fires really big guns and is stuffed full of electronics and incredibly powerful radar is of questionable utility in the first place). The Zumwalt is a classic victim of overengineering. They wanted too many things from a ship, resulting in a ship that can do lots of things but none of them good. Well, except winning prizes in a "ugly ship" contest maybe.

Not everyone can be as sexy as the Kirov, lets not hull-shame.

Nonsense. With enough practice, dedication, workouts and our trademarked Russian diet, any ship can become sexy like Comrade Kirov.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Iowa's turret no 2 explosion.

Are you actually blaming that on the Navy? Also that's 47 not 42.

As far as the timeline for the Zumwalt, you might want to read the laws passed regaurding the decomissioning of the Battleships. Effectivly, the Navy was required to produce, within a certain amount of time, a replacement.

Iowa and Wisconsin were kept until 2005 until being decommissioned in favor of DDX.

No, they were decommissioned much earlier. They just weren't struck from the list until later. At which time they had already been replaced by ship launched guided missiles and airstrikes.

Also, I think you have a typo, you probably meant WW2. And boy do I recommend the study done on the effectiveness of BBs vs Cruisers in gunfire support roles that was done in Korea.

I do mean WWII, and link this study if you have it.

I think the US Navy is having a bit of an identity crisis. Even if the Zumwalt was going to be successful deploying railguns, how often was it going to be used in the role it was specified. And for the cost of the thing and how few there were just seems like a ridiculous idea. The same goes for the littorals. So what if they are fast. They have no armor and little firepower, yet 'can deploy in shallow water and drop SEAL teams off'. Are you kidding me?

I am all for proof of concepts and pushing the envelope on design, but it just seems the Navy has lost sight of what their #1 job is: dominate other Navies. The Zumwalt pitch just seems ridiculous because if we were even in a situation where we were going to have marines storm a beach somewhere, we'd have to have a bunch of other things happen prior to that, like air supremacy and area of control around whatever they were storming. And if you had that, then you certainly could just bomb the gak out of the area or even launch rockets from a variety of platforms.

I do not see whats been occurring in the world the last 20 years for the Navy to think they needed that design. It wasn't going to help them in Afghanistan or Iraq, and if they were worried about Chinese islands in the South China Sea, there are a whole bunch of Chinese ships to worry about. The Navy should be focused on ship killing first and foremost. Maybe they feel they have that all wrapped up I do not know. I feel our older cruisers and destroyers are looking rather dated. I know they are all part of a system and shouldn't be judged individually, but still. Shelling out so much money on 3 ships with no guns and these stupid littoral ships sees like a real waste.

I am curious how the US Navy will look in 50 years. Probably a lot of drone ships.

Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.

 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.

They're ridiculously vulnerable to torpedoes, and you wouldn't have to sink them with cruise missiles to mission kill them. There'd have to be a more reliable anti-missile system than what currently exists to build them, and even then a smaller ship could carry the same missiles and defense system for less of the cost.

 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.

No, they have no place in a modern navy, except in a niche role as mobile artillery platforms.
Whether they can survive modern anti-ship weapons depends on what kind of weapon you are talking about, considering anti-ship weapons range from small autocannons designed for destroying small attack craft to massive nuclear anti-ship missiles that can blow an entire fleet out of the water.
They are pretty massive ships, so I'd say that their bulk gives them above-average survivability. However, modern anti-ship weapons can be extremely destructive when they hit, so modern warships instead of trying to be good at tanking hits with big bulk and armour try to avoid getting hit at all in order to stay afloat. And I figure those old battleships just do not have the countermeasure systems in place that would allow them to survive in a modern naval combat environment. And upgrading those old hulls with modern systems is going to be really expensive (not to mention that the maintenance costs of such ships), so it is probably cheaper to just design a new ship instead. And it would not be battleship-sized, simply because such big ships have become unnecessary. A battleship would just be extra expensive and offer no additional capabilities over a cruiser.

Anyone seen these supersonic torpedos? They are basically underwater missiles. They create and air bubble in front of them due to the speed that they travel. It almost seems that ships are going to be very unsafe places to be. Intercepting things in water is a lot harder than in the air.

How fast is the speed of sound in water?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How fast is the speed of sound in water?

In sea water at room temperature, 1531 m/s.

They wouldn't even be supersonic in air, but they do around 370 km/h and are more or less impossible to intercept.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How fast is the speed of sound in water?

Wikipedia claims these "supercavitating" torpedos have a max speed of 250-300 knots currently. So far from supersonic in water. Though in the documentary I was watching on nuclear submarines - they were very concerned about these torpedos being undetectable until it was to late. I guess if their speed starts to increase with further development - these weapons would be almost invisible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
They wouldn't even be supersonic in air, but they do around 370 km/h and are more or less impossible to intercept.

It's possible the documentary I was watching was talking about a potential supersonic weapon developed from these ideas. I don't remember exactly. Though - it certainly seems within the realm of possibility that these weapons could reach much higher speeds.

Certainly possible, but they're not there yet and they don't have very long range.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Are you actually blaming that on the Navy? Also that's 47 not 42.

Yes, i do actually. The navy remixed older powder (and I mean 1942 old) in the bags, creating a situation where one bag in six in the Iowa's magazines was sensitive to over-ram.

Scandia's final report
https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/214716.pdf

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

No, they were decommissioned much earlier. They just weren't struck from the list until later.

Apologies, you're correct on that, but the navy had to maintain them in a state of readiness after that point under the law for near immediate recommissioning, should the event arise.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I do mean WWII, and link this study if you have it.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/756950.pdf

I reccomend page 14. Compared to other forms of gunfire used, the 16" gun proved to have the highest rate of success compared to other naval gunfire observed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

This is hilariously false. I mean if they fire only into the belt amour sure. In actuality they fire into the superstructure causing ammunition fires, destoyering communications, and generally ruining eveyrones day. Just ask the Hiei what dealing with destroyers is like.

Love that you picked a WW1 battlecruiser that got uparmored in an attempt to turn it into a battleship as your example. (The steering hit was a design flaw in all the Kongo class, and in one example they filled part of the steering room with cement in order to try and correct it) And, I'll also point out that despite the best efforts of several cruisers, destroyers, and carriers, Hiei was scuttled rather than sunk.

Also, despite bomb hits and torpedo hits, Hiei was hit 85 times with 'smaller' caliber guns (most likely the bulk being Atlanta's six inch guns) and 50 times with 'larger' caliber guns.

And remained afloat and operational. It was only the continued harassment by US carrier aircraft and a full on B-17 raid on her that caused the commander to decide that withdrawal was impossible and to sink the ship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
weirdly can't seem to edit the above post.

But Hiei was hit 85 times with smaller guns, 50 times with 'larger' guns, and remained operational save the loss of steering. Continued harassment from Carrier aircraft led the CO to decide to scuttle her. Despite the best efforts of the US navy, Hiei lost about 200 men out of around 1500, which was bad, but not a crippling loss.

 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.

The issue with a Battleship type vessel is that you don't need something that big, that heavily armored, and that complex to be a missile barge. A Battleship exists to get into direct combat with other surface vessels at relatively close ranges by modern standards, almost the equivalent of melee range by modern standards really.

The armor would make one harder to kill than most modern vessels, but not in any really meaningful way. Having a big thick armor belt is great against naval gunfire that's most likely going to impact directly against that belt, not so much against missiles or aircraft bombs that will be hitting under the waterline beneath the belt or down through the deck from above or a torpedo that breaks its spine from below, especially in an age of where targeting is vastly improved. I think it'd probably be hard to sink one, but not harder to soft-kill (remove from the fight) than most anything else really. I don't think you could sufficiently armor something that big against all those threats and still have it be functional and economical to produce and operate. The Soviets made the Kirov class Battlecruisers as giant missile barges, but AFAIK they don't have armor any thicker than about 3" or so.

 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.

My view is 'yes, but'.

It's useful in several conceivable situations, but the main issue is that battleships cost a lot to operate and maintain. And, unlike a carrier, it's less useful when you're not fighting a major war than a carrier is.

It's a 'very' useful platform in say, a forced entry scenario, as it frees up aircraft and missiles for targets further inland (pesky things like airfields and C&C). New Jersey demonstrated this in Vietnam. Moreover, it can serve as an evac point for wounded while simultaneously providing heavy fire support for longer than most comparable systems.

For some idea of just what I'm talking about, here's Texas' handiwork at Normandy, now, almost 80 years later:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Yes, i do actually. The navy remixed older powder (and I mean 1942 old) in the bags, creating a situation where one bag in six in the Iowa's magazines was sensitive to over-ram.

Scandia's final report
https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/214716.pdf

That's a more reasonable explanation, the way you stated it sounded like you were saying that they did it on purpose.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/756950.pdf

I reccomend page 14. Compared to other forms of gunfire used, the 16" gun proved to have the highest rate of success compared to other naval gunfire observed.

Thak you. I won't proport to being an expert on post war combat, I'm a WWII guy. But the marines in the pacific found that smaller cruisers and destroyers could respond much faster to fire support requests, and far more accurately, and their small size allowed them to operate much closer to the action. As well as the smaller impacts of their rounds meant that they could fire much closer to friendly troops.

Love that you picked a WW1 battlecruiser that got uparmored in an attempt to turn it into a battleship as your example. (The steering hit was a design flaw in all the Kongo class, and in one example they filled part of the steering room with cement in order to try and correct it) And, I'll also point out that despite the best efforts of several cruisers, destroyers, and carriers, Hiei was scuttled rather than sunk.

Also, despite bomb hits and torpedo hits, Hiei was hit 85 times with 'smaller' caliber guns (most likely the bulk being Atlanta's six inch guns) and 50 times with 'larger' caliber guns.

And remained afloat and operational. It was only the continued harassment by US carrier aircraft and a full on B-17 raid on her that caused the commander to decide that withdrawal was impossible and to sink the ship.

In almost all instances with CV and BB loss the IJN scuttles the ships to prevent capture and search by Americans before the ship sunk on it;s own. And despite not being sunk, it was hardly operable. It was dead in the water after the hits, and the fires caused by the CL and DD hits made it unable to operate at all. The same would happen to the Iowa class.

Also in this instance the armour belt difference is meaningless, because they fired at the superstructure. The uparmoured and up-gunned Kongou class were very formidable for their time, and it's belt armour was more than enough to stop small cruiser and destroyer guns. But you can render a battleship useless without touching their belt armour. Unforturently there aren't many instances in WWII of battleships being harassed by small ships in that sort of situation. You have the British battleship and cruiser force spanking the hell out of the Bisko, Yamashiro being killed by a smattering of gun hits, but mostly taken down by torpeodes, and Kirishima being taken down by the SD. Otherwise, like battleships as a concept, they were sunk by aircraft and submarines.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

In almost all instances with CV and BB loss the IJN scuttles the ships to prevent capture and search by Americans before the ship sunk on it;s own. And despite not being sunk, it was hardly operable. It was dead in the water after the hits, and the fires caused by the CL and DD hits made it unable to operate at all.

That does not quite jive with any of the AARs I've read on the sinking of Hiei. According to the Japanese report, and the men of the USS Aaron Ward, the Hiei was still quite lively, and, despite being stripped of almost all her directors, and antennae, and her pagoda set on fire, Hiei still straddled the Ward with her main batteries before being distracted by the more pressing concern of American aircraft.

Here's a fairly accurate summery of the Night battle...

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/night-battle-the-barroom-brawl-off-guadalcanal/

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Also in this instance the armour belt difference is meaningless, because they fired at the superstructure. The uparmoured and up-gunned Kongou class were very formidable for their time, and it's belt armour was more than enough to stop small cruiser and destroyer guns. But you can render a battleship useless without touching their belt armour. Unforturently there aren't many instances in WWII of battleships being harassed by small ships in that sort of situation. You have the British battleship and cruiser force spanking the hell out of the Bisko, Yamashiro being killed by a smattering of gun hits, but mostly taken down by torpeodes, and Kirishima being taken down by the SD. Otherwise, like battleships as a concept, they were sunk by aircraft and submarines.

You left out the battle off Samar. But since it does not support your hypothesis, well..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That's a more reasonable explanation, the way you stated it sounded like you were saying that they did it on purpose.

I honestly suspect they did. Iowa's orders for test firing read like a list of what NOT to do if you are firing a 16"/50. The crew filed an official protest but were told to go ahead and do it anyway. Then the navy tried to pin the whole thing on one of the dead crewman supposedly being in secret gay love triangles and accused him of deliberately bombing the ship.. The guy who then managed to save the ship from a magazine explosion got promoted to Antarctica. Dig into it, it's really fethed up.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Would it be more of a novelty, or does a modern Iowa or Montana class battleship have a place in the navy? Wouldn't even need all the turret guns... instead replace them with missile silos or rail gunz.

Can the hull of those ships survive modern anti-ship weapons? Those hulls were thick...not fat... but really phat! IYKWIM....

Hell... they can be the sturdy 'missile batteries' for the F-35 to guide once it runs out of its own armaments.

My view is 'yes, but'.

It's useful in several conceivable situations, but the main issue is that battleships cost a lot to operate and maintain. And, unlike a carrier, it's less useful when you're not fighting a major war than a carrier is.

It's a 'very' useful platform in say, a forced entry scenario, as it frees up aircraft and missiles for targets further inland (pesky things like airfields and C&C). New Jersey demonstrated this in Vietnam. Moreover, it can serve as an evac point for wounded while simultaneously providing heavy fire support for longer than most comparable systems.

For some idea of just what I'm talking about, here's Texas' handiwork at Normandy, now, almost 80 years later:

Spoiler:

A battleship would be even less useful in a major war than in a smaller one, since in a major war against a modern military a WW-2 era battleship would be sunk before being able to launch a single shot. Really big and slow + no countermeasures = missile magnet. And furthermore, there is nothing a battleship can do that modern destroyers can't do cheaper. Battleships and even cruisers went out of fashion for good reasons. Too much cost for not enough increase in capability.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

In almost all instances with CV and BB loss the IJN scuttles the ships to prevent capture and search by Americans before the ship sunk on it;s own. And despite not being sunk, it was hardly operable. It was dead in the water after the hits, and the fires caused by the CL and DD hits made it unable to operate at all.

That does not quite jive with any of the AARs I've read on the sinking of Hiei. According to the Japanese report, and the men of the USS Aaron Ward, the Hiei was still quite lively, and, despite being stripped of almost all her directors, and antennae, and her pagoda set on fire, Hiei still straddled the Ward with her main batteries before being distracted by the more pressing concern of American aircraft.

Here's a fairly accurate summery of the Night battle...

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/night-battle-the-barroom-brawl-off-guadalcanal/

Considering Hiei took out three destroyers and a cruiser, killed two US admirals and soaked up fire from pretty much the entire US fleet before being finally crippled by aircraft I'd say that is indeed more of an example of why destroyers should not try to take on battleships unless they have a death wish. Of course, that was back in WW2 when cannons were still the main ship weapons. Nowadays a destroyer would just launch a missile from beyond the horizon powerful enough to cripple a battleship with a single hit. Modern naval warfare is all about speed and countermeasures rather than armour and big guns.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:


Since you are an expert, you are doubtless aware the A-10 was designed with several features to defeat battlefield AA defenses - which are optically or IR guided - and the F-35 lacks all of those features leaving it just as naked to attack as the A-10... but far less able to survive that fire.

The whole point is the F-35 won't be in the position to have Manpads and 35mm AAA shooting at them in the first place, not that we even put the A-10 in positions where those are even an danger to it these days. Anything more than a few guys with AKs we bring out other stuff.

On the other hand, the F-35 will be a lot better at finding and killing those air defenses that put the A-10 at serious risk. Once they're dealt with, we're back to the position where the A-10 can bring more ordinance to the fight with less risk to the airframe.

Sure, there's a reason we aren't just stopping all use of the machine. Their retirement plan is to slowly reduce usage, not just take a hacksaw to the lot. The retired birds will serve as spare parts for those still in service, further reducing costs, and eventually (I think the plan is like 2040) we will stop usage of them after slowly cutting numbers.

Besides, the Air Force loses five aircraft a year in a good year of peacetime flying. It's called operational losses. What do you want to lose more of to operational losses - $20 million updated legacy aircraft, or $200 million F-35s?

"Those planes would have crashed on their own anyway" really isn't the most compelling argument I've ever heard, I'll be honest. As far as I know we've lost one F-35 to an engine fire (pilot landed the plane, but it was decided to be too costly to fix). And that's it.

And how many combat sorties has the F-35 flown? A big fat "ZERO", if I'm not mistaken. Yet they've already managed to lose one. What's the loss rate per combat mission of the A-10? Four out of thousands?

The Israelis have started flying combat missions with the F-35. Accidents can always happen, the A-10 also suffered some losses to accidents before going into combat service. Yes the F-35 has issues, but 1 loss isn't solid proof of it being worse.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you really think they went through the process to create a ship around a weapon system if the weapon didn't work? I don't buy that.

Welcome to government procurement. They don't wait for development to finish before they start building. Which is why the plumbing on the carrier George H W Bush doesn't work properly, for example.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nowadays a destroyer would just launch a missile from beyond the horizon powerful enough to cripple a battleship with a single hit. Modern naval warfare is all about speed and countermeasures rather than armour and big guns.

No destroyer currently afloat fires a powerful enough missile to do that. And battleships are more than fast enough to keep pace with carriers, which dictate the over all fleets speed, no matter what speed a destroyer can hit.

And, I'll point out that passive old armor is an excellent counter for the increasingly faster, lighter, smaller, and less powerful anti ship missiles that look to be the current trend. You just have to find the point where missile performance is degraded enough by the need to penetrate armor that it become vulnerable to active CIWS.

However, as I said, the battleship still has it's niche, but you might note that I did not say that it's a good fleet on fleet weapon. However, for gunfire support, it knows no equal, and is quite capable of taking hits and not ceasing to be operational. Which is the major issue with every single alternative that has been put forward. LCS program ships can barely make it from port to port without breaking down, and Zumwalt is every bit as massive as an old Mississippi class battleship, but depends on stealth and firing at extreme long range.


Getting back to the F-35s, anyone know if they've fixed the gun pod not being able to hit a target yet? I know it erases it's stealth capabilities, but I'm curious if it still shoots to the right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Israelis have started flying combat missions with the F-35. Accidents can always happen, the A-10 also suffered some losses to accidents before going into combat service. Yes the F-35 has issues, but 1 loss isn't solid proof of it being worse.

How about the part where the A-10 can hit targets with it's gun, and the F-35 can't?

True enough.

There's an easy, though expensive, way to solve this. Drone-rig an F-35 and an A-10 and fly them in CAS missions against life-fire battlefield antiaircraft defenses. See which one can survive the mission, deliver sufficient ordinance sufficiently quickly with sufficient accuracy, and determine how long necessary repairs (if any) will delay subsequent sorties.

 Vulcan wrote:
True enough.

There's an easy, though expensive, way to solve this. Drone-rig an F-35 and an A-10 and fly them in CAS missions against life-fire battlefield antiaircraft defenses. See which one can survive the mission, deliver sufficient ordinance sufficiently quickly with sufficient accuracy, and determine how long necessary repairs (if any) will delay subsequent sorties.

Well, that last one the A-10 would win hands down. She can be repaired in the field, generally. The F-35 has to be sent back to Lockheed if it suffers any significant damage.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you really think they went through the process to create a ship around a weapon system if the weapon didn't work? I don't buy that.

Welcome to government procurement. They don't wait for development to finish before they start building. Which is why the plumbing on the carrier George H W Bush doesn't work properly, for example.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nowadays a destroyer would just launch a missile from beyond the horizon powerful enough to cripple a battleship with a single hit. Modern naval warfare is all about speed and countermeasures rather than armour and big guns.

No destroyer currently afloat fires a powerful enough missile to do that. And battleships are more than fast enough to keep pace with carriers, which dictate the over all fleets speed, no matter what speed a destroyer can hit.

And, I'll point out that passive old armor is an excellent counter for the increasingly faster, lighter, smaller, and less powerful anti ship missiles that look to be the current trend. You just have to find the point where missile performance is degraded enough by the need to penetrate armor that it become vulnerable to active CIWS.

However, as I said, the battleship still has it's niche, but you might note that I did not say that it's a good fleet on fleet weapon. However, for gunfire support, it knows no equal, and is quite capable of taking hits and not ceasing to be operational. Which is the major issue with every single alternative that has been put forward. LCS program ships can barely make it from port to port without breaking down, and Zumwalt is every bit as massive as an old Mississippi class battleship, but depends on stealth and firing at extreme long range.


Getting back to the F-35s, anyone know if they've fixed the gun pod not being able to hit a target yet? I know it erases it's stealth capabilities, but I'm curious if it still shoots to the right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Israelis have started flying combat missions with the F-35. Accidents can always happen, the A-10 also suffered some losses to accidents before going into combat service. Yes the F-35 has issues, but 1 loss isn't solid proof of it being worse.

How about the part where the A-10 can hit targets with it's gun, and the F-35 can't?

Our new LRASM has more then double the explosive power of the Harpoon, so I'd say at least in US regards, we're focussing on more punch with our missiles, instead of less.

 djones520 wrote:

Our new LRASM has more then double the explosive power of the Harpoon, so I'd say at least in US regards, we're focussing on more punch with our missiles, instead of less.

The same one that is already getting ditched in favor of the again much lighter Joint Strike Missile? Or has already been ditched in favor of the NSM, which only has a 150kg ish warhead (IIRC)? That one?