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:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How much GDP adjusted for PPP does NK spend though?

It depends on who you ask, but it varies from 5-40 billion a year in military expenditures. Like many things about NK there's no straight answer. Even the 25% number is a guess. Some sources claim as high as 40%.

Spetulhu wrote:

The real problem in a NK campaign would be to find worthwhile targets. Kim has lots of rusty Soviet gear and lots of men, but very little worth spending an expensive bomb on.

Yeah, they'll all be home by Christmas.

In 5 pages this thread has gone from.
1. Original topic
2. Bring back the Iowa and Missouri.
3. Mission Accomplished.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How much GDP adjusted for PPP does NK spend though?

It depends on who you ask, but it varies from 5-40 billion a year in military expenditures. Like many things about NK there's no straight answer. Even the 25% number is a guess. Some sources claim as high as 40%.

Spetulhu wrote:

The real problem in a NK campaign would be to find worthwhile targets. Kim has lots of rusty Soviet gear and lots of men, but very little worth spending an expensive bomb on.

Yeah, they'll all be home by Christmas.

In 5 pages this thread has gone from.
1. Original topic
2. Bring back the Iowa and Missouri.
3. Mission Accomplished.

A new BB would do, too.

That siad, the fact is that the F-35 has issues that make it unfit for service, and they have not really gone away.

 whembly wrote:
Is it wrong to think that 250m each seems like a cost effective way to modernize these ships? o.O

With research/development/longterm support, isn't each of the new carriers something like 3 billion per ship?

EDIT: Mods, should we consider changing the title of the thread to include "all things" military? This is a fun thread...

No, the most recent Nimitzes were around $3 billion per.

The Ford was $13 billion... and I don't see how one Ford is better than FOUR Nimitzes, or an entire fully loaded Nimitz task force.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A reasonable amount of time being one where they don't have time to fix it again before the troops arrive.

There's no "fixing it" when a B-52 squadron reduces the entire area to rubble. Structures take time to rebuild, fuel and weapon stockpiles take time to manufacture, etc.

We know frankly bupkis about current NK weapons systems in this field, since we haven't had a defector to question who'd have knowledge since the 1990's. It is known that modern AA systems have been found on occasion being smuggled in. How many they have, no one knows. Do they have any home grown variants based on Russian or Chinese tech? No one knows that either. What we do know, is that they have almost as many AA gunner and SAM launcher personnel as the US Marines have men entirely, and lots of surplus Russian MANPADs.

The kind of serious AA defenses that can threaten a US attack are not easy to hide. MANPADs and guns are worthless, you need heavy SAMs that require significant infrastructure and advanced technology. And I seriously doubt anyone is selling them to North Korea. Russia and China may find North Korea a useful pawn in political games against the US, but nobody wants North Korea to have a relevant military and start getting ideas about being more than a pawn.

The US will run out of missiles long before the North Koreans run out of men and defensive positions. So every missile that isn't wasted is a victory. If other weapon systems can take over from bombs and missiles, then it's best they do. Further, close support with anything besides aircraft will come under rather intense bombardment due to the sheer number of artillery pieces they have trained on their boarders. So whatever you bring into play is going to need to withstand hits and remain operational. Which neither LCS nor the Burkes are going to pull off.

Missiles are cheap. Ships are not cheap. And North Korea's artillery will either be disabled as soon as the war begins or the US loses the war. If their artillery is intact long enough to matter Seoul no longer exists and it's hard to imagine any possible victory being worth that cost.

And, again, you're ignoring the threat of disabling a battleship without killing it. A missile platform can make over-the-horizon attacks from far beyond the range of that massive horde of artillery, a battleship has to come within range. And even if the shells don't reliably penetrate its belt armor they can still tear apart all the external stuff. What good is a battleship with its fire control radar blown off, its communications limited to portable radios, its damage control teams dealing with flooding in areas outside the main armor, etc? The ship itself might survive and protect most of its crew, but if it has to go back to port for months of repairs it might as well be destroyed. This isn't WWII, a war isn't going to last long enough to repair ships that are disabled and forced to retreat.

Thank you, Peregrine for showing that you know absolutely NOTHING about this subject matter. You do realize that the 'WW2 Systems' that would need replacing already have been, right? The Iowa's haven't been just sitting mothballed since the Second World War, they got overhauled in the 1960's, 1980's, and 1990's.

Whatever. 1990s technology might as well be 1950s at this point, if it's even still intact enough to use. It's utter lunacy to suggest that the biggest difficulty and expense is going to be putting "men" and "women" signs on the bathrooms.

Heard on radio that Trump just signed a Defense budget...

Of which, we're getting 77 new F-34 (no idea which variant).

13 new battleships (wut? heavy breathing intensifies)

Additional (4th?) Ford super carrier.

More attack submarines.

Oodles of equipment for Army.

 whembly wrote:


13 new battleships (wut? heavy breathing intensifies)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they probably meant warships rather than battleships, since outside of specialist defence correspondents hardly anyone in the media seems to understand the difference.

 simonr1978 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


13 new battleships (wut? heavy breathing intensifies)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they probably meant warships rather than battleships, since outside of specialist defence correspondents hardly anyone in the media seems to understand the difference.

Looks like you're right.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/401624-trump-signs-717b-annual-defense-policy-bill-into-law

...for Navy ships, authorizing a total of 13 new vessels.

 Vulcan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Is it wrong to think that 250m each seems like a cost effective way to modernize these ships? o.O

With research/development/longterm support, isn't each of the new carriers something like 3 billion per ship?

EDIT: Mods, should we consider changing the title of the thread to include "all things" military? This is a fun thread...

No, the most recent Nimitzes were around $3 billion per.

The Ford was $13 billion... and I don't see how one Ford is better than FOUR Nimitzes, or an entire fully loaded Nimitz task force.

Most of it was just tech upgrades and automation, so the Ford can operate with a much smaller crew (almost 2K less crew complement and the ability to operate on on a much smaller one). Plus all the later upgrades to the Nimitzs which added cost onto the $4.5B inital construction cost of the Nimitz. Now is that worth it who knows. But if we're wasting money on the military I'd rather waste it on the Navy.

To weigh in on the battleship scenario:-

1. Battleships still have a use in that they're honking great artillery platforms capable of lobbing honking big shells. Artillery is useful, and I don't think anyone would deny that.

2. Battleships are more cost effective than missiles and more easily able to deliver a sustained barrage than aircraft can. There's a reason the WW2 ships kept getting reactivated.

3. Battleships are bloody expensive to run in terms of crew costs. It should be recognised however, that this is in reference to a WW2 chassis. Modern automation and ship design could reduce manning costs considerably in a new design.

4. Battleships are no more vulnerable than a carrier to getting hit by enemy aircraft or missiles or torpedoes and considerably more durable.

I consequently think a class of two pocket battleships to a completely modern design would be of use to the US Navy. I think they'd be expensive, but given the number of carriers currently deployed by the American Navy and their funding levels? A pair of battleships deployed as part of a fleet would not be particularly excessive or vulnerable; at least, no more so than any other ship in the American arsenal.

If given the choice between carrier or battleship, the carrier has infinitely more utility. But when you're throwing around cash for a dozen supercarriers, the wasp class and more, you could easily divert a small portion of the budget into a pair of pocket battleships instead and end up with an enhanced rather than compromised operational capability.

Carriers are less vulnerable by virtue of having longer threat range though, no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Carriers are less vulnerable by virtue of having longer threat range though, no?

If your goal is to sit several dozen miles away from the target, then the battleship will be no more vulnerable than the carrier is (both being part of a fleet deployment). The battleship won't be able to hit things as far away as the carrier can, but you know? Apples and oranges. Aircraft do long distance bombardment than guns, missiles do longer distance bombardment than aircraft. You wouldn't say that aircraft are made obsolete by missiles, and aircraft don't make guns obsolete. It's a question of mission type and field of engagement.

Better to have a two pocket battleships and ten supercarriers, than a dozen supercarriers and no battleship (or equivalent). It gives you flexibility rather than only leaving you with the 'several dozen miles away super expensive less effective bombardment' strategy. Which is a great strategy, but not always what's wanted (as evidenced by the continual reactivation of the WW2 ships).

There are two sides to vulnerability.

One is the ability to push the enemy far enough away that he actually can't attack you. This is where a carrier full of planes has an advantage over a battleship.

The other is the ability to resist an attack once it actually reaches you, by deflecting, destroying or resisting the incoming shots (missiles, bombs, shell, torpedoes.) This is where a battleship, with much bigger defensive short range armament, heavy armour, and better sub-division of the internal space, has an advantage over a carrier.

Of course in reality, neither a carrier nor a battleship is supposed to wander around by itself, hoping to avoid trouble. In reality they are always central elements of a battle group with destroyers, frigate and nuclear submarines to provide additional protection of the central asset.

I find Ketara's argument about a small class of essentially bombardment battleships quite interesting. The heaviest tube artillery in common use is 203mm (8-inch). You can see that a 16-inch gun will have dramatically greater range and hitting power. A modern pocket battleship with two twin-16-inch turrets, could be a very useful unit to support beach assaults.

The Zumwalt class was essentially an attempt to make a battleship/cruiser ship with the range to match the carriers. Which would have been great if it could be pulled off at a reasonable cost; you'd have had the option of sticking one of them in with a carrier fleet and engaging with multiple weapons at extreme range.

The result has been a ship that almost displaces as much as the original HMS Dreadnought, costs more than the spanking new HMS Queen Elizabeth to build, the rounds cost a million apiece (the same as many missiles), etcetc. Essentially, they've built a long range gun platform without the durability or cost effectiveness of a battleship.

Was it worth it? Well....maybe? Hard to tell. But given the immense experimental costs involved, I'm not sure it was the best procurement decision to have taken. Given they've since cancelled buying any rounds for the Zumwalt class due to the cost, it would seem to have been a backward step.

 Ketara wrote:
The Zumwalt class was essentially an attempt to make a battleship/cruiser ship with the range to match the carriers. Which would have been great if it could be pulled off at a reasonable cost; you'd have had the option of sticking one of them in with a carrier fleet and engaging with multiple weapons at extreme range.

The result has been a ship that almost displaces as much as the original HMS Dreadnought, costs more than the spanking new HMS Queen Elizabeth to build, the rounds cost a million apiece (the same as many missiles), etcetc. Essentially, they've built a long range gun platform without the durability or cost effectiveness of a battleship.

Was it worth it? Well....maybe? Hard to tell. But given the immense experimental costs involved, I'm not sure it was the best procurement decision to have taken. Given they've since cancelled buying any rounds for the Zumwalt class due to the cost, it would seem to have been a backward step.

To be honest I'm surprised that no one seems to go back to HARP and the 180km shot by a double length 16" gun. The US and Canadian militaries developed extreme long range artillery in the 1960's for tiny fractions of what modern missiles cost.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are two sides to vulnerability.

One is the ability to push the enemy far enough away that he actually can't attack you. This is where a carrier full of planes has an advantage over a battleship.

The other is the ability to resist an attack once it actually reaches you, by deflecting, destroying or resisting the incoming shots (missiles, bombs, shell, torpedoes.) This is where a battleship, with much bigger defensive short range armament, heavy armour, and better sub-division of the internal space, has an advantage over a carrier.

Of course in reality, neither a carrier nor a battleship is supposed to wander around by itself, hoping to avoid trouble. In reality they are always central elements of a battle group with destroyers, frigate and nuclear submarines to provide additional protection of the central asset.

I find Ketara's argument about a small class of essentially bombardment battleships quite interesting. The heaviest tube artillery in common use is 203mm (8-inch). You can see that a 16-inch gun will have dramatically greater range and hitting power. A modern pocket battleship with two twin-16-inch turrets, could be a very useful unit to support beach assaults.

Better yet, using modern knowledge about muzzle brakes to reduce recoil, you could mount those guns on a considerably smaller ship than you'd require without muzzle brakes... and reduce self-inflicted shock damage to it's electronics as well.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
The Zumwalt class was essentially an attempt to make a battleship/cruiser ship with the range to match the carriers. Which would have been great if it could be pulled off at a reasonable cost; you'd have had the option of sticking one of them in with a carrier fleet and engaging with multiple weapons at extreme range.

The result has been a ship that almost displaces as much as the original HMS Dreadnought, costs more than the spanking new HMS Queen Elizabeth to build, the rounds cost a million apiece (the same as many missiles), etcetc. Essentially, they've built a long range gun platform without the durability or cost effectiveness of a battleship.

Was it worth it? Well....maybe? Hard to tell. But given the immense experimental costs involved, I'm not sure it was the best procurement decision to have taken. Given they've since cancelled buying any rounds for the Zumwalt class due to the cost, it would seem to have been a backward step.

To be honest I'm surprised that no one seems to go back to HARP and the 180km shot by a double length 16" gun. The US and Canadian militaries developed extreme long range artillery in the 1960's for tiny fractions of what modern missiles cost.

Emphasis being here: "in the 1960's". You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea. The shells ended up costing more than modern missiles (although the Harpoon is actually far from modern anymore to be honest). Another important fact is that those HARP munitions were never meant as weapons. When firing real munitions, those same 16" guns had a range of 'only' 40km.

Big guns simply are no match for missiles when it comes to long-range artillery. Missiles win out on every field. If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.

 Ketara wrote:
To weigh in on the battleship scenario:-

1. Battleships still have a use in that they're honking great artillery platforms capable of lobbing honking big shells. Artillery is useful, and I don't think anyone would deny that.

Artillery is useful, and a great thing about it is that you can mount it on a platform that is far more cost-effective than a battleship.

 Ketara wrote:
2. Battleships are more cost effective than missiles and more easily able to deliver a sustained barrage than aircraft can. There's a reason the WW2 ships kept getting reactivated.

A battleship armed with guns is not more cost-effective than using cruise missiles. If you want to have your guns with similar range to a missile, you run into the problems the Zumwalt ran into. Firing a gun with such long range is just as, if not more expensive than using a cruise missile. With the missile of course having the benefits of versatility (different warheads) and more destructive power. And that is before going into the massive design, build, operating and maintenance costs of a battleships. And if you have a gun with range that is much less than that of a missile, your battleship will be blown to bits by coastal defenses before it can fire a single shot. You would need to send in aircraft or longer-ranged ships to take out anti-ship defenses first, which also massively increases the costs of deploying the battleship and also calls into question the usefulness of the battleship in the first place. The goal of artillery is to suppress enemy positions or destroy key targets. And if your battleship can't do that as well as your aircraft and other ships, while it is still more expensive, why use it?

 Ketara wrote:
3. Battleships are bloody expensive to run in terms of crew costs. It should be recognised however, that this is in reference to a WW2 chassis. Modern automation and ship design could reduce manning costs considerably in a new design.

Which is equally true for cruisers, destroyers and frigates, so nothing really changes. Battleships would still be bloody expensive to run compared to other ships, and the design, build and maintenance costs of a battleship would also be far higher. And what does a battleship offer in return for that over a cruiser or even a destroyer? If you really want big guns, why not mount them on a cruiser?

 Ketara wrote:
4. Battleships are no more vulnerable than a carrier to getting hit by enemy aircraft or missiles or torpedoes and considerably more durable.

A carrier stays far away from the action to reduce the chance of getting hit, and has an entire fleet surrounding it that is dedicated to ensuring the carrier does not get hit, not to mention it fields a contingent of aircraft to protect itself. A battleship needs to get really close (especially if it is armed with guns), and will not have a fleet or a small air force dedicated to protecting it, meaning it has only a fraction of the defenses that a carrier has. If you do send a fleet along to protect the battleship, the costs of deploying the battleship rise so astronomically that it is simply not worth it for a simple artillery platform. Carriers are worth their massive deployment costs because they offer amazing utility and strike power. Battleships offer no utility beyond their very niche role as large gun artillery barges.
Furthermore, a battleship is more durable, but modern anti-ship weapons are incredibly destructive. A ship can't afford to tank hits anymore, which is why all modern ship defense systems focus on avoiding getting hit, rather than tanking the hits. A battleship would be able to sustain some hits, but if a missile hits the superstructure in the wrong spot, it is just as much out of action as a frigate would be. And when my ship can get taken out in a single hit, I'd rather have it be a frigate than a massively expensive battleship.

 Ketara wrote:
I consequently think a class of two pocket battleships to a completely modern design would be of use to the US Navy. I think they'd be expensive, but given the number of carriers currently deployed by the American Navy and their funding levels? A pair of battleships deployed as part of a fleet would not be particularly excessive or vulnerable; at least, no more so than any other ship in the American arsenal.

If given the choice between carrier or battleship, the carrier has infinitely more utility. But when you're throwing around cash for a dozen supercarriers, the wasp class and more, you could easily divert a small portion of the budget into a pair of pocket battleships instead and end up with an enhanced rather than compromised operational capability.

Yeah, a carrier indeed has infinitely more utility. Ergo the US Navy is better off just using it funds to build even more carriers. It was carriers, not battleships that won the naval conflicts of WW2, and it was carriers that allowed the US to establish its world hegemony. Now, and in the future, that won't change. The battleship is a relic of a time before aircraft and missiles. It is best left to museums.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Emphasis being here: "in the 1960's". You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea. The shells ended up costing more than modern missiles (although the Harpoon is actually far from modern anymore to be honest). Another important fact is that those HARP munitions were never meant as weapons. When firing real munitions, those same 16" guns had a range of 'only' 40km.

Big guns simply are no match for missiles when it comes to long-range artillery. Missiles win out on every field. If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.

So tell me, when did the Russian Army trade in all it's tube artillery for missiles?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea.

The same idea, yes, but a totally different technology.

In the 1980's the Navy developed a longer range HC round based on the Mark 8 AP that reached 46km when test fired from existing 16"/50 guns.

Also i nthe 1980's, the Navy created the HE-ER Mark 148 projectile which was a 11"submunition with sabot that extended the range to 64km(ish) but they never went into production.

As far as HARP goes, Bull's 16" guns at Yuma and Barbados were tested using a 338 kg 'real' munition that achieved 76km, under the auspices of Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station. The cost of it was about 20k dollars, adjusted for inflation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.

Sounds like you're making excuses for the Kirov 'super heavy battlecruiser' (Because the Navy fears to use the word 'battleship')

Still mad they reactivated the Iowa's to deal with that?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Emphasis being here: "in the 1960's". You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea. The shells ended up costing more than modern missiles (although the Harpoon is actually far from modern anymore to be honest). Another important fact is that those HARP munitions were never meant as weapons. When firing real munitions, those same 16" guns had a range of 'only' 40km.

Big guns simply are no match for missiles when it comes to long-range artillery. Missiles win out on every field. If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.

So tell me, when did the Russian Army trade in all it's tube artillery for missiles?

Long-range artillery The Russian (or US) Army's howitzers and other tube artillery are short-range artillery, for which guns are more cost-effective than missiles considering the relatively tiny cost of a howitzer or mortar. Good luck putting a howitzer on a ship. There is quite a lot of difference between the short-ranged artillery of an army and the long-ranged artillery of a navy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You know those guns on the Zumwalt? That was a modern, weaponised implementation of the same idea.

The same idea, yes, but a totally different technology.

In the 1980's the Navy developed a longer range HC round based on the Mark 8 AP that reached 46km when test fired from existing 16"/50 guns.

Also i nthe 1980's, the Navy created the HE-ER Mark 148 projectile which was a 11"submunition with sabot that extended the range to 64km(ish) but they never went into production.

As far as HARP goes, Bull's 16" guns at Yuma and Barbados were tested using a 338 kg 'real' munition that achieved 76km, under the auspices of Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station. The cost of it was about 20k dollars, adjusted for inflation.

Even if that is true, than that is still nowhere near the range provided by missiles, and a a 338 kg munition is nowhere near the weight of actually used munitions, even in smaller guns, who usually weigh somewhere between 800-1000 kg.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If someone were insane enough to build a modern battleship, it would likely be armed with missiles as primary weapons rather than guns, if only to prevent it from being outranged (and therefore outmatched) by virtually every other warship, submarine and coastal defense battery in existence.

Sounds like you're making excuses for the Kirov 'super heavy battlecruiser' (Because the Navy fears to use the word 'battleship')

Still mad they reactivated the Iowa's to deal with that?

I am making no excuses for the Kirov. They are wasteful ships, much bigger and much more expensive than it needs to be. Putting so many missiles on a single ship is total overkill, not to mention it is putting all your eggs in a single basket. A basket with a massive crosshair painted on it that is.
Nor am I mad that the Iowa's were re-activated because the US was afraid of the Kirov. Not mad at all, given that the Iowa would have been completely useless in facing a Kirov. Making the US waste a lot of money on keeping ancient battleships in service actually is probably the biggest contribution any Soviet ship has made since the end of WW2. Re-activating the Iowa was nothing but empty political symbolism from the side of the US.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Even if that is true, than that is still nowhere near the range provided by missiles, and a a 338 kg munition is nowhere near the weight of actually used munitions, even in smaller guns, who usually weigh somewhere between 800-1000 kg.

A 12" gun fired a shell about 390kg. An 8" gun fired a shell comming in around 150kg. So this would be a 16" sabot round, with the sub munition somewhere in the 11-10 inch ballpark. Which makes sense. The actual munition is smaller than the sabot.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Nor am I mad that the Iowa's were re-activated because the US was afraid of the Kirov. Not mad at all, given that the Iowa would have been completely useless in facing a Kirov. Making the US waste a lot of money on keeping ancient battleships in service actually is probably the biggest contribution any Soviet ship has made since the end of WW2. Re-activating the Iowa was nothing but empty political symbolism from the side of the US.

I would think that the Project 205 class being the single most built, and lost, surface combatant since WW2 would hold that honor. I mean, if you want to see how missile ships can fail utterly, observe the battle of Baltim. By your logic, the much longer range Termit should have annihilated the Israeli fleet. I mean, hell, The Gabriel missile's range was only 20km compared to Termit's 40km.

Instead, what happened was that the Russian missiles failed to hit, due to chaff rockets, and the Osa's were forced to withdraw, due to being out of missiles, and the Israelis closed and and maintained an effective combination of 76mm guns and missiles, which led to only one Egyptian ship making it back to Alexandria.

This loss prompted the addition to Russia's Project 1241 corvettes of 76mm guns.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Even if that is true, than that is still nowhere near the range provided by missiles, and a a 338 kg munition is nowhere near the weight of actually used munitions, even in smaller guns, who usually weigh somewhere between 800-1000 kg.

A 12" gun fired a shell about 390kg. An 8" gun fired a shell comming in around 150kg. So this would be a 16" sabot round, with the sub munition somewhere in the 11-10 inch ballpark. Which makes sense. The actual munition is smaller than the sabot.

A 16" shell for the Iowa weighed anywhere from 1228 to 680 kg, depending on the exact shell and source.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Nor am I mad that the Iowa's were re-activated because the US was afraid of the Kirov. Not mad at all, given that the Iowa would have been completely useless in facing a Kirov. Making the US waste a lot of money on keeping ancient battleships in service actually is probably the biggest contribution any Soviet ship has made since the end of WW2. Re-activating the Iowa was nothing but empty political symbolism from the side of the US.

I would think that the Project 205 class being the single most built, and lost, surface combatant since WW2 would hold that honor. I mean, if you want to see how missile ships can fail utterly, observe the battle of Baltim. By your logic, the much longer range Termit should have annihilated the Israeli fleet. I mean, hell, The Gabriel missile's range was only 20km compared to Termit's 40km.

Instead, what happened was that the Russian missiles failed to hit, due to chaff rockets, and the Osa's were forced to withdraw, due to being out of missiles, and the Israelis closed and and maintained an effective combination of 76mm guns and missiles, which led to only one Egyptian ship making it back to Alexandria.

This loss prompted the addition to Russia's Project 1241 corvettes of 76mm guns.

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles. The Israeli ships had much better countermeasures than the Egyptian ships (which had none), and therefore they won (also because they outnumbered the Egyptians quite a bit). Had both sides not had countermeasures the Egyptians might have won because of their range. The Isreali guns accomplished little, the Egyptians ships were sunk by missiles. Not to mention they could only use their guns because they were faster and the Egyptian missile boats had run out of missiles (and even then they only did it because they themselves had run out of missiles). This is only possible because both sides only employed small missile boats, which are very fast and can carry only 2-4 missiles.
The addition of the gun to the Project 1241 has little to do with this incident. Rather, they were added because of another incident that highlighted the need for additional air defense, which is the role those guns usually serve.
In other words, just because at some point some small boats fired at each other using their small guns, doesn't mean that big ships need big guns. In a modern naval combat environment, guns are generally only useful as defense against aircraft, missiles, and small boats. Therefore, almost every ship carries several guns. However, these are small guns very much unlike the massive calibers you would find aboard a traditional battleship or cruiser, which serve no real purpose in a modern naval combat environment outside of the very rare scenario where a ship can approach the coast for a naval bombardment.
Additionally, the Osa missile boats and their missiles were plenty effective in many other wars.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles.

Yes, now why do you think a modern battleship - or even a refitted old one - would NOT include a hefty helping of modern countermeasures?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles.

Yes, now why do you think a modern battleship - or even a refitted old one - would NOT include a hefty helping of modern countermeasures?

They would. But countermeasures do not make a ship immune to missiles, they just increase the survivability. Modern missiles themselves have countermeasures against countermeasures, and capital ship killers generally carry enough missiles to overwhelm even the best countermeasure systems. In which case it is better you lose a destroyer or even a cruiser rather than a battleship, especially considering a battleship isn't going to be any more useful that destroyer. Certainly, a modern battleship could carry even more missiles, but at that point it is overkill. You don't need that many missiles on a single platform, and you are putting a lot of expensive eggs in a single expensive basket. That is why it is better to use those funds to build 4 destroyers or 2 cruisers instead of a battleship. They carry enough missiles (or other systems, depending on their role) to get the job done. can be in more places at the same time, and are more difficult for an enemy to neutralise (taking down 4 ships is a lot more difficult than taking out one, even if that one ship is bigger).

 Iron_Captain wrote:

A 16" shell for the Iowa weighed anywhere from 1228 to 680 kg, depending on the exact shell and source.

Well, as they say on the Internet, pics or it didn't... oh,wait, here's a pic!



From left to right: Front Rider, supporting sabot, 280 mm (11") projectile and obturator.

Cap, did you learn NOTHING from the Russian tank discussion with me?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles. The Israeli ships had much better countermeasures than the Egyptian ships (which had none),

What's that there, sitting on the deck of that Osa? A 30mm Ak-230 close in weapon, able to shoot down missiles? Let me ask, cap, what politburo says it's not there? My lying eyes must be deceiving me.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Isreali guns accomplished little, the Egyptians ships were sunk by missiles.

Might want to check your AARs there cap, after action reports say that the guns did quite a bit.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Additionally, the Osa missile boats and their missiles were plenty effective in many other wars.

Specifically the India Pakastan war, where they proved expertly able to hit ships at anchor in harbors. Not always the correct ships, but ships all the same.

War in the middle east in particular seemed somewhat hard on them. They lost HOW many in the Iran/Iraq war? The Israelis sunk them in wars with both Egypt AND Syria without taking appreciable losses?

Because those were pretty much it for them fighting in actual wars.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles.

Yes, now why do you think a modern battleship - or even a refitted old one - would NOT include a hefty helping of modern countermeasures?

He already knows they do, and did in the Gulf War. The Silkworms fired at Mo ran into issues with Chaff too.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The Silkworms fired at Mo ran into issues with Chaff too.

Which is a comforting thought if you ever have to go up against 1960s anti-ship missiles. Unfortunately it's 2018 now, and countries still dependent on such obsolete weapons are little more than bombing ranges to train our pilots on.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

A 16" shell for the Iowa weighed anywhere from 1228 to 680 kg, depending on the exact shell and source.

Well, as they say on the Internet, pics or it didn't... oh,wait, here's a pic!



From left to right: Front Rider, supporting sabot, 280 mm (11") projectile and obturator.

Cap, did you learn NOTHING from the Russian tank discussion with me?

What Russian tank discussion? The one where I showed you pictures of random tank monuments and you knew where they were? We've had lots of discussions, so I don't remember everything. But that one was fun.
Anyways, I don't see any weight in that picture, or any other context for that matter. If that is a 16'' shell, it has got to be the smallest I have ever seen (that, or the writing on it is huge).
For comparison, these are the 16" shells that the Iowa used to fire:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The missiles failed due to countermeasures, which is the way to defeat missiles. The Israeli ships had much better countermeasures than the Egyptian ships (which had none),

What's that there, sitting on the deck of that Osa? A 30mm Ak-230 close in weapon, able to shoot down missiles? Let me ask, cap, what politburo says it's not there? My lying eyes must be deceiving me.

Can an AK-230 shoot down a missile? Probably, in perfect conditions during a controlled test. But it is not an anti-missile weapon. Its rate of fire is too low and its tracking systems not efficient enough. It is an anti-aircraft gun. The Osa never had an effective anti-missile system installed such as the AK-630, and its vulnerability to ECM (with which its missiles couldn't really deal) and gunboats (once its missiles were gone) were known weaknesses. It was still a very good design that performed admirably in most conflicts it was used in, but those were some glaring shortcomings that were resolved in the project 1241.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Isreali guns accomplished little, the Egyptians ships were sunk by missiles.

Might want to check your AARs there cap, after action reports say that the guns did quite a bit.

Define "quite a bit".

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Additionally, the Osa missile boats and their missiles were plenty effective in many other wars.

Specifically the India Pakastan war, where they proved expertly able to hit ships at anchor in harbors. Not always the correct ships, but ships all the same.

War in the middle east in particular seemed somewhat hard on them. They lost HOW many in the Iran/Iraq war? The Israelis sunk them in wars with both Egypt AND Syria without taking appreciable losses?

Because those were pretty much it for them fighting in actual wars.

Well, wars against Israel are unfair, since there you have one of the world's most highly trained and experienced navies going up against a bunch of untrained yokels who barely know what a boat is. Ok, that is a bit harsh maybe, but the Egyptian or Syrian navies are just really badly trained and led compared to Israel's. Same goes for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, but at least there they faced an equally incompetent opponent. The Iraqis lost 5 missile boats in 8 years of war. With the action the boats saw, that is somewhat impressive.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Anyways, I don't see any weight in that picture, or any other context for that matter. If that is a 16'' shell, it has got to be the smallest I have ever seen (that, or the writing on it is huge).

Cap, you do understand how a sabot round works, right? A smaller shell is placed in a bigger sabot, that discards as the shell exits the barrel. In this case, the sub caliber flight projectile is an 11" round with a sabot to be fired from a 16" gun. Thus the lower weight. it was a 'real' muinition that was developed, but it never saw use outside testing, due to New Jersey being withdrawn from service again (over the protests of the Marines and Airforce) so the project got dropped.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Anyways, I don't see any weight in that picture, or any other context for that matter. If that is a 16'' shell, it has got to be the smallest I have ever seen (that, or the writing on it is huge).

Cap, you do understand how a sabot round works, right? A smaller shell is placed in a bigger sabot, that discards as the shell exits the barrel. In this case, the sub caliber flight projectile is an 11" round with a sabot to be fired from a 16" gun. Thus the lower weight. it was a 'real' muinition that was developed, but it never saw use outside testing, due to New Jersey being withdrawn from service again (over the protests of the Marines and Airforce) so the project got dropped.

I know, but even with the sabot it looks waaay too small to be able to physically fit into a 16" barrel. Again, the picture does not show any scale, so maybe the writing on the shell is just really big and the items pictured are in fact bigger than they appear. But even though with a sabot you could have a battleship fire lighter projectiles, it'd be quite useless. Again, a battleship is artillery. Sabot shells are great for armour piercing (which a modern battleship does not need, since the chance it will ever face an opposing battleship in gun range is effectively zero), but not so great for artillery support. You don't want sabot shells on your battleship. I mean, you can use HE sabot shells for artillery support, but it just isn't going to have the same kind of impact as a 16" shell. At which point again, you might as well be using a cruiser or destroyer with smaller guns anyway.
Also, according to my sources, the Mk 148 sabot shell was 13", not 11".

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You don't want sabot shells on your battleship. I mean, you can use HE sabot shells for artillery support, but it just isn't going to have the same kind of impact as a 16" shell. At which point again, you might as well be using a cruiser or destroyer with smaller guns anyway.
Also, according to my sources, the Mk 148 sabot shell was 13", not 11".

Incorrect, because that 8 inch cruiser gun is not going to go as far. One of the things about a sabot round is that it increases muzzle velocity. A 300kg 11" HE shell typically didn't get beyond 35km (based on the German 28 cm/52 (11") SK C/28). As a sabot round from a 16" gun it seems to approach twice that.


The picture above is not the MK 148 but rather the round developed by Indian Head in the 1960's that was tested with HARPs 16" guns at Barbados and Yuma. The MK 148 also used a different type of sabot.