Return of the battleship.

[Feanor]

The best anti-piracy weapon so far is a helo-response, from what I have read. They're the ones that typically make it to the scene of the attack first.

 

[PO2GRV]

BTW this needn't be a gun platform. One thing that has always mystified me wass the fact that the navy doesnt have some type of navalized version of many of the armies MLRS missiles.

New versions of ATACMS have great accuracy and can hit a target at almost 200 miles.
.

While I won't comment on the efficacy of a platform the likes of the Missouri class BB's (which, arguably, may have been outdated the day they were commissioned) I am awfully intrigued by the idea of a Naval adaptation of a MLRS system as a low cost and high volume alternative for long ranged, accurate surface-to-surface strikes

without derailing this particular thread, perhaps we can discuss the potential applications of such a system in another post. Anyone else interested?

 

[Belesari]

While I won't comment on the efficacy of a platform the likes of the Missouri class BB's (which, arguably, may have been outdated the day they were commissioned) I am awfully intrigued by the idea of a Naval adaptation of a MLRS system as a low cost and high volume alternative for long ranged, accurate surface-to-surface strikes

without derailing this particular thread, perhaps we can discuss the potential applications of such a system in another post. Anyone else interested?

/raises hand

 

[Feanor]

While I won't comment on the efficacy of a platform the likes of the Missouri class BB's (which, arguably, may have been outdated the day they were commissioned) I am awfully intrigued by the idea of a Naval adaptation of a MLRS system as a low cost and high volume alternative for long ranged, accurate surface-to-surface strikes

without derailing this particular thread, perhaps we can discuss the potential applications of such a system in another post. Anyone else interested?

Feel free to start a separate thread on the subject.

 

[Wooki]

@ Theil

re"...
Why in the world would you use a BB to fight pirates armed with AK 47s and RPG 7s?
..."

I would suspect our friend is making an intuitive observation that Battleships (like the Iowa class) had persistence. Which is true, they did and provided some measure of logistical support to ships around them in the form of bunkering and light machine work.

I think in reality that (for the USN) the concept or need for everything that a battleship provided apart from gunnery, has never really gone away. Things like sea basing, presence and so on.

Congress as a whole seem to get this on that same intuitive level and so were therefore resistant to getting rid of them altogether.

With the changing threats we experience today e.g. USS Cole-type-attacks and so, you can make a good argument that it was a mistake to decommission them. But that is just it. Yeh we could put them to good use if we had them, but we don't, so why go through the headache of modernizing and re-commissioning a BB hull?

Just a cursory stroll around the USS New Jersey or one of it's sisters, tells a guy or gal who might know about ships, that it might be easier and cheaper to integrate those desirable attributes a BB provided to the fleet in a number of cheaper and technically less risky projects ( A personal prejudice of mine.. I get the heeby geebes when I see a riveted frame)

I say "less risky" with tongue in cheek, as it seems we haven't been doing a great job of that lately.


cheers


w

 

[John Sansom]

@ Theil

re"...
Why in the world would you use a BB to fight pirates armed with AK 47s and RPG 7s?
..."

I would suspect our friend is making an intuitive observation that Battleships (like the Iowa class) had persistence. Which is true, they did and provided some measure of logistical support to ships around them in the form of bunkering and light machine work.

I think in reality that (for the USN) the concept or need for everything that a battleship provided apart from gunnery, has never really gone away. Things like sea basing, presence and so on.

Congress as a whole seem to get this on that same intuitive level and so were therefore resistant to getting rid of them altogether.

With the changing threats we experience today e.g. USS Cole-type-attacks and so, you can make a good argument that it was a mistake to decommission them. But that is just it. Yeh we could put them to good use if we had them, but we don't, so why go through the headache of modernizing and re-commissioning a BB hull?

Just a cursory stroll around the USS New Jersey or one of it's sisters, tells a guy or gal who might know about ships, that it might be easier and cheaper to integrate those desirable attributes a BB provided to the fleet in a number of cheaper and technically less risky projects ( A personal prejudice of mine.. I get the heeby geebes when I see a riveted frame)

I say "less risky" with tongue in cheek, as it seems we haven't been doing a great job of that lately.

admin: text deleted at members request to reflect original post

cheers


w

Thanks, Wooki, and I agree. Every decision of this general nature, of course, involves the willingness to engage in a shared high-wire balancing act with senior defence staff, politicians, economists and squeaky public wheels. Final agreement could result in a half-measures result, which, presumably, nobody wants.

Yes, the BB presents a very large target indeed. But so do a host of commercial vessels, including the RoRo's, super taknkers, container vessels, et al. Come to think of it, one of the largest is an Australian cattle transport.

These vessels have no defensive capabilities whatsoever. The BB isa significantly "other" proposition...and deserves some careful and detailed conideration. I kinda wish I had the "smarts" for it.

As for PO2GRV's suggestion.....here's another hand in the affirmative.

 

[Marc 1]

Thanks, Wooki, and I agree. Every decision of this general nature, of course, involves the willingness to engage in a shared high-wire balancing act with senior defence staff, politicians, economists and squeaky public wheels. Final agreement could result in a half-measures result, which, presumably, nobody wants.

Yes, the BB presents a very large target indeed. But so do a host of commercial vessels, including the RoRo's, super taknkers, container vessels, et al. Come to think of it, one of the largest is an Australian cattle transport.

These vessels have no defensive capabilities whatsoever. The BB isa significantly "other" proposition...and deserves some careful and detailed conideration. I kinda wish I had the "smarts" for it.

As for PO2GRV's suggestion.....here's another hand in the affirmative.

Why would the Australian government be sailing an unarmed cattle ship into a combat zone? Are you now going to suggest that we need armed and armoured cattle ships? Or is your point that each convoy needs to be accompanied by a BB simply to attract all the enemy attention thus leaving the unarmed merchant vessels?

 

[Belesari]

Maybe we dont need a BS how about this...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines_class_cruiser"]Des Moines class cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:USS_Des_Moines_CA-134.jpg" class="image"><img alt="USS Des Moines CA-134.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/USS_Des_Moines_CA-134.jpg/300px-USS_Des_Moines_CA-134.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/f4/USS_Des_Moines_CA-134.jpg/300px-USS_Des_Moines_CA-134.jpg[/ame]

My favorite part.

"Derived from the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, they were larger, had an improved machinery layout, and carried a new design of auto-loading, rapid-fire 8"/55 gun (the Mk16).[3][4][5] The improved Mk16 guns of the main battery were the first auto-loading 8" guns fielded by the US Navy, and allowed a much higher rate of fire than earlier designs, capable of sustaining 7 shots per minute per barrel, or about twice that of the Mk12s found on the Baltimore class.[4] The auto-loading mechanism could function at any elevation, giving even these large-caliber guns some anti-aircraft ability"

So we could either do 8in cannon or the 155mm guns planned for the Zumwalts DDG-1000.

Either way they could have alot of protection and have a awesome amount of firepower at a far lower cost.

---------------------------

Oh yea and can anyone tell me if trimaran hulls help to mitigate the dammage from a torpedo?

 

[Marc 1]

Des Moines class cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My favorite part.

"Derived from the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, they were larger, had an improved machinery layout, and carried a new design of auto-loading, rapid-fire 8"/55 gun (the Mk16).[3][4][5] The improved Mk16 guns of the main battery were the first auto-loading 8" guns fielded by the US Navy, and allowed a much higher rate of fire than earlier designs, capable of sustaining 7 shots per minute per barrel, or about twice that of the Mk12s found on the Baltimore class.[4] The auto-loading mechanism could function at any elevation, giving even these large-caliber guns some anti-aircraft ability"

So we could either do 8in cannon or the 155mm guns planned for the Zumwalts DDG-1000.

Either way they could have alot of protection and have a awesome amount of firepower at a far lower cost.

---------------------------

Oh yea and can anyone tell me if trimaran hulls help to mitigate the dammage from a torpedo?

Are there any of the Baltimore class left to reactivate? Or are you talking about a new ship based on this design?

 

[Belesari]

Are there any of the Baltimore class left to reactivate? Or are you talking about a new ship based on this design?

No i was talking about a new ship class. Only 1 ships remains from that class the Salem in Mass. But something like it would fit the role perfectly use some relevant technology from the Zumwalt if it will improve over existing designes. You need not have 16 in barrels if you can lob 63 8in (203.2mm) rounds a minute. A ship like that could be quite fast with either traditional engines or nuclear. It would also be within the bounds of current yard work i figure. Plus if we do switch to railguns in the near future the ships could be refitted for there operation.

While this wouldnt be a battlewaggon it would be the next best thing in my opinion and more sustainable than a Iowa.

----------------------------
OK found more info:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System"]Advanced Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/FileD(X)_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg/300px-DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/4/48/DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg/300px-DD%28X%29_Advanced_Gun_System.jpg[/ame]

The AGS set to be incorperated into the zumwalt will feature 2 guns each capable of 10rpm.

So as you can see the 8in. guns on the Salem could send far more when taken together than the AGS could dream of.

There is also this thought:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Caliber_Lightweight_Gun"]8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:USS_Hull_(DD-945)_testing_Mk71_8_inch_gun.jpg" class="image"><img alt="USS Hull (DD-945) testing Mk71 8 inch gun.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/USS_Hull_%28DD-945%29_testing_Mk71_8_inch_gun.jpg/300px-USS_Hull_%28DD-945%29_testing_Mk71_8_inch_gun.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/8a/USS_Hull_%28DD-945%29_testing_Mk71_8_inch_gun.jpg/300px-USS_Hull_%28DD-945%29_testing_Mk71_8_inch_gun.jpg[/ame]

12 8in rounds per minute. So whats 8X9? The funny part is it was a modefied mark 16 gun the Des Moines Class.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Oh yea and can anyone tell me if trimaran hulls help to mitigate the dammage from a torpedo?

Modern torpedoes have incredibly powerful warheads, and I doubt a destroyer- or frigate-sized ship could fully compartmentalize the damage in one sponson. (I'd suggest you take a look at the video of the HMAS Torrens SINKEX)

 

[Belesari]

Modern torpedoes have incredibly powerful warheads, and I doubt a destroyer- or frigate-sized ship could fully compartmentalize the damage in one sponson. (I'd suggest you take a look at the video of the HMAS Torrens SINKEX)

I was under the impression that the majority of the damage occures because of the detonation under the hull of the ship which pretty much breaks its back. I was wondering if the Trimaran hull was more resistant to such damage or if the would be mitigated by the design.

 

[John Sansom]

Why would the Australian government be sailing an unarmed cattle ship into a combat zone? Are you now going to suggest that we need armed and armoured cattle ships? Or is your point that each convoy needs to be accompanied by a BB simply to attract all the enemy attention thus leaving the unarmed merchant vessels?

Sorry, Marc 1....but what on earth are you talking about? I never suggested sending large merchantmen into combat zones, although anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Gulf, for instance, might be able to build an argument as to the currency of such a suggestion.

I mean, for instance, where do you think the supertankers are at the moment?

Certainly, in the event of hostilities, the aim of the game would be to get them out of the way.

As for the Australian goverrnment sailing anything anywhere, the vessel in question makes fairly regular runs between Oz and Indonesia, carrying thousand of head of cattle on each run.
Why did i mention it? Because it's an example of the super-large merchantmen out there as we speak (or write).

 

[Marc 1]

Sorry, Marc 1....but what on earth are you talking about?

I was hoping you could tell me? You were the one who drew the parrallel between a battleship and a cattle carrier both being large targets (post 186).

I never suggested sending large merchantmen into combat zones, although anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Gulf, for instance, might be able to build an argument as to the currency of such a suggestion.

I mean, for instance, where do you think the supertankers are at the moment?

Certainly, in the event of hostilities, the aim of the game would be to get them out of the way.

As for the Australian goverrnment sailing anything anywhere, the vessel in question makes fairly regular runs between Oz and Indonesia, carrying thousand of head of cattle on each run.
Why did i mention it? Because it's an example of the super-large merchantmen out there as we speak (or write).

We are talking about the utility of reactivating the Iowa class BB's in this thread - it seems a tad OT to be drawing comparisons with commercial vessels.

 

[John Sansom]

Sorry, Marc 1....but what on earth are you talking about?

I was hoping you could tell me? You were the one who drew the parrallel between a battleship and a cattle carrier both being large targets (post 186).



We are talking about the utility of reactivating the Iowa class BB's in this thread - it seems a tad OT to be drawing comparisons with commercial vessels.

Shame you feel that way. My reference to very large merchantmen was a comment on an earlier post in which somebody noted that the BB presented and may present (in future use) a very large target. With that in mind, I merely noted that there are merchantmen around today which present even larger targets, citing that Ozzie cattle ship as an example. I also pointed out that RoRo's and tankers present even larger targets.

Of course, merchantmen often have to traverse hostile waters during times of war. But BB's hardly constitute approprrate escorts in this inst:ance...and I never suggested that they would or even might.

Now, before we do go OT on this, might it not be more productive to go back to the utility, or lack thereof ,of tomorrows BB?

 

[StevoJH]

You can't shoot the cattle ships!

The RSPCA will hunt you down and throw you in gaol!! :lol3

Sorry for the OT post, but since the whole thread seems to be going weird......

 

[John Sansom]

You can't shoot the cattle ships!

The RSPCA will hunt you down and throw you in gaol!! :lol3

Sorry for the OT post, but since the whole thread seems to be going weird......

You're right, SteveoJH....but you sure can rustle 'em. Just check with the Somalis.

With apologies to our moderators.nfloorl:

 

[1805]

No i was talking about a new ship class. Only 1 ships remains from that class the Salem in Mass. But something like it would fit the role perfectly use some relevant technology from the Zumwalt if it will improve over existing designes. You need not have 16 in barrels if you can lob 63 8in (203.2mm) rounds a minute. A ship like that could be quite fast with either traditional engines or nuclear. It would also be within the bounds of current yard work i figure. Plus if we do switch to railguns in the near future the ships could be refitted for there operation.

While this wouldnt be a battlewaggon it would be the next best thing in my opinion and more sustainable than a Iowa.

----------------------------
OK found more info:

Advanced Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The AGS set to be incorperated into the zumwalt will feature 2 guns each capable of 10rpm.

So as you can see the 8in. guns on the Salem could send far more when taken together than the AGS could dream of.

There is also this thought:

8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

12 8in rounds per minute. So whats 8X9? The funny part is it was a modefied mark 16 gun the Des Moines Class.

I completely agree I can't see why the USN does not purse something like the 8"/55 mk 71 (now there is potential for more accurate guided rounds) , but this has got to be the heaviest shore bombardment round needed, after that you get better value out of aircraft/missiles. Lets face it there are very few land based artillery pieces over 155mm now in service with armies . The whole idea of ships like the Iowa is a joke. These ships were obsolete when they were built. Just to show how mad the whole idea is; if you were to go back to the 1930s now, with the complete benefit of hindsight, would you find anyone prepared to sacrifice even one carrier for a single battleship?

 

[Belesari]

I completely agree I can't see why the USN does not purse something like the 8"/55 mk 71 (now there is potential for more accurate guided rounds) , but this has got to be the heaviest shore bombardment round needed, after that you get better value out of aircraft/missiles. Lets face it there are very few land based artillery pieces over 155mm now in service with armies . The whole idea of ships like the Iowa is a joke. These ships were obsolete when they were built. Just to show how mad the whole idea is; if you were to go back to the 1930s now, with the complete benefit of hindsight, would you find anyone prepared to sacrifice even one carrier for a single battleship?

I dont know, id say at the time given what they had seen it was the best decision. We should have invested more in naval aviation and carriers (what the heck who could beat the lex and here sister ) . I wouldnt say they where useless still great as bombardment vessels and to scare the living crap out of anything that came in gun range. It was just after the advent of accurate long range missiles and heavier aircraft like the

A-1 Skyraider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imagine if our carriers were mounting those in 1941. :nutkick right to japan.

 

[1805]

I dont know, id say at the time given what they had seen it was the best decision. We should have invested more in naval aviation and carriers (what the heck who could beat the lex and here sister ) . I wouldnt say they where useless still great as bombardment vessels and to scare the living crap out of anything that came in gun range. It was just after the advent of accurate long range missiles and heavier aircraft like the

A-1 Skyraider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imagine if our carriers were mounting those in 1941. :nutkick right to japan.

Agreed we are all cleverer after the event, but after Taranto? Interestingly the RN had advanced plan to attack the German Fleet in their flleet base in WW1 with c100 carrier bourne Sopwith Cuckoo. it might have changed everything for the RN, but the war ended before it happened