Tango01 | 27 Jul 2016 9:47 p.m. PST |
"Imagine this fictional showdown: It's July 2026, and the United States and China are on the brink of war in the South China Sea. Despite years of negotiations and what amounts to a ‘frozen conflict' on the water, China, the Philippines and Vietnam are more deadlocked than ever before when it comes to various claims and counterclaims in this hotly contested sea. Tensions are now near the boiling point as Beijing has finally begun reclamation work at Scarborough Shoal, blockaded once again Second Thomas Shoal and placed multiple oil rigs off Vietnam's Exclusive Economic Zone in response to another loss in the international court of arbitration in the Hague, this time brought by Vietnam…"
Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
cwlinsj | 27 Jul 2016 10:11 p.m. PST |
Missile magnets. They may be much tougher than frigates and destroyers, but how do they survive 20, 40, 60 hypersonic missiles launched in unison? Something the size of an Iowa class ain't gonna be stealthy, and something that can be seen by satellite, drone, radar and sonar can be hit. Load them with defensive countermeasures? The Japanese in WWII thought that their battleships could survive with heavily layered AA systems -and that didn't quite work out for them. |
Mako11 | 27 Jul 2016 11:47 p.m. PST |
Yep, though with that belt armor, they could shrug off a lot of hits. Sensors, antennae, and bridge/upper works structures are pretty vulnerable though, unless angled and armored like the hull of a modern tank. Would love to see something like a merger of these and an Ohio, or Typhoon class sub, that could submerge to evade enemy fire. Being able to surface briefly, or even fire from below the water's surface, from periscope depth would be a great design. Targeting and detection of enemy forces could be done with amphibious, flying drones. 2,000+ lb. shells would certainly put the hurt on a lot of those South China Sea runways and structures. |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Jul 2016 12:08 a.m. PST |
The Japanese didn't do anywhere near the level of AA protection that the USN did. The Yamato had 24x 127mm heavy AA guns and 162x 25mm AA guns in 1945. All the 25mm guns were in exposed mounts. The Iowas had 20x 5"/38 dual-purpose guns, 80x Bofors 40mm quad mounts, and 49x 20mm mounts. The 20 and 25mm guns didn't have the range to engage dive bombers before they released their bombs. For that matter, the 40mm were a little too short-ranged as plane speeds increased, it's why the US went to fully automatic 3" guns in twin mounts to replace the 40mm quads on the Worchester and Des Moines class cruisers. The shore bombardment firepower of an Iowa would be nice, but I'd rather have the Des Moines class CAs in service. |
Random Die Roll | 28 Jul 2016 3:24 a.m. PST |
Even with modern tech, would a 2,000 lb. shell be as effective as a cruise missile? Other than the visual/intimidation factor, I do not see it as a needed weapons platform. |
skippy0001 | 28 Jul 2016 6:17 a.m. PST |
AA doesn't stop air attacks, it just makes them expensive. Everone that uses missiles eventually runs out, conceivably within a month of hostilities. Why build dinosaurs when one typhoon can wipe out those so-called 'islands'? |
Mako11 | 28 Jul 2016 7:49 a.m. PST |
I suspect those large shells are a lot cheaper. We do need a vessel to carry out shore bombardments, as desired, in order to help support, or facilitate amphibious landings. |
cwlinsj | 28 Jul 2016 9:39 a.m. PST |
Zumwalt with rail gun fires equivalent of 2,000 lb shell several times the distance, with better accuracy, better safety and for a few dollars worth of metal and electric power. All with the radar signature of a small boat. The days of the battleship are long gone. |
cwlinsj | 28 Jul 2016 9:50 a.m. PST |
Why build dinosaurs when one typhoon can wipe out those so-called 'islands'? While I agree that battleships are dinosaurs, I tire of misconceptions that these islands are made by dumping sand in a pile. What are the prime ingredients in concrete? Sand and aggregate. The Chinese are dredging sand to make concrete. Aggregate comes from coral and the granite & volcanic substrate lying below the sea. As I repeate over and over, China has used more concrete in the last 5 years than the USA has used in the past 100 years. China is making solid, concrete islands. |
Great War Ace | 28 Jul 2016 10:55 a.m. PST |
Go New Jersey. She will be recommissioned again…. |
Rod I Robertson | 28 Jul 2016 11:02 a.m. PST |
cwlinsj: The Zumwalt class destroyer does not yet have a functional railgun as far as I know, so perhaps this is a stop-gap measure to bridge the niche need until functional rail guns are available? Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Archaeologist1970 | 28 Jul 2016 11:28 a.m. PST |
The real question is, How many point defense weapon systems could you stack on a Iowa Class today. What kind of crazy ECM system could you plant on that bad boy. Id rather see a out of control aegis cruiser on that platform to protect my Carrier Battle group. |
Rich Bliss | 28 Jul 2016 11:55 a.m. PST |
No, the real question is, how many crewmen(people) does it take to operate and maintain a hull that size? That's the real limited resource. |
javelin98 | 28 Jul 2016 1:22 p.m. PST |
Unless ECM had rendered all our various missile systems ineffective and we had no aviation assets whatsoever, I don't see how a battleship could ever be useful in a modern fight. |
McKinstry | 28 Jul 2016 1:45 p.m. PST |
Never going to happen. Crew cost alone is prohibitive not to mention the Navy simply does not have the head count to crew the existing fleet to 100% manning. Fuel hogs, very difficult to maintain and in the world of the sequester, impossible to fund. As a combat platform against a near peer adversary, they are a hideously vulnerable target for subs in general and if used in their ideal function, fire support, a sitting duck for AIP diesel electric boats in coastal waters. |
cwlinsj | 28 Jul 2016 1:58 p.m. PST |
The Zumwalt class destroyer does not yet have a functional railgun as far as I know, so perhaps this is a stop-gap measure to bridge the niche need until functional rail guns are available? Rod, The US is not building battleships, has no comissioned battleships, nor has any plans to recomission any. The railgun is in the USN's planned arsenal and probably slated for 2019 deployment on Zumwalts and possibly even Wasp class amphibious assault ships. |
Lion in the Stars | 29 Jul 2016 12:02 a.m. PST |
I could actually see building something like the Des Moines class heavy cruisers or the Alaska-class big cruisers. Nuclear power because it needs the electrical generation power for a ~100megawatt laser, not to mention feeding multiple railguns (maybe 9 of them and at least 3) Moderately heavy armor, able to take hits from subsonic cruise missiles and laugh, enough AA capability to swat Soviet-sized missile attacks (killing three missiles per second), and the railguns to support Army and Marine forces ashore for a long way. Plus missiles of it's own. Would love to see something like a merger of these and an Ohio, or Typhoon class sub, that could submerge to evade enemy fire. Before the Trident SSGN conversions were done, there was a lot of talk about what to put into the missile tubes. There's a LOT of stuff you can fit inside a 7' diameter pipe. One of the options mentioned was a navalized MGM-140 ATACMS tactical ballistic missile. You could fit three of those in one Trident tube. Another idea was the Cormorant drone, which would be armed in addition to packing sensors. A relatively young junior officer had an idea. Before the Zumwalts were finalized, the "Arsenal Ship" concept was using a vertically-mounted gun for stealth. The gun had serious problems for surface ships, as it couldn't hit anything within 20 miles of the ship. But it could throw 155mm shells 120+ miles because they'd glide down onto their target instead of flying ballistic. Stick a couple Vertical Guns into the tubes and suddenly you can broach the ship, flop a couple hatches, volley 20+ rounds downrange, purge the bore with nitrogen, flop hatches shut, and dive back down, all in less than 5 minutes. But now we're talking submarines, which generally don't do a good job showing the flag. The purpose of a sub is to never let the opponent know where it is, after all. |
Crabbman | 29 Jul 2016 2:55 a.m. PST |
The longer ships like this remain laid-up or acting as museum ships the harder it will ever be to re-commission them. Aside from the physical degradation behind the scenes on a laid up ship the engineering and technical knowledge of how to operate and maintain these archaic ships will also fade away. I remember when I was in the Merchant Navy being told how engineers with a "steam tickets" were in demand as it as a field of knowledge becoming more and more rare as most engineers were trained and experienced in diesel or gas turbine engines. Each day that goes buy the chances of re-activating such ship gets smaller and smaller.. Shame because they do look impressive.. and Cher dancing in a leotard on the deck of a Zumwalt Class wouldn't have the same effect.. rorycrabb.wordpress.com |
Garand | 29 Jul 2016 10:13 a.m. PST |
and Cher dancing in a leotard on the deck of a Zumwalt Class wouldn't have the same effect.. Not to mention that Cher is now pushing 70, so no, not th same effect… …Though she does seem remarkably well preserved. Someone ought to check her for a Ring of Power… Damon. |
javelin98 | 29 Jul 2016 2:07 p.m. PST |
and Cher dancing in a leotard on the deck of a Zumwalt Class wouldn't have the same effect.. You mean nausea and revulsion? |
PHGamer | 01 Aug 2016 4:44 p.m. PST |
We will always love our battleships. I spent an hour yesterday staring at the New Jersey. There is a cheap factor in that a 16" shell can chew up about 8 acres ground per shell. But then you have to factor in all the costs of delivering that round. In 1980, I read an article that each battleship cost a million dollars a day when underway. The price of an OHP frigate was then 40 million dollars. |