They should replace several carriers with refitted Iowa class battleships. They are cheaper to operate, require smaller crews, can actually take damage, and can put down more firepower in one broadside than a carrier can in a day of air operations. You also don't have to worry about planes getting shot down, air defenses or countermeasures (you can't stop a 16 inch shell). With new scramjet shells, the maximum range of their 16 inch guns is 100 miles. Kiss N. Korea's artillery goodbye.
@310eraser I would have to disagree with your statement that one broadside from a battleship would put down more firepower than a day of an aircraft carrier's jets raining down MK84 2000-lb bombs.
THey should park a couple of these ships off the coast of Somalia and light off all the guns at once... Those pirates will NEVER leave port again. Guaranteed.
@Whizard72 Not true, the Wisconsin in Norfolk harbor still has dehumidifiers and preservation systems hooked up. The public is only allowed to walk around on the main deck for this reason.
@1coupe1 There is actually another way to stop a 16 inch round. The other way is being the unlucky bastards on the receiving end of those 16 inch shells.
@TheWarbirdPhoenix The dislikes were there from day 1 of the new layout. They were probably from calculating the likes and dislikes from what were once 4 and 5 star ratings.
@ikillyouhahahalameo That's kind of hard to believe, as something like that doesn't happen in other videos where the fore castle is the site of the camera (there's a clip of wisky shooting that's all over YT.
I was there for this live fire exercise.. on my first westpac deployment.. We were 4th in line behind the BB's.. USS Long Beach CGN-9. you can see her in the back ground at 0:21. very distinctive "box' superstructure. Never forget these two grand ladies sounding off.
the amazing part is the iowa class battleships have around 13 inches of armour as a tub...kamakazi jap planes ran into these ships thinking they would sink it but they hit the side and fell into the water. No damage to the ship
One thing I want to add: we tried getting rid of guns on airplanes and replacing them with missiles in Vietnam. That went badly. Why would it be a good idea to almost entirely phase out guns on ships?
You're comparing apples and oranges now. The operational requirements for an Air to Air missile and a land attack missile is so different it isn't even funny.
Still, think about: there are a few vague similarities, and telling me its a bizarre comparison may be right, but without a reason, it almost seems like a cop-out.
1: Launch platform. An air launched missile, especially air to air, has to be able to deal with being launched during high g manouvres, something no surface launched missile will ever have to deal with, no matter how bad the weather gets.
Similarly, it has to deal with numerous different launch attitudes and altitudes. They are also carried externally, unlike shipborne missiles, that are stored in cannisters under near optimum conditions.
2: Target. AtA and SAM missiles have to hit a target that not only is small, it's also twisting and turning at a significant fraction of the missiles performance. ASMs and SSMs on the other hand "only" has to hit a target that is either stationary (TacTom) or fairly slow (Harpoon)
On top of that, AtA missiles have to rely on onboard guidance for the most part, due to the extremely mobile nature of the target, SAMs and short ranged SSMs have the benefit of external guidance all the way to the target. Long ranged SSMs capable of hitting mobile targets are typically large enough to fit fighter sized sensors.
3: Air launched missiles typically has to be smaller than their surface launched counterparts, due to the limited weight carrying capacity of airplanes. This can be compensated for to a degree, since air launched missiles doesn't have to use boosters.
@chrthiel An air launched missile, especially air to air, has to be able to deal with being launched during high g manouvres, something no surface launched missile will ever have to deal with, no matter how bad the weather gets.
What about jassms (and other navy-sized missiles) sent from B-52s and other bombers? I went to an airshow a few days back, and the guys with the B-52 told me that they want to stay level to launch missiles if they at all can.
Obviously, something launched from a strtegic bomber won't have to deal with high g manouvres, since no bomber I've ever heard of is capable of them. The gun-less jets from the Vietnam war were all either interceptors or low level intruders.
I don't know how many Gs the JASSM and the AGM-84A (Air launched Harpoon) can compensate for, but I do know that neither can be launched while the aircraft is supersonic.
In a few of your comments, you have paint scenarios that put a battleship with no escorts. Why on earth would anyone ever send anything that big anywhere unescorted?
If it's the posts I think it is, it's because I'm talking about the ships personal defences. I fully realize that it wouldn't go anywhere alone, but in those posts I'm pointing out that the USN doesn't rely completely on AAW cruisers and destroyers to defend all the non-aegis assets, and therefore the BBs current defences are inadequate. At least, that's the point I hope I convey.
As an aside, the need for escorts is another detractor from the BB, but more on that later.
For a BB to do its thing, it has to move very close to the shore, well within the range of short ranged (And therefore cheap and plentiful) shore based AShMs. Supposedly, this isn't a problem for the BB, since it's armour is believed be able to deal with it. (It isn't, but that's not important right now)
The story is very different for its escorts. Since they aren't armoured, they have to rely on their active defences. On the open seas, that isn't a problem, but in the cluttered coastal regions
@chrthiel Carriers are even worse on escorts. They are far worse. I know their battlegroups have subs, unreps, DDs, and whatnot, whereas a battleship battlegroup consists of a Battleship (duh), one Aegis Cruiser, and three destroyers. Sumrall, Robert. Iowa Class Battleships. 1988. Naval institute press.
75 long tons of ordnance per strike can be done by a Nimitz. A average of 3 strikes a day makes for 225 long tons of ordnance in a day. An Iowa's 30 minute "gun-run" delivers 229 Long tons of high explosives and steel. Also, the Navy stated that a BB takes less training than an Oliver hazard perry. A carrier needs lots of pilots and ground crew. You also need fuel for airplanes. Pilots are more to train than gunner's mates and the like. They also get more benefits, making them more expensive.
From a defensive PoV, a BB is a liability, since it lacks organic defences. A carrier, on the other hand does have organic defences, and if you consider the aircrafts organic, those defences has a longer range than its escorts.
For a BB to work, it has to move into range of pretty much every shore based weapon available, thus endangering its escorts.
The carrier on the other hand, can park a couple of 100s nm off the coast, outside the range of most weapons, and it'll have far more time to engage any weapons that can reach it.
Even stealth airplanes can get shot down if the AA dudes know what they're doing. There was (past tense) an F-117 over Bosnia (or Croatia? Some Eastern European place.
@Contrajoe Aircraft carriers do not sail alone, any of the AEGIS cruisers and destroyers that are part of the carrier's battle group could reach out and touch any target within 600 miles.. Yes, a carrier may lose some pilots and jets in a conflict but the overwhelming majority will deliver the goods and then return to the ship.
@steve21061 I wouldn't worry too much about missiles. Land based phalanxes or possibly a landbased "sea"wolf missile could deal with missiles, as my good friend chrthiel told me. I did some research on the Seawolf (I believe there is only a ship based variant), and it had bought down a 5" projectile. MK-84 bombs require planes to get where they're going. If I were a SAM operator or AA gunner, I would know that my duty would be to make sure no airplanes come through, and thus no bombs.
A new battleship could be given organic defenses. $1 says that if we design a new BB, it will be bigger than any previous battleship at all. A hull of that size could hold 150-200+ VLS, probably still with room for 12 16" guns. Those VLS could hold sea-wolf style (in terms of function) missiles, TLAMs, or whatever you can fit in them (JELLY BEANS!). A secondary battery might consist of 8-12 5"/62 guns, or about as many on one side as 2-3 'burkes hold at all.
"$1 says that if we design a new BB, it will be bigger than any previous battleship at all."
Or at least as big as any built, there were some WWII-era designs like the German four 2X 20" turrets and Japanese designs that were obscenely giant (four 3X 20" turrets, 3 catapults, and 12 aircraft. The thing might as well have been a hybrid. I wish I could find the article that discussed that)
You would be referring to the H-class projects the Kreigsmarine was studying. They were nearly twice the size of the Bismarck. Damn Hitler and his crazy notion for a 100,000 ton battleships (H-42 and H-44 projects) armed with 8, 20" rifles mounted in four two gun turrets.
IJN was also toying around the "Super Yamatos" also to be armed with 20" guns. Both Navies eventually conceded that those size guns were impractical and by then Air Power had taken the crown of the seas.
@Cirux321 Guns that big are not practical, true, but I explained a case to chrthiel across several videos and I will explain to you that although battleships are phased out, the concept still could do well in the modern world.
@Contrajoe Battleships aren't practical now, but they could be in the future. The problem now is there is to much investment in one weapons platform. You could do most of the same jobs for much cheaper with far less risk with a DDG or a CG. Laser based point defense was the first major technological hurdle, and we are overcoming it. Next and even more important is some kind of anti torpedo point defense system. If we could protect a battleship from submarine attack we could bring them back.
@Contrajoe yes, destroyers and subs will try to protect the carrier, or as the case may be a battleship from attack by submarines. This is very difficult to do though, and while battleships are much better at surviving damage above the waterline, our carriers were designed with the expectation that they would be torpedoed by Soviet submarines, and are thus capable of surviving such impacts far better than you would expect. Battleships belt armor was effective against old torps, not the new ones.
@DrRockso99 Its never been tested, on paper it was designed with the expectation in mind... but Im sure a type 65 torpedo would demonstrate its protection is actually inadequate... and nothing is invulnerable lol
@mattmatt115 yeah, the problem is the way that modern torpedoes work. Its not just a matter of the warhead size, its a matter of where they strike. Torpedoes in ww2 would impact directly against the side of the hull not very far from the surface of the water. Modern torpedoes strike underneath against the keel. The battleship would be more resistant against something like that than say a frigate or a destroyer, but not carriers which were designed with this in mind.
@DrRockso99 The type 65-76KIT is a wake homing torpedo that is nearly impossible to confuse, it carries a 450kg high explosive warhead and was designed to look for the biggest wake home in and detonate below the keel to create a giant air bubble followed by explosion to punch into the keel. Im sure Nimitz could take 1 or 2 hits but nothing is unsinkable with the correct forces in the correct place and the 650mm torpedo was designed specifically for sinking keel armored super carriers
@mattmatt115 I'm both confused and a little amused that you seem to be arguing with me by repeating the very same points I was making. I never said that carriers were invulnerable to attack by modern torpedoes, only that they are resistant to it in a way that ww2 era battleships are not. I then commented that targeting radars are almost impossible to jam, and you respond by saying that jamming the homing sonar on a modern torpedo is "nearly impossible" as if that was something I refuted.
@DrRockso99 That is why I believe that, if battleships come back, they ought be new ones. Too much has changed for WWII beasts to be good now. I think though, that a big-gun warship would be at least as deadly now as in anytime in history.
@Contrajoe Before going back into service for the gulf war the USS Wisconsin got a complete rehab/update. Everything from the propulsion systems to the electrical/electronics, not to mention the weaponry that was taken off and replaced with modern weapons,,, of course they left the Big 16's.
@Contrajoe True, but it's much faster and equiped with much better anti-torpedo/anti-mine systems. I admit they are old, but, anything that can lob a one ton shell 23 miles I want on my side. 8-) If nothing else lets put them on pirate patrol.
To my knowledge, no hull can survive a modern heavy weight torpedo and while you could probably make one that was, it would be so compromised that it would be good for nothing but surviving torpedoes. Oddly enough, I don't think there's much of a market for a ship like that.
Oh and, Hi I'm back with even more well researched reasons why BB's are out of the picture and they won't be coming back.
@chrthiel YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been around the whole of your hiatus, and I have many reasons why they're valid, but since I'm not the secretary of the navy, I don't have the power to bring 'em back. I think those in power don't have the intelligence to.
@chrthiel May be an ASW Market for a hull of that sort. Plus, how do we know a BB hull would not survive a shock torpedo? They've only been tested (that I know of) on weak, modern hulls that would have trouble with an AT-4. Besides, you are making another mistake that undid you previously, and you're calling "battleship faults" that are also the fault of every ship that's been made.
Calling what the engineering department got a complete update is stretching it about three hundred miles beyond the breaking point.
Sure, they were put back to working condition, but that was about it but that was it. Neither the engines nor the boilers were updated at all. Heck, they had to raid museums and depots where nobody had been for fourty years to find enough spares. And the only reason why they could do it was because at the time the USN still had two fast supply ships that
used the same type of engines and boilers. They don't anymore and they have no personel qualified to opperate the 600 psi boilers and turbines anymore. None. They don't have the schools or the training materiel to train new ones either. All the experience necessary to run a BB is gone and getting it back will take millions if not billions of dollars. Dollars the USN doesn't have.
Not complicated, compromised. In a nutshell, a hull capable of withstanding a modern torpedo would have so much steel and other alloys allocated to torpedo defences that it wouldn't have buoyancy left for a meaningful weapons load.
As for if a BB could, the US had great success in sinking Japanese BBs with what was probably the dodgiest torpedo of the war. (Seriously, the torpedoes used by the US where craptastic)
Modern wire-guided torpedoes can hit within cm of the optimal detonation point, making them far more lethal. That's why nobody has bothered to SINKEX a BB with a torpedo, they already knew what was going to happen.
@chrthiel A battleship would not be a "one-trick wonder". Bombardment only for the guns? No. THey could do anti-ship, and a ship the size of a BB (assuming BB growth would be anything like that for carriers, which is another discussion altogether) would have room for plenty of missiles.
Don't go down the BBG road. Seriously, if you want to move missiles around that's better done by a destroyer. It will not be able to carry as many as the mythical BBG, but it will be able to do it a lot cheaper, hence you can have more of them, giving you more options both strategically and tactically.
Yes they can. And a 16" shell is even easier to bring down than a missile since once you spot it, which is easy, you'll know exactly where it's going to hit and everywhere in between. A missile on the other hand isn't following a balistic trajectory, and some of them can do all kinds of nasty terminal manouvering, making them far harder to shoot down. And as I've said before, the Brits have intercepted 104mm shells on several occasions.
Anyway, yes, it can't stop it. But then again, it doesn't need to. It has plenty of umpf to blow it way of course, and since a shell doesn't have terminal guidance, it won't be able to correct for it.
And anyway, it's a moot point since an Iowa wont get within reach of a modern warship.
@chrthiel Also, if it can only be knocked off course, can't that just get factored into the firing solution? Presumably it's not that simple, but I would imagine you could get some hits, and you only need one or two to sink a destroyer, maybe 5-20 to sink a carrier (depending on where you hit).
Nope. The raw computing power required to calculate where the pieces will end up within a usefull timeframe simply doesn't exist. And that's assuming you know where the missile explodes in relation to the shell. Which you don't.
@chrthiel Actually, if the shell was in pieces, it'd be basically destroyed, which you said couldn't happen. Can a big shell be destroyed or not? Also, computers are more powerful than you think.
That's semantics. It doesn't matter if the shell fragments or not. (Though a direct hit on a HE shell would probably trigger a sympathetic explosion) Point is, you don't know where it'll end up.
And I have a fairly good idea of how powerful modern computers are. However, this is very very complex math, on the level of fluid dynamics, and that takes hours to calculate on modern super computers. Besides, it's moot since you don't have the variables needed to do the calculations.
@chrthiel A missile can still be brought down and it is more expensive than a 16" scramjet round might be once we get past R&D and build the shells just as we build missiles.
Yes, they "could" do anti ship, in the same way that an assault rifle can do AA.
However, any situation where the BB would be able to use its guns for ASuW, it would be so busy avoiding mines and other coastal hazards that it wouldn't matter.
@chrthiel I don't think assault rifle AA is a fair comparison. It is probably closer to a tank doing anti-APC work, which can usually go well enough for the tank. Also, destroyers and LCS's have to avoid coastal hazards and mines as well.
As for the navy not having the funds for existing ships, that just proves my point really. The USN doesn't need a huge and expensive one-trick-wonder, it needs multimission platforms. The LCS is an attempt at just such a platform. It may or may not have failed, only time will tell. They get points for trying though.
@DrRockso99 Actually, subs are more a threat to lesser vessels and carriers than to battleships. BB's have armor, which no ship today has enough of to survive say, a torpedo, harpoon or an exocet. Also, contrary to popular opinion, BB’s are cheap. According to a 1988 publication by Robert Sumrall, an Iowa delivers as much ordinance in 30 minutes as a Nimitz in three strike runs (around a day). As for laser systems, the USAF is experimenting with 1 in a 747, so getting 1 on ship could happen.
@Contrajoe Subs are very much a threat to battleships sorry to say. Battleships are not armored well very far below the waterline. They have belt armor, but torpedoes today will strike directly underneath the keel where there is virtually no armor at all. Yes, a battleship can deliver a lot of inexpensive ordinance to a target, but that target must be within 30 miles of the coast. Carriers can do it hundreds of miles inland, and are much better at protecting themselves.
@Contrajoe As for the laser, your information needs updating. Yes, the airforce is experimenting with a large laser in a 747, this is designed to knock out ballistic missiles though, it is far larger and more powerful than is necessary to protect a warship from surface to surface anti ship missiles. Look up the MTHEL (mobile tactical high energy laser) it is is small enough to replace phalanx mounts currently on US warships, and will make them invulnerable to attack by shells or missiles.
@mattmatt115 Unlike communications antennas, targeting radars are very difficult to jam. They are very powerful and jamming them is impractical. The MTHEL system wouldnt be any easier to jam than any other radar targeted weapon we currently employ, which is essentially all of them. If jamming targeting radars was as easy as you imagine, then all modern weapons would be useless, and we would still be targeting visually and firing cannons at eachother.
That is, I will explain it to you if you want me to. Also, wouldn't harbors across Europe need to be tripled in size if 100,000 ton ships were to be accepted?
@Cirux321 The super yamatos supposedly were not based off of the pair of 70,000 ton ships that came to be. I think they were to have 6X 20" guns in three twin turrets. 90,000 tons if I remember right. There was one design (I wish I could find where I read about it) that was to be proposed that would have had four 3x 20" turrets and 12 aircraft with three catapults. I don't remember the displacement.
Obviously, something launched from a strtegic bomber won't have to deal with high g manouvres, since no bomber I've ever heard of is capable of them. The gun-less jets from the Vietnam war were all either interceptors or low level intruders.
I don't know how many Gs the JASSM and the AGM-84A (Air launched Harpoon) can compensate for, but I do know that neither can be launched while the aircraft is supersonic.
What about the Bone (B-one)? It is fast, and I saw one flying when I was on the Lexington (CV-16). It seemed incredibly maneuverable given how big it was.
Obviously, something launched from a strtegic bomber won't have to deal with high g manouvres, since no bomber I've ever heard of is capable of them. The gun-less jets from the Vietnam war were all either interceptors or low level intruders.
I don't know how many Gs the JASSM and the AGM-84A (Air launched Harpoon) can compensate for, but I do know that neither can be launched while the aircraft is supersonic.
Obviously, something launched from a strtegic bomber won't have to deal with high g manouvres, since no bomber I've ever heard of is capable of them. The gun-less jets from the Vietnam war were all either interceptors or low level intruders.
I don't know how many Gs the JASSM and the AGM-84A (Air launched Harpoon) can compensate for, but I do know that neither can be launched while the aircraft is supersonic.
Also, you can shoot down tomahawks. You can use chaff and other ECM to fool missiles. As I said, a shell has nothing to think with, it is just a warhead. It cannot be tricked.
Plus, airplanes need pilots and jet fuel. Guns need powder, crew, and shells, but they do not require as much time to procure. The navy once said an Iowa was less training than (you read?) an OLIVER HAZARD PERRY!
Yes, but the training facilities for the Perry class already exists and they have scores of qualified people to teach the crews. Not so for the Iowas. The training facilities has either been sold, torn down or repurposed and the qualified people haven't haven't worked with the class for over 15 years, meaning that their certifications have expired and their skills will be severely rusty.
If a BB is truly easier to train, the facilities would not be that complex. Also, the U.S. is so far in debt that money is hardly a factor, at least until we start calling out figures.
Also, the cost thing ain't right - an Iowa can deliver more ordinance faster than a Nimitz. Also, powder and shells are much cheaper than tomahawks, so the cost argument is kind of messy.
Actually, if you want to hit anything at extended ranges, you will need guidance.
The main argument for recomming the BBs is to provide fire support for friendly troops. At extended ranges, a 16''/50 Mark 7 without a guided projectile will have a CEP of a couple of hundred yards. That means it'll be worthless for fire support and thus it wont have a reason to exist. So the projectiles will need guidance.
The rocket assisted projectiles from the Arliegh Burkes will have a range of 75 NM. A RATO 16" could more than equal that in damage and range. I would be whatever combo we want. Personally, I think a rocket with enough fuel to get the projectile where it can go 80NM would be enough range, and the rest could still have a big warhead.
I'm not sayin' they should go unguided 500+ plus miles, I was trying to say that they should have a rocket to make them go 80 NM, which is 5 NM farther than the 5" shells of the DDG-51's.
Alternatively, the rocket could be two phase. The first pushes the projectile to give useful range. BOOM. Then, the second rocket gives an extra boost for penetration through bunkers and other hard targets, delivering a warhead only a 16" gun could provide for less cost than an airplane.
Yes, the strike itself would probably be cheaper, but once you factor in development (The AF and the Navy already have bunker busters in service) and aditional operational costs (The AF and the navy already operates planes capable of delivering said bunker busters) and the fact that range wont be better, and likely be worse (Can't refuel a shell in mid-air) it'll not only be costlier, it'll be inferior.
Still, once we develop the technology, the cost will be lower. It is like adding airplanes to our inventory last early century: Early on, the cost of the new facilities and all of that was kind of high, but, ultimately, it became cheap enough to stick around.
The 5"/62 mark 45 mod 4 (The one used of DDG51) has a range of 38.4km, or ~21nm when firing conventional rounds. In order to reach the kinds of ranges you're talking about, it has to use either ERGM or BTERM rounds, both of which are boosted and guided and while cheaper than a TacTom, they still cost about the same as a Javelin ATGM
I wasn't aware that those were guided. Still, if we got any new battleships or the Iowas back, the secondary battery should be the 5"/62 mark 45 mod 4 or some other current-day gun of that size.
But they aren't. If they were we would at least have seen some proposals and designs. And fact is, no-one has proposed a new BB since the early fifties.
So to repeat my points, the guns aren't enough in and of themselves and all the other missions can be done for less cost and with higher flexibility by smaller units. In order to make BBs viable, someone will have to invent a weapons or radar system that requires a BB sized hull, yet leaves room enough for the guns.
bringin all kinds of hate and discontent...
RNelson11687 3 weeks ago
They should replace several carriers with refitted Iowa class battleships. They are cheaper to operate, require smaller crews, can actually take damage, and can put down more firepower in one broadside than a carrier can in a day of air operations. You also don't have to worry about planes getting shot down, air defenses or countermeasures (you can't stop a 16 inch shell). With new scramjet shells, the maximum range of their 16 inch guns is 100 miles. Kiss N. Korea's artillery goodbye.
310eraser 1 month ago 3
@310eraser I would have to disagree with your statement that one broadside from a battleship would put down more firepower than a day of an aircraft carrier's jets raining down MK84 2000-lb bombs.
steve21061 4 weeks ago
THey should park a couple of these ships off the coast of Somalia and light off all the guns at once... Those pirates will NEVER leave port again. Guaranteed.
Whizard72 1 month ago 3
@Whizard72 +1000....a couple of broadsides from the 16 inch guns would definitely send a message to the pirates.
steve21061 4 weeks ago
OUTSTANDING! I wonder if the Somali Pirates would like to deal with this?
BIGBUCK20 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheRingoRango 2 months ago
Um. Never thought about that
nummydoughnuts 2 months ago
Thumbs up if you want the Iowa-class battleships back in service
TheJSarge 3 months ago 20
@TheJSarge They're all museums and have been stricken... Not going to happen.
Whizard72 1 month ago
@Whizard72 Guy can dream can't he?
TheJSarge 1 month ago
@TheJSarge Yeah... Speaking of which, Silent Hunter 4 has mods that allow you to use Iowa class BBs instead of subs... =)
Whizard72 1 month ago
@Whizard72 That is awesome! Thanks for letting me know! :D
TheJSarge 1 month ago
@Whizard72 Not true, the Wisconsin in Norfolk harbor still has dehumidifiers and preservation systems hooked up. The public is only allowed to walk around on the main deck for this reason.
310eraser 1 month ago
Battleship=1 other guy= 0.
mopacslim 5 months ago
Almost 2 years since I found this, and I still love every nanosecond of it!
Contrajoe 6 months ago
The only way to stop a 16 in projectile from a battleship is to not fire at all.. once it fires just hope youre not the target
1coupe1 10 months ago
@1coupe1 There's a laser in development system that can allegedlystop a round, but:
1. Can it really stop say, 9 rounds?
2. Is the system light enough to be fitted to a fast enough mount to accurately target something as fast as a battleship shell?
Contrajoe 9 months ago
@Contrajoe Battle ships rape anything thats hostile to them
nummydoughnuts 4 months ago
@nummydoughnuts Uh... They don't have the organs for that.
Contrajoe 2 months ago
@1coupe1 There is actually another way to stop a 16 inch round. The other way is being the unlucky bastards on the receiving end of those 16 inch shells.
Pandemic270 9 months ago
The dislikes must have been who they were shooting at.
TheWarbirdPhoenix 10 months ago
@TheWarbirdPhoenix The dislikes were there from day 1 of the new layout. They were probably from calculating the likes and dislikes from what were once 4 and 5 star ratings.
Contrajoe 10 months ago
nothing like the smell of fresh burned cordite first thing in the morning to get the blood flowing. :0)
spartencamp 10 months ago
@spartencamp OHH YOU MUST BE GAY,
michaelwright999 9 months ago
@michaelwright999 please keep you innermost desires to you self they have nothing to do with me .
spartencamp 9 months ago
Gee, I don't think there was enough cordite trailing the ship, try a full 9 gun broadside next time.
ikillyouhahahalameo 10 months ago
The sound you hear is the interferance from the radars. The old cameras was suseptable to radiation.
gurfreporter 11 months ago
@gurfreporter Uh...
...You sure about that?
Contrajoe 11 months ago
@Contrajoe I have to agree with gurf, you can hear the waves from the radar pulsing in the audio.
ikillyouhahahalameo 10 months ago
@ikillyouhahahalameo That's kind of hard to believe, as something like that doesn't happen in other videos where the fore castle is the site of the camera (there's a clip of wisky shooting that's all over YT.
Contrajoe 10 months ago
@ikillyouhahahalameo
O.K., sir! Thanks for the enlightenment !
prinzdms 10 months ago
Yeah, my ears will burst )
prinzdms 11 months ago
What's that sound a like a buzz?
prinzdms 1 year ago
@prinzdms I think that's an alarm warning folks to stay away from the guns, lest the over pressure kill them
Contrajoe 11 months ago
@Contrajoe
Yeah... Maybe. Nice sound :)
prinzdms 11 months ago
@prinzdms Seriously, if you are within 50 ft of the 16" guns when they fire, you are lucky to just lose consciousness.
Contrajoe 11 months ago
Comment removed
NH3R717 1 year ago
I was there for this live fire exercise.. on my first westpac deployment.. We were 4th in line behind the BB's.. USS Long Beach CGN-9. you can see her in the back ground at 0:21. very distinctive "box' superstructure. Never forget these two grand ladies sounding off.
ackkkkmanp 1 year ago
Wow awesome.
MatthewFurlong88 1 year ago
WTF! I hope there was no cameraman when the guns fired :P
XElTuertoX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck you up all day..
NH3R717 1 year ago
the amazing part is the iowa class battleships have around 13 inches of armour as a tub...kamakazi jap planes ran into these ships thinking they would sink it but they hit the side and fell into the water. No damage to the ship
Captain25011 1 year ago
@Captain25011 yeah, belt armor. same cant be said for the super structure though....
mattmatt115 1 year ago
Morel of the story,,, dont mess with the USA!!!!
CatFro4 1 year ago
Great, it is double posting everything. I have seen this bug in other places.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
"(There are no honors for this video.)" At the rate chrthiel and I are going, it might find itself with a "most discussed".
Contrajoe 1 year ago
One other thing: How come most of our comments aren't showing up on the video?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
One thing I want to add: we tried getting rid of guns on airplanes and replacing them with missiles in Vietnam. That went badly. Why would it be a good idea to almost entirely phase out guns on ships?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
You're comparing apples and oranges now. The operational requirements for an Air to Air missile and a land attack missile is so different it isn't even funny.
chrthiel 1 year ago
Comment removed
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@chrthiel Whenever did I call it funny?
Still, think about: there are a few vague similarities, and telling me its a bizarre comparison may be right, but without a reason, it almost seems like a cop-out.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Sorry about that, I was in a hurry when I wrote it. I'll come back with a proper argument once I get home today.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel
I'll look forward to that.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Okay, here goes.
1: Launch platform. An air launched missile, especially air to air, has to be able to deal with being launched during high g manouvres, something no surface launched missile will ever have to deal with, no matter how bad the weather gets.
Similarly, it has to deal with numerous different launch attitudes and altitudes. They are also carried externally, unlike shipborne missiles, that are stored in cannisters under near optimum conditions.
chrthiel 1 year ago
2: Target. AtA and SAM missiles have to hit a target that not only is small, it's also twisting and turning at a significant fraction of the missiles performance. ASMs and SSMs on the other hand "only" has to hit a target that is either stationary (TacTom) or fairly slow (Harpoon)
chrthiel 1 year ago
On top of that, AtA missiles have to rely on onboard guidance for the most part, due to the extremely mobile nature of the target, SAMs and short ranged SSMs have the benefit of external guidance all the way to the target. Long ranged SSMs capable of hitting mobile targets are typically large enough to fit fighter sized sensors.
chrthiel 1 year ago
3: Air launched missiles typically has to be smaller than their surface launched counterparts, due to the limited weight carrying capacity of airplanes. This can be compensated for to a degree, since air launched missiles doesn't have to use boosters.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel An air launched missile, especially air to air, has to be able to deal with being launched during high g manouvres, something no surface launched missile will ever have to deal with, no matter how bad the weather gets.
What about jassms (and other navy-sized missiles) sent from B-52s and other bombers? I went to an airshow a few days back, and the guys with the B-52 told me that they want to stay level to launch missiles if they at all can.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Obviously, something launched from a strtegic bomber won't have to deal with high g manouvres, since no bomber I've ever heard of is capable of them. The gun-less jets from the Vietnam war were all either interceptors or low level intruders.
I don't know how many Gs the JASSM and the AGM-84A (Air launched Harpoon) can compensate for, but I do know that neither can be launched while the aircraft is supersonic.
chrthiel 1 year ago
Also, the air launched version of the Tomahawk, the AGM-109H/L, never entered service.
chrthiel 1 year ago
Maybe there never was an ATS Tomahawk, but I am told the JASSM is basically the same thing.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Here's something else I have been wanting to say:
In a few of your comments, you have paint scenarios that put a battleship with no escorts. Why on earth would anyone ever send anything that big anywhere unescorted?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
If it's the posts I think it is, it's because I'm talking about the ships personal defences. I fully realize that it wouldn't go anywhere alone, but in those posts I'm pointing out that the USN doesn't rely completely on AAW cruisers and destroyers to defend all the non-aegis assets, and therefore the BBs current defences are inadequate. At least, that's the point I hope I convey.
As an aside, the need for escorts is another detractor from the BB, but more on that later.
chrthiel 1 year ago
For a BB to do its thing, it has to move very close to the shore, well within the range of short ranged (And therefore cheap and plentiful) shore based AShMs. Supposedly, this isn't a problem for the BB, since it's armour is believed be able to deal with it. (It isn't, but that's not important right now)
The story is very different for its escorts. Since they aren't armoured, they have to rely on their active defences. On the open seas, that isn't a problem, but in the cluttered coastal regions
chrthiel 1 year ago
those defences' capabilities deteriorate due to ground clutter and because enemy missiles will be launched at the naval equivalent of knife range.
chrthiel 1 year ago
Dumb question, but what good are escorts that close to the shore?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Seriously, it seems most of the escorts would be better further from shore, with the BB's and possibly DD's firing guns at the shore targets.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@chrthiel Carriers are even worse on escorts. They are far worse. I know their battlegroups have subs, unreps, DDs, and whatnot, whereas a battleship battlegroup consists of a Battleship (duh), one Aegis Cruiser, and three destroyers. Sumrall, Robert. Iowa Class Battleships. 1988. Naval institute press.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
75 long tons of ordnance per strike can be done by a Nimitz. A average of 3 strikes a day makes for 225 long tons of ordnance in a day. An Iowa's 30 minute "gun-run" delivers 229 Long tons of high explosives and steel. Also, the Navy stated that a BB takes less training than an Oliver hazard perry. A carrier needs lots of pilots and ground crew. You also need fuel for airplanes. Pilots are more to train than gunner's mates and the like. They also get more benefits, making them more expensive.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
You miss the point.
From a defensive PoV, a BB is a liability, since it lacks organic defences. A carrier, on the other hand does have organic defences, and if you consider the aircrafts organic, those defences has a longer range than its escorts.
For a BB to work, it has to move into range of pretty much every shore based weapon available, thus endangering its escorts.
chrthiel 1 year ago
The carrier on the other hand, can park a couple of 100s nm off the coast, outside the range of most weapons, and it'll have far more time to engage any weapons that can reach it.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel And its airplanes can get shot down.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Very easily...
Even stealth airplanes can get shot down if the AA dudes know what they're doing. There was (past tense) an F-117 over Bosnia (or Croatia? Some Eastern European place.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
A lucky shot at best....How many of the Soviet-made Serbian SAMs did NATO blow up between 1993-1999?
steve21061 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Aircraft carriers do not sail alone, any of the AEGIS cruisers and destroyers that are part of the carrier's battle group could reach out and touch any target within 600 miles.. Yes, a carrier may lose some pilots and jets in a conflict but the overwhelming majority will deliver the goods and then return to the ship.
steve21061 1 year ago
@steve21061 I don't remember claiming that CV's go it alone.
"the overwhelming majority will deliver the goods and then return to the ship."
That depends on the enemy's AA.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
If I were an enemy AA gunner or SAM operator I would worry about the US Navy's HARM & Tomahawk missiles and free falling MK-84 2000-lb bombs.
steve21061 1 year ago
@steve21061 I wouldn't worry too much about missiles. Land based phalanxes or possibly a landbased "sea"wolf missile could deal with missiles, as my good friend chrthiel told me. I did some research on the Seawolf (I believe there is only a ship based variant), and it had bought down a 5" projectile. MK-84 bombs require planes to get where they're going. If I were a SAM operator or AA gunner, I would know that my duty would be to make sure no airplanes come through, and thus no bombs.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
I don't think I am missing anything.
A new battleship could be given organic defenses. $1 says that if we design a new BB, it will be bigger than any previous battleship at all. A hull of that size could hold 150-200+ VLS, probably still with room for 12 16" guns. Those VLS could hold sea-wolf style (in terms of function) missiles, TLAMs, or whatever you can fit in them (JELLY BEANS!). A secondary battery might consist of 8-12 5"/62 guns, or about as many on one side as 2-3 'burkes hold at all.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
"$1 says that if we design a new BB, it will be bigger than any previous battleship at all."
Or at least as big as any built, there were some WWII-era designs like the German four 2X 20" turrets and Japanese designs that were obscenely giant (four 3X 20" turrets, 3 catapults, and 12 aircraft. The thing might as well have been a hybrid. I wish I could find the article that discussed that)
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
You would be referring to the H-class projects the Kreigsmarine was studying. They were nearly twice the size of the Bismarck. Damn Hitler and his crazy notion for a 100,000 ton battleships (H-42 and H-44 projects) armed with 8, 20" rifles mounted in four two gun turrets.
IJN was also toying around the "Super Yamatos" also to be armed with 20" guns. Both Navies eventually conceded that those size guns were impractical and by then Air Power had taken the crown of the seas.
Cirux321 1 year ago 2
@Cirux321 Guns that big are not practical, true, but I explained a case to chrthiel across several videos and I will explain to you that although battleships are phased out, the concept still could do well in the modern world.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Battleships aren't practical now, but they could be in the future. The problem now is there is to much investment in one weapons platform. You could do most of the same jobs for much cheaper with far less risk with a DDG or a CG. Laser based point defense was the first major technological hurdle, and we are overcoming it. Next and even more important is some kind of anti torpedo point defense system. If we could protect a battleship from submarine attack we could bring them back.
DrRockso99 1 year ago
@DrRockso99 Aren't DDG's supposed to protect from submarine attack?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe yes, destroyers and subs will try to protect the carrier, or as the case may be a battleship from attack by submarines. This is very difficult to do though, and while battleships are much better at surviving damage above the waterline, our carriers were designed with the expectation that they would be torpedoed by Soviet submarines, and are thus capable of surviving such impacts far better than you would expect. Battleships belt armor was effective against old torps, not the new ones.
DrRockso99 1 year ago
@DrRockso99 Its never been tested, on paper it was designed with the expectation in mind... but Im sure a type 65 torpedo would demonstrate its protection is actually inadequate... and nothing is invulnerable lol
mattmatt115 1 year ago
@mattmatt115 yeah, the problem is the way that modern torpedoes work. Its not just a matter of the warhead size, its a matter of where they strike. Torpedoes in ww2 would impact directly against the side of the hull not very far from the surface of the water. Modern torpedoes strike underneath against the keel. The battleship would be more resistant against something like that than say a frigate or a destroyer, but not carriers which were designed with this in mind.
DrRockso99 1 year ago
@DrRockso99 The type 65-76KIT is a wake homing torpedo that is nearly impossible to confuse, it carries a 450kg high explosive warhead and was designed to look for the biggest wake home in and detonate below the keel to create a giant air bubble followed by explosion to punch into the keel. Im sure Nimitz could take 1 or 2 hits but nothing is unsinkable with the correct forces in the correct place and the 650mm torpedo was designed specifically for sinking keel armored super carriers
mattmatt115 1 year ago
@mattmatt115 I'm both confused and a little amused that you seem to be arguing with me by repeating the very same points I was making. I never said that carriers were invulnerable to attack by modern torpedoes, only that they are resistant to it in a way that ww2 era battleships are not. I then commented that targeting radars are almost impossible to jam, and you respond by saying that jamming the homing sonar on a modern torpedo is "nearly impossible" as if that was something I refuted.
DrRockso99 1 year ago
@DrRockso99 That is why I believe that, if battleships come back, they ought be new ones. Too much has changed for WWII beasts to be good now. I think though, that a big-gun warship would be at least as deadly now as in anytime in history.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Before going back into service for the gulf war the USS Wisconsin got a complete rehab/update. Everything from the propulsion systems to the electrical/electronics, not to mention the weaponry that was taken off and replaced with modern weapons,,, of course they left the Big 16's.
Jackle61 1 year ago
@Jackle61 Thing is, Wisconsin's hull is still a WWII design that doesn't really account for modern weapons like the mark 48 torpedo
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe True, but it's much faster and equiped with much better anti-torpedo/anti-mine systems. I admit they are old, but, anything that can lob a one ton shell 23 miles I want on my side. 8-) If nothing else lets put them on pirate patrol.
Jackle61 1 year ago
@Jackle61 I agree to an extant, the Iowa's would be good stop-gaps until we could bring a modern battleship to the field
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
To my knowledge, no hull can survive a modern heavy weight torpedo and while you could probably make one that was, it would be so compromised that it would be good for nothing but surviving torpedoes. Oddly enough, I don't think there's much of a market for a ship like that.
Oh and, Hi I'm back with even more well researched reasons why BB's are out of the picture and they won't be coming back.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been around the whole of your hiatus, and I have many reasons why they're valid, but since I'm not the secretary of the navy, I don't have the power to bring 'em back. I think those in power don't have the intelligence to.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@chrthiel Also, what do you mean "compromised"? "Complicated", maybe?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@chrthiel May be an ASW Market for a hull of that sort. Plus, how do we know a BB hull would not survive a shock torpedo? They've only been tested (that I know of) on weak, modern hulls that would have trouble with an AT-4. Besides, you are making another mistake that undid you previously, and you're calling "battleship faults" that are also the fault of every ship that's been made.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Jackle61
Calling what the engineering department got a complete update is stretching it about three hundred miles beyond the breaking point.
Sure, they were put back to working condition, but that was about it but that was it. Neither the engines nor the boilers were updated at all. Heck, they had to raid museums and depots where nobody had been for fourty years to find enough spares. And the only reason why they could do it was because at the time the USN still had two fast supply ships that
chrthiel 1 year ago
@Jackle61
used the same type of engines and boilers. They don't anymore and they have no personel qualified to opperate the 600 psi boilers and turbines anymore. None. They don't have the schools or the training materiel to train new ones either. All the experience necessary to run a BB is gone and getting it back will take millions if not billions of dollars. Dollars the USN doesn't have.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel The USN also doesn't have the billions for G. R. Fords and all the LCS's (don't start me on those).
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Not complicated, compromised. In a nutshell, a hull capable of withstanding a modern torpedo would have so much steel and other alloys allocated to torpedo defences that it wouldn't have buoyancy left for a meaningful weapons load.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
As for if a BB could, the US had great success in sinking Japanese BBs with what was probably the dodgiest torpedo of the war. (Seriously, the torpedoes used by the US where craptastic)
Modern wire-guided torpedoes can hit within cm of the optimal detonation point, making them far more lethal. That's why nobody has bothered to SINKEX a BB with a torpedo, they already knew what was going to happen.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel A battleship would not be a "one-trick wonder". Bombardment only for the guns? No. THey could do anti-ship, and a ship the size of a BB (assuming BB growth would be anything like that for carriers, which is another discussion altogether) would have room for plenty of missiles.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Don't go down the BBG road. Seriously, if you want to move missiles around that's better done by a destroyer. It will not be able to carry as many as the mythical BBG, but it will be able to do it a lot cheaper, hence you can have more of them, giving you more options both strategically and tactically.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel If all I have is missiles, how do I have more options than I do with missiles AND guns?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
I don't but we do.
That's the key. Instead of having one BB, you'll have several destroyers, and they'll be able to cover the same area.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel But can they cover as effectively? For, what worth are they if all their missiles are brought down by SEARAM and similar weapons?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
and can their light shells from their 5" guns really cause much harm?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Yes they can. And a 16" shell is even easier to bring down than a missile since once you spot it, which is easy, you'll know exactly where it's going to hit and everywhere in between. A missile on the other hand isn't following a balistic trajectory, and some of them can do all kinds of nasty terminal manouvering, making them far harder to shoot down. And as I've said before, the Brits have intercepted 104mm shells on several occasions.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel You told me that a seawolf can't actually STOP a 16" shell though.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Now you're catching at straws.
Anyway, yes, it can't stop it. But then again, it doesn't need to. It has plenty of umpf to blow it way of course, and since a shell doesn't have terminal guidance, it won't be able to correct for it.
And anyway, it's a moot point since an Iowa wont get within reach of a modern warship.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@Contrajoe The net result is the same.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel An Iowa might not, but a modern BBG might not actually have much trouble.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@chrthiel Also, if it can only be knocked off course, can't that just get factored into the firing solution? Presumably it's not that simple, but I would imagine you could get some hits, and you only need one or two to sink a destroyer, maybe 5-20 to sink a carrier (depending on where you hit).
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
No, because you don't have a clue which way it'll be knocked.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel Perhaps, But if you fire multiple rounds, you could guess that some are going to get knocked a certain way.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Nope. The raw computing power required to calculate where the pieces will end up within a usefull timeframe simply doesn't exist. And that's assuming you know where the missile explodes in relation to the shell. Which you don't.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel Actually, if the shell was in pieces, it'd be basically destroyed, which you said couldn't happen. Can a big shell be destroyed or not? Also, computers are more powerful than you think.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
That's semantics. It doesn't matter if the shell fragments or not. (Though a direct hit on a HE shell would probably trigger a sympathetic explosion) Point is, you don't know where it'll end up.
And I have a fairly good idea of how powerful modern computers are. However, this is very very complex math, on the level of fluid dynamics, and that takes hours to calculate on modern super computers. Besides, it's moot since you don't have the variables needed to do the calculations.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel Fair enough
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@chrthiel A missile can still be brought down and it is more expensive than a 16" scramjet round might be once we get past R&D and build the shells just as we build missiles.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Yes, they "could" do anti ship, in the same way that an assault rifle can do AA.
However, any situation where the BB would be able to use its guns for ASuW, it would be so busy avoiding mines and other coastal hazards that it wouldn't matter.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel I don't think assault rifle AA is a fair comparison. It is probably closer to a tank doing anti-APC work, which can usually go well enough for the tank. Also, destroyers and LCS's have to avoid coastal hazards and mines as well.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
As for the navy not having the funds for existing ships, that just proves my point really. The USN doesn't need a huge and expensive one-trick-wonder, it needs multimission platforms. The LCS is an attempt at just such a platform. It may or may not have failed, only time will tell. They get points for trying though.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel In the 1980's, the USN still practiced the guns for anti-ship.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@DrRockso99 Actually, subs are more a threat to lesser vessels and carriers than to battleships. BB's have armor, which no ship today has enough of to survive say, a torpedo, harpoon or an exocet. Also, contrary to popular opinion, BB’s are cheap. According to a 1988 publication by Robert Sumrall, an Iowa delivers as much ordinance in 30 minutes as a Nimitz in three strike runs (around a day). As for laser systems, the USAF is experimenting with 1 in a 747, so getting 1 on ship could happen.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Subs are very much a threat to battleships sorry to say. Battleships are not armored well very far below the waterline. They have belt armor, but torpedoes today will strike directly underneath the keel where there is virtually no armor at all. Yes, a battleship can deliver a lot of inexpensive ordinance to a target, but that target must be within 30 miles of the coast. Carriers can do it hundreds of miles inland, and are much better at protecting themselves.
DrRockso99 1 year ago
@Contrajoe As for the laser, your information needs updating. Yes, the airforce is experimenting with a large laser in a 747, this is designed to knock out ballistic missiles though, it is far larger and more powerful than is necessary to protect a warship from surface to surface anti ship missiles. Look up the MTHEL (mobile tactical high energy laser) it is is small enough to replace phalanx mounts currently on US warships, and will make them invulnerable to attack by shells or missiles.
DrRockso99 1 year ago
@DrRockso99 unless the system is jammed
mattmatt115 1 year ago
@mattmatt115 Unlike communications antennas, targeting radars are very difficult to jam. They are very powerful and jamming them is impractical. The MTHEL system wouldnt be any easier to jam than any other radar targeted weapon we currently employ, which is essentially all of them. If jamming targeting radars was as easy as you imagine, then all modern weapons would be useless, and we would still be targeting visually and firing cannons at eachother.
DrRockso99 1 year ago
That is, I will explain it to you if you want me to. Also, wouldn't harbors across Europe need to be tripled in size if 100,000 ton ships were to be accepted?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Cirux321 The super yamatos supposedly were not based off of the pair of 70,000 ton ships that came to be. I think they were to have 6X 20" guns in three twin turrets. 90,000 tons if I remember right. There was one design (I wish I could find where I read about it) that was to be proposed that would have had four 3x 20" turrets and 12 aircraft with three catapults. I don't remember the displacement.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Obviously, something launched from a strtegic bomber won't have to deal with high g manouvres, since no bomber I've ever heard of is capable of them. The gun-less jets from the Vietnam war were all either interceptors or low level intruders.
I don't know how many Gs the JASSM and the AGM-84A (Air launched Harpoon) can compensate for, but I do know that neither can be launched while the aircraft is supersonic.
chrthiel 1 year ago
It seems like you have made a double post, or YT is really messed up. That is hilarious.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Can't say. The new system is completely fucked if you ask me.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel Very astute observation, Mr. Holmes
Contrajoe 1 year ago
What about the Bone (B-one)? It is fast, and I saw one flying when I was on the Lexington (CV-16). It seemed incredibly maneuverable given how big it was.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Contrajoe
Obviously, something launched from a strtegic bomber won't have to deal with high g manouvres, since no bomber I've ever heard of is capable of them. The gun-less jets from the Vietnam war were all either interceptors or low level intruders.
I don't know how many Gs the JASSM and the AGM-84A (Air launched Harpoon) can compensate for, but I do know that neither can be launched while the aircraft is supersonic.
chrthiel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Contrajoe
Obviously, something launched from a strtegic bomber won't have to deal with high g manouvres, since no bomber I've ever heard of is capable of them. The gun-less jets from the Vietnam war were all either interceptors or low level intruders.
I don't know how many Gs the JASSM and the AGM-84A (Air launched Harpoon) can compensate for, but I do know that neither can be launched while the aircraft is supersonic.
chrthiel 1 year ago
A triple post! 2 are marked as spam! What the heck?! Make sure you only click "post comment" once. This is hilarious.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
that was great! those guns really go off!
itsonlyafl3shwound 1 year ago 6
Also, you can shoot down tomahawks. You can use chaff and other ECM to fool missiles. As I said, a shell has nothing to think with, it is just a warhead. It cannot be tricked.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Plus, airplanes need pilots and jet fuel. Guns need powder, crew, and shells, but they do not require as much time to procure. The navy once said an Iowa was less training than (you read?) an OLIVER HAZARD PERRY!
Contrajoe 2 years ago
Also, they don't require as much money to procure.
Contrajoe 2 years ago
Yes, but the training facilities for the Perry class already exists and they have scores of qualified people to teach the crews. Not so for the Iowas. The training facilities has either been sold, torn down or repurposed and the qualified people haven't haven't worked with the class for over 15 years, meaning that their certifications have expired and their skills will be severely rusty.
chrthiel 1 year ago
If a BB is truly easier to train, the facilities would not be that complex. Also, the U.S. is so far in debt that money is hardly a factor, at least until we start calling out figures.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Also, the cost thing ain't right - an Iowa can deliver more ordinance faster than a Nimitz. Also, powder and shells are much cheaper than tomahawks, so the cost argument is kind of messy.
Contrajoe 2 years ago
That kind of shell range - you don't need guidance - it won't be accurate, but guidance isn't a requirement
Contrajoe 2 years ago
Actually, if you want to hit anything at extended ranges, you will need guidance.
The main argument for recomming the BBs is to provide fire support for friendly troops. At extended ranges, a 16''/50 Mark 7 without a guided projectile will have a CEP of a couple of hundred yards. That means it'll be worthless for fire support and thus it wont have a reason to exist. So the projectiles will need guidance.
chrthiel 1 year ago
The rocket assisted projectiles from the Arliegh Burkes will have a range of 75 NM. A RATO 16" could more than equal that in damage and range. I would be whatever combo we want. Personally, I think a rocket with enough fuel to get the projectile where it can go 80NM would be enough range, and the rest could still have a big warhead.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
*It would be whatever...
Contrajoe 1 year ago
I want to clear up that the figue is 40 NM and 74-ish KM for the range of the burkes 5".
Contrajoe 1 year ago
I'm not sayin' they should go unguided 500+ plus miles, I was trying to say that they should have a rocket to make them go 80 NM, which is 5 NM farther than the 5" shells of the DDG-51's.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Alternatively, the rocket could be two phase. The first pushes the projectile to give useful range. BOOM. Then, the second rocket gives an extra boost for penetration through bunkers and other hard targets, delivering a warhead only a 16" gun could provide for less cost than an airplane.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Yes, the strike itself would probably be cheaper, but once you factor in development (The AF and the Navy already have bunker busters in service) and aditional operational costs (The AF and the navy already operates planes capable of delivering said bunker busters) and the fact that range wont be better, and likely be worse (Can't refuel a shell in mid-air) it'll not only be costlier, it'll be inferior.
chrthiel 1 year ago
Still, once we develop the technology, the cost will be lower. It is like adding airplanes to our inventory last early century: Early on, the cost of the new facilities and all of that was kind of high, but, ultimately, it became cheap enough to stick around.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
*80 KM
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
The 5"/62 mark 45 mod 4 (The one used of DDG51) has a range of 38.4km, or ~21nm when firing conventional rounds. In order to reach the kinds of ranges you're talking about, it has to use either ERGM or BTERM rounds, both of which are boosted and guided and while cheaper than a TacTom, they still cost about the same as a Javelin ATGM
chrthiel 1 year ago
I wasn't aware that those were guided. Still, if we got any new battleships or the Iowas back, the secondary battery should be the 5"/62 mark 45 mod 4 or some other current-day gun of that size.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
I would argue that guns are enough, but more than guns would be preferable.
Contrajoe 2 years ago
@Contrajoe as justification for new BB's
Contrajoe 2 years ago
But they aren't. If they were we would at least have seen some proposals and designs. And fact is, no-one has proposed a new BB since the early fifties.
So to repeat my points, the guns aren't enough in and of themselves and all the other missions can be done for less cost and with higher flexibility by smaller units. In order to make BBs viable, someone will have to invent a weapons or radar system that requires a BB sized hull, yet leaves room enough for the guns.
chrthiel 2 years ago
Not really
Contrajoe 2 years ago
A large rail gun system might require a BB hull.
Contrajoe 2 years ago
@Contrajoe
Not really. Railguns derive their destructive potential from speed, rather than the size of projectile.
It's more efficient to make the projectile go faster than it is to make it larger.
chrthiel 1 year ago