senojekips
Active member
Just a point Spike, Mitchell showed that Battle Wagons were vunerable to air attack after WWI.
As always, you are right again..... Old timer's disease,... that's my excuse.
Last edited:
Battleship is not obsolete
As always, you are right again..... Old timer's disease,... that's my excuse.
senojekips
Active member
If that is true, why is it that there hasn't been one launched since Nov. 1944? (HMS Vanguard).
They are dinosaurs of another age. Battle ships are about as important to naval warfare as railway guns to land warfare.
c/Commander
Active member
Untrue. We use converted naval Mark-15 Phalanx gun systems in Iraq (they're known as C-RAM on the ground) to shoot down incoming mortar shells...why not a gigantic battleship shell?
Just a point Spike, Mitchell showed that Battle Wagons were vunerable to air attack after WWI.
true, but that's why we have destroyers and cruisers
03USMC
Active member
NGF has a flatter trajectory than an 81mm mortar round........just sayin.
c/Commander
Active member
And a surface-to-surface cruise missile, which is what the Phalanx was designed to counter, has an even flatter trajectory. It can do it, given the proper calibrations and the opportunity.
03USMC
Active member
Nice theory ...still don't see CWIS ground mounted taken on a salvo of 5' 54 let alone 16' 50.
c/Commander
Active member
5", probably not, but the gun itself is pretty much a visual range weapon. The 16" is about twice as fast as a Harpoon at the muzzle, but is also twice the size, and has no onboard propulsion...so at its terminal end, I'd wager a CIWS against a 16"/50.
Hmmm, have to challenge the date of the last launching here. Although not specifically classed as Battleships, the Kirov Class Heavy Missile Cruisers would have to be as close to a WW2 Battleship as an Aegis Class Cruiser is to a WW2 Cruiser. What do you think? Simply a matter of definition?
Yes, CIWS might be pretty good against the sub-sonic cruise missiles I think were around at the time of the development of CIWS, however, how effective do you think it is against a supersonic nuclear capable cruise missile, especially considering the latter can be used as a proximity device, not even having to be close to the target on detonation, to take it out? Would be interesitng to g;et the effective range calibrations from the original anti-ship nuclear test in the Pacific, using captured naval vessels. Then of course, we need to consider the potential of a CIWS to address a hypersonic nuclear capable cruise missile? You know, like the ones BrahMos expects to have developed within now less than 3 years.
NERO1234
Another even greater achievement is going to be how you hit something between the line of sight horizon and the ballistic impact zone, seems to me, rail guns are going to run into a problem of a safe zone. Simply surface a submairne in the safe zone launch a high velocity cruise missile and exit the rail gun mounted combatant. Overly simplified but seems logical to me.
Try a response time of about 1 1/2 seconds in which to identifiy as a threat a sea skimming high velocity cruise missile, laying the gun and firing, whether you're talking about a CIWS or a rail gun the time is awfully brief. If you can't shred enough material of the incoming HVCM the energy from the ballistic impact alone, is probably going to be a terminal event for the target, whether it carries a rail gun or a CIWS.
Personally, in the case of a nuclear capable HVCM, I'd rig it with a sensor trigger that automatically detonated the warhead on impingment of a targeting radar. Let the blast wave do it's work; thats what nukes are all about.
NERO1234
Yes, CIWS might be pretty good against the sub-sonic cruise missiles I think were around at the time of the development of CIWS, however, how effective do you think it is against a supersonic nuclear capable cruise missile, especially considering the latter can be used as a proximity device, not even having to be close to the target on detonation, to take it out? Would be interesitng to g;et the effective range calibrations from the original anti-ship nuclear test in the Pacific, using captured naval vessels. Then of course, we need to consider the potential of a CIWS to address a hypersonic nuclear capable cruise missile? You know, like the ones BrahMos expects to have developed within now less than 3 years.
NERO1234
Another even greater achievement is going to be how you hit something between the line of sight horizon and the ballistic impact zone, seems to me, rail guns are going to run into a problem of a safe zone. Simply surface a submairne in the safe zone launch a high velocity cruise missile and exit the rail gun mounted combatant. Overly simplified but seems logical to me.
Try a response time of about 1 1/2 seconds in which to identifiy as a threat a sea skimming high velocity cruise missile, laying the gun and firing, whether you're talking about a CIWS or a rail gun the time is awfully brief. If you can't shred enough material of the incoming HVCM the energy from the ballistic impact alone, is probably going to be a terminal event for the target, whether it carries a rail gun or a CIWS.
Personally, in the case of a nuclear capable HVCM, I'd rig it with a sensor trigger that automatically detonated the warhead on impingment of a targeting radar. Let the blast wave do it's work; thats what nukes are all about.
NERO1234
c/Commander
Active member
For starts, more effective than you might think, though I don't know the specifics (and couldn't tell you if I did). Second, for supersonic targets, I don't need CIWS as long as I could hit it with an SM-2...which is very doable.
Hmmm! Lets see. You're proposing you can acquire a small agile target traveling 15ft above sea level at better than Mk2.5 in level flight and better than Mk3 in a dive and hit this with an SM-2? How close do you think a nuclear capable warhead has to get before the blast wave takes you out. These are specifically sea denial systems we are talking about here. Please remember how old the Sovremeny Class Detroyer design is, and that Russia has now exported a number of vessels of this Class; which means they already have something superior in service. The Sovremeny Class were specifically designed to overcome the Aegis System vessels of the US Navy and to eliminate American Carrier Battle Groups. In this respose, we haven't even started to consider the hypersonic versions of these missiles, which are already in development.
NERO1234
NERO1234
Exporting those destroyers doesn't necessarily mean they got something superior up their sleeves, another very probable solution to this is that they don't have the money anymore to keep them running. At the moment, Russia is very eager to modernize its military equipment; development of new weapons systems and platforms is a really expensive business, and having to spend millions and billions on new equipment doesn't affect the budget you have to work with. In my opinion, chances are that they needed the bucks they get from exporting those ships elsewhere.
To get back on topic: I think nothing is obsolete as long as it fulfills any given reasonable role, even if it lost (like battleships) its key role in the military. A barrage from 16-inch ship artillery still is absolutely devastating, especially if you keep in mind that most wars today are not fought by equals. It depends on who is using them: the US could use battleships (or, to put another example, also the B-52) without hesitation because the combined ground, naval and air forces guarding their attack make them more or less invincible (if I recall correctly, there was a US battleship deployed to the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War). If your adversary doesn't have the means to defend himself or counter your equipment, no matter how old it is, it is not obsolete. Never change a running system...
If you'd like to put two militaries that are equal in size, equipment and training against each other, you get a different picture. If you cannot rely on unchallenged air dominance and the lack of enemy anti ship artillery, battleships are nothing but moving targets. slow-moving targets that is...
//just my 2 Cents though
edit: found it was the USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin, two Iowa-class battleships, that took part in Operation Desert Storm.
To get back on topic: I think nothing is obsolete as long as it fulfills any given reasonable role, even if it lost (like battleships) its key role in the military. A barrage from 16-inch ship artillery still is absolutely devastating, especially if you keep in mind that most wars today are not fought by equals. It depends on who is using them: the US could use battleships (or, to put another example, also the B-52) without hesitation because the combined ground, naval and air forces guarding their attack make them more or less invincible (if I recall correctly, there was a US battleship deployed to the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War). If your adversary doesn't have the means to defend himself or counter your equipment, no matter how old it is, it is not obsolete. Never change a running system...
If you'd like to put two militaries that are equal in size, equipment and training against each other, you get a different picture. If you cannot rely on unchallenged air dominance and the lack of enemy anti ship artillery, battleships are nothing but moving targets. slow-moving targets that is...
//just my 2 Cents though
edit: found it was the USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin, two Iowa-class battleships, that took part in Operation Desert Storm.
Last edited:
c/Commander
Active member
No, I don't think they were, given the fact that both the early Ticonderogas and the early Sovremennys were constructed at the same time (1980). Also, the range of the Sunburn is such that I can absolutely hit a plane carrying it before that aircraft reaches launch range (and certainly a ship).
Also, nuclear devices are designed not to detonate unless fused to do so, which means hitting it with said SM-2 would not cause a nuclear explosion.
You ever try to stop a Mac truck with a baseball?
Either way guys not everybody has all these really coolguy weapons, now days what were dealing with a third world muslim terrorists, or some dirt bag pirate useing anything they can to do whatever amount of damage they can, sit 20 miles off their coast, shell them from the U.S.S Wisconsin, and their ain't a lot they can do about it except run.
Last edited:
Supostat
Active member
Yes, they are.
1. Range. The reason why carriers got on the top was (and still is) because their capability to engage targets located hundreds of miles away, while battleship can engage only targets few dozens of miles away.
2. Accuracy. Salvos of battleship guns still lacks accuracy - their projectiles works just like free falling air bombs. While ground attack planes after taking off from the carrier, can deliver guided bombs and missiles into a target thus increasing effectivity of the use of ammo.
And finally - imagine battle between battleship group vs. carrier group. Which one will fin? I'll put my bet on carrier group.
1. Range. The reason why carriers got on the top was (and still is) because their capability to engage targets located hundreds of miles away, while battleship can engage only targets few dozens of miles away.
2. Accuracy. Salvos of battleship guns still lacks accuracy - their projectiles works just like free falling air bombs. While ground attack planes after taking off from the carrier, can deliver guided bombs and missiles into a target thus increasing effectivity of the use of ammo.
And finally - imagine battle between battleship group vs. carrier group. Which one will fin? I'll put my bet on carrier group.
What about the cost of all the guided bombs/missles that would be needed in an attack on something well fortified like many of the Pacific Islands were, vs 16" shells?
I beg to differ about the accuracy of a BB's shells, Maybe in the 90's and after they aren't accurate, but last time I saw one was Desert Storm, and eth U.S.S Wisconsin hit their intended target every time, and was only off my a inch or two.
Supostat
Active member
Cheap free-falling bombs can be used for aerial targets, while carrier group is still far away from enemy. As closer group is to enemy, as easier enemy can strike back. It is always advantage if we can engage enemy, who lacks range and is unable to strike back...
And how do you think, why battleships weren't used in 2003, when resistance from Iraqi side in general was heavier than in 1991?
Would anyone of you use gun armed battleship as main force against enemy who owns naval air forces, armed with anti-ship rockets, as well as missile-armed combat ships? Battleship, in this case, is powerful opponent, but with short hands.