StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hello all. I've been away for a bit visiting the USS New Jersey a 45 000 ton battleship. It was as you say "kewl" Of course the fools don't know I replaced it with a wooden prop and the real ship is under my command, to crush all who stand in my way. Muhahahahahaha...*







*please ignore the last part

*Readies Truck mounted Styx missiles and Sivuch missile corvettes* You may attack when ready big gun loving scum. The missile shall rule the day!

Yes, a most impressive ship. The Olympia on the Philadelphia side is definitely worth the visit as well.

Whew! What a relief! I thought Manji had gotten to you.

*Hops into Akula class sub bought on russian black market.

It'll be 45,000 tons of scrap soon.

BWUAHHAA

Mr. B wrote:*Hops into Akula class sub bought on russian black market.

It'll be 45,000 tons of scrap soon.

BWUAHHAA

You see this GRAND ADMIRAL THRAWN name? Give me a tug boat and I'll sink all major navies.

Thawn was realistic person who knew when to run, and also lost in the end. The fact that my Corvettes have a twenty-knot speed advantage thanks to the whole surface effect craft thing, and Noghri at the fire control stations put you in something of a hopeless situation.

The incoming flights of BLU-109 toting Strike Eagles and BL-755 armed Jaguars are mere icing on the cake.

Prepare to die, Admiral.

I love the New jersey. If they could get those 16 inchers working again and take care of the neighborhood around her, she'd be perfect.

I'm sure I'll do fine with Manji's mile long battlesh- (glug glug)

The immobile, heavy ship sinks below the waves.

I love those big Iowas, it's a shame they were decomissioned. A lot of people want to recomission them, but they obviously aren't aware of the reason they were decomissioned in the first place. Sure, all the major systems are in tact and fully functional, but the plastic/rubber insulation is over 60 years old. You can imagine how cracked and dried out it is.

Rewiring the whole thing would be a very expensive task, and more than enough trouble the Navy is willing to endure. It's a pity.

Witness wrote:I love those big Iowas, it's a shame they were decomissioned. A lot of people want to recomission them, but they obviously aren't aware of the reason they were decomissioned in the first place. Sure, all the major systems are in tact and fully functional, but the plastic/rubber insulation is over 60 years old. You can imagine how cracked and dried out it is.

Rewiring the whole thing would be a very expensive task, and more than enough trouble the Navy is willing to endure. It's a pity.

I don’t know about wiring, harder then rewiring is finding parts of the electronics. NASA at least can use EBAY for what it needs, but 1940s parts have to be stripped out of other 1940s hulks, and there aren't many left.

The high manning and operating costs, combined with the redundant missile capacity and limited value of the main battery are what really killed the Iowa's.

The reactivate movement is fairly small, and has almost no congressional support. Some Representative, I think from New York State, wanted to add the reactivation of two Iowa's to the most recent defense budget, but was politely told they were redundant and a waste of money, and the he withdrew the proposal at once.

Anyway, the spare barrels and liners have been destroyed, and the ammunition may be on the way to the scrap yard as well, so reactivation is feasible possible unless some one want to shell out a half billion dollars to get new barrels made. The current ones only have around a 100 rounds of life left.

I think they should revamp the ships, upgrading all their systems to modern equivelants.

Basic power supply wiring should not need replaced, but a lot of new wiring for modern battle management systems would need to be put in.

As for replacement parts, don't bother cannibalising 1940s ships, just retool and set up a line for those parts again, or if it is a part for which a better, more advanced equivelant exists now, use that instead.

Defensive weapons systems/sensors/software etc. would be of the top-line currently available type (such as the Aegis system).

Also, the replacement of the diesel power source with a nuclear power source might be an idea (giving the ship the extreme range and time-onstation advantages enjoyed by nuclear powered aircraft carriers).

It should also be possible with a thorough and calculated application of modern automation (including computer control of various tasks etc) to greatly reduce the required crew complement.

At the end, you would have a ship no more vulnerable to being hit by the enemy than any current US ship, but capable of actually absorbing much more damage (since it is armoured, which modern ships are not, and is also subdivided into many compartments) plus having the ability, if it gets inside about 30 miles, to deal out incredible damage with its big guns but without expending millions of dollars with every round fired. (Incidentally new types of shell proposed in recent times would have extended the range quite a bit).

Deimos Anomaly wrote:I think they should revamp the ships, upgrading all their systems to modern equivelants.

They did that.. fitted it with the PHALANX CIWS, Tomahawks, everything.

Deimos Anomaly wrote:Basic power supply wiring should not need replaced, but a lot of new wiring for modern battle management systems would need to be put in.

I wouldn't know about the power supply wiring, but I can agree with the battle management systems. The ship endures a.. hmm.. snowstorm, if you will, of fragments of insulation when you fire the main batteries.

Deimos Anomaly wrote:As for replacement parts, don't bother cannibalising 1940s ships, just retool and set up a line for those parts again, or if it is a part for which a better, more advanced equivelant exists now, use that instead.

Defensive weapons systems/sensors/software etc. would be of the top-line currently available type (such as the Aegis system).

Also, the replacement of the diesel power source with a nuclear power source might be an idea (giving the ship the extreme range and time-onstation advantages enjoyed by nuclear powered aircraft carriers).

It should also be possible with a thorough and calculated application of modern automation (including computer control of various tasks etc) to greatly reduce the required crew complement.

At the end, you would have a ship no more vulnerable to being hit by the enemy than any current US ship, but capable of actually absorbing much more damage (since it is armoured, which modern ships are not, and is also subdivided into many compartments) plus having the ability, if it gets inside about 30 miles, to deal out incredible damage with its big guns but without expending millions of dollars with every round fired. (Incidentally new types of shell proposed in recent times would have extended the range quite a bit).

All reasonable ideas until you look at the other side of the menu where the price range is. Spending that much money on one ship alone would be extremely taboo spendings -- not to mention a handful or an entire fleet of them. The engine overhaul alone would probably put the budget in the red.

Ships aren't like cars, it will undoubtedly require modification to other systems for it to run at an optimal capacity.

Its deck isn't well armoured as other parts. Its deck is going to be hit.

HIT THE DECK!


I....I....I'm sorry...don't know what came over me there

Deimos Anomaly wrote:I think they should revamp the ships, upgrading all their systems to modern equivelants.

Basic power supply wiring should not need replaced, but a lot of new wiring for modern battle management systems would need to be put in.

As for replacement parts, don't bother cannibalising 1940s ships, just retool and set up a line for those parts again, or if it is a part for which a better, more advanced equivelant exists now, use that instead.

Defensive weapons systems/sensors/software etc. would be of the top-line currently available type (such as the Aegis system).

Also, the replacement of the diesel power source with a nuclear power source might be an idea (giving the ship the extreme range and time-onstation advantages enjoyed by nuclear powered aircraft carriers).

It should also be possible with a thorough and calculated application of modern automation (including computer control of various tasks etc) to greatly reduce the required crew complement.

At the end, you would have a ship no more vulnerable to being hit by the enemy than any current US ship, but capable of actually absorbing much more damage (since it is armoured, which modern ships are not, and is also subdivided into many compartments) plus having the ability, if it gets inside about 30 miles, to deal out incredible damage with its big guns but without expending millions of dollars with every round fired. (Incidentally new types of shell proposed in recent times would have extended the range quite a bit).

Any the point of this ship would be what? You proposal would cost at the minimal, two point five billion dollars pre ship, possibly three. The existing guns and shells don’t meet fire support requirements, and weapons which do will be in service years before any new 16 inch round could be, command and control is covered by other vessels both existing and authorized, additional VLS cells are redundant, the USN already has twice as many as it has missiles to fill them, air defense is redundant and pointless as the radars would be knock offline by the shock of firing the main battery and crushed by the overpressure.

The ship is considerably more venerable then other vessels. The radar, acoustical and infrared signatures are greater then those of a CVN and the ability of ECM or chaff to mask the ship from attackers is doubtful.

The TDS is outdated and can't cope with modern torpedoes, though no ship can, and the ships construction and subdivision are oriented to resist threats, which don’t exist.


Currently we have 155mm rounds in production, which outrange any 16/50 shells ever built. The normal rounds can reach 23.5 miles; the failed 16/13 sabots round could reach 35 with poor accuracy.

The proposed 16/11 inch sabot round was rejected as worthless in the mid 1980s and was far too inaccurate to but of any use. It was claimed it could reach 100 miles, but in fact no work was ever done on it and few records of it can be found today.



Armor is worthless against modern aircraft bombs and missiles, and has been since the 1940s. That’s why no one bothers to armor ships beyond light splinter plating. Modern shaped charge anti ship missile warheads can punch though several feet of armor, and the fuel loads produce fires, the real killers of ships, which cant be extinguished.

Even a TOW anti tank missile can punch though any armor on an Iowa, and its warhead has about three pounds of HE in it. Heck, most single shot LAW weapons can and are even lighter.

Even a TOW anti tank missile can punch though any armor on an Iowa, and its warhead has about three pounds of HE in it. Heck, most single shot LAW weapons can and are even lighter.

Im not so sure. Even if they could, they are not much of a threat to such a large vessel.

Although I suppose TOW could mangle the 5" mounts, the CIWS, and smaller things.

Which leads to an interesting question? Could the CIWS stop a TOW missle? I dont know much about CIWS. What do you think?

One of the little day dreams Ive always had would be to catch a destroyer or frigate size vessel close to shore, and shoot it up with a TOW on a Hummer or LAV. Yes, I know its just a day dream. But it my day dream, dammit! Actually, I think I would want 3 vehicles with TOWS.

I dont think the LAW could penetrate the thicker armor. Even if it did, it would not do much damage either.

You have to give it SOME Armor, More than a Tank at least(At least triple that) Otherwise that Terriost with the Ten Doller RPG and the row-boat is gonna sink your carriner and that would be rather embarasing no?

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Even a TOW anti tank missile can punch though any armor on an Iowa, and its warhead has about three pounds of HE in it. Heck, most single shot LAW weapons can and are even lighter.

Im not so sure. Even if they could, they are not much of a threat to such a large vessel.

Although I suppose TOW could mangle the 5" mounts, the CIWS, and smaller things.

Which leads to an interesting question? Could the CIWS stop a TOW missle? I dont know much about CIWS. What do you think?

One of the little day dreams Ive always had would be to catch a destroyer or frigate size vessel close to shore, and shoot it up with a TOW on a Hummer or LAV. Yes, I know its just a day dream. But it my day dream, dammit! Actually, I think I would want 3 vehicles with TOWS.

I dont think the LAW could penetrate the thicker armor. Even if it did, it would not do much damage either.

A TOW-2A can penetrate 31 inches of armor. Iowans maximum is 2/3s of that. The after effects would of course not be lethal, even with dozens of strikes. However a turret penetrated by such a blast would be out of action.

The armor penetration of the M-72 LAW is about 15 inches, enough to penetration the Iowa's belt, deck, turret sides and roofs, bulkheads and communications tubes. Only the turret faces and three sides of the CT are safe.

The LAW-80 can penetrate about 20 inches, enough to punch though anything on the Iowa.

I'm however just using these as an example of the uselessness of the Iowa's armor; infantry anti tank weapons should never be in a position to hit an Iowa. Though attack helicopters would be a huge threat in the ships 1980s reactivation guise. A single modern helo could stand off outside the range of the ships defense and destroy every weapon and set the ship ablaze by exploding its harpoon canisters with one load of missiles.

A Silkworm with an 800-pound shaped charge could easily repeat the feat of a weapon 1/400th its warhead size. And it has hundreds of pounds of solid rocket fuel along with the jet to cause massive fires. The blast damage from the warhead makes everything worsen.


And CIWS could not cope with a ATGW, there far to small.

I'm however just using these as an example of the uselessness of the Iowa's armor; infantry anti tank weapons should never be in a position to hit an Iowa. Though attack helicopters would be a huge threat in the ships 1980s reactivation guise. A single modern helo could stand off outside the range of the ships defense and destroy every weapon and set the ship ablaze by exploding its harpoon canisters with one load of missiles.

I agree but it is certainly fun subject to talk about.

We all went over this in a previous thread.

I do support the using the IOWA's again, primarly as an artillery platform for the Marines. But I do realize they are very old, and expensive to maintain.

I dont have any faith in the ERGM program for the Navy's 6" guns. I would they would rather they look into fitting an 8" gun into the larger vessels. I found a link once about tests they did once. If I remember it I will post it.

And CIWS could not cope with a ATGW, there far to small.

Thanks for the info.

A Silkworm with an 800-pound shaped charge could easily repeat the feat of a weapon 1/400th its warhead size. And it has hundreds of pounds of solid rocket fuel along with the jet to cause massive fires. The blast damage from the warhead makes everything worsen.

I think this pretty much applies to any ship modern or old. It does make you wonder if a modern fleet could stop a large scale ASM attack. I dont think we have seen ASM's launched in numbers more than a few at a time.

ERGM is a round for the 5/62 guns. The 155mm program is the Advanced gun system or AGS. As for effectiveness, a ship that can transport two 155's could only haul a single 8-inch gun, and the dual 155's could deliver more weight of shell. The US army is fine with nothing over 155 after all.

A modern fleet with air support stands a good chance of stopping all but the most insanely large SSM or ASM attacks, basically you need to fire more missiles then the defender has ammunition. However without even a couple fighters up, things become much easier for the attacker.


There have been over 295 ships hit by missiles in combat, with around 150 sunk or declared constructive total losses. In some cases, a Single Exocet would sink a tanker, while another took seven Exocets and was returned to service! A 200,000 tanker was sunk by three Silkworm hits, while on the other hand a 2500 ton Frigate took three Harpoons, two Mavericks, two Skippers, a GBU-15 and a half dozen Mk83 and 82 bombs before sinking an hour later.


Amazingly though, In all of naval combat, there have been just seven battles in which warships fired surface to Surface missiles at each other. Only three have involved ships bigger then missile boast.

In two of them, the sinking of the destroyer Elat in 1967 and the Indian Osa attack on Karachi in 1971, one side was taken completely by surprise.

Elat was hi by missile boats still inside of there port! And never stood a chance, three Styx hits would doom anything short of a 10000-ton cruiser, Elat was a 2000-ton WW2 destroyer with a green crew.

Karachi was little better, a night strike with missile boats against an ill prepared port. The Pakistani destroyer was blown away by a pair of Styx hits while at anchor and of the twelve missiles fired, eleven hit. The last one locked onto a large oil tank ashore and blew it away.

The last action was an Iranian frigate against three USN ships, a pair of destroyers and a frigate IIRC. The Iranian fired one Harpoon, which missed. IN return it was hit with two Harpoons, Five SM-2 standards fired as SSM's. And it didn't sink. The superstructure was blown away, the gun mount was thrown into the sea by an SM-2 strike and the whole thing was burning but the little 2500-ton thing wouldn't go under. It took another 100 rounds of five-inch shellfire to get flooding going and sink it.



As for survivability, modern warships don’t look tough, and the reliance on electronics for modern warfare makes them easier to put out of action, but ton for ton there far harder to destroy or sink then there armored World War two counter parts.


In the Falklands and the Gulf destroyers and frigates proved more resistant to damage then WW2 cruisers. One British destroyer took a 1000 pound bomb in the engine room, blowing out the bottom, and another two five hundred pounders in the upper hull. It took over two hours to sink.

A British 8000 ton cruiser took a 500-pound bomb hit in the same location in 1941, similar damage to the engine rooms. All power was lost instantly and she went down in under 40 minutes.

A lot war learned throughout the war about how to build stronger hulls and have better damage control and pumping arrangements. Still more was learned post war, especially about how to control fires, though the threat of rocket fuel fires was not realized until the Falklands and the Gulf. The result is that modern ships are incredibly resistant to damage.


I'll stop now since I don’t really have a point and am just rambling on..

Sea Skimmer wrote:

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Even a TOW anti tank missile can punch though any armor on an Iowa, and its warhead has about three pounds of HE in it. Heck, most single shot LAW weapons can and are even lighter.

Im not so sure. Even if they could, they are not much of a threat to such a large vessel.

Although I suppose TOW could mangle the 5" mounts, the CIWS, and smaller things.

Which leads to an interesting question? Could the CIWS stop a TOW missle? I dont know much about CIWS. What do you think?

One of the little day dreams Ive always had would be to catch a destroyer or frigate size vessel close to shore, and shoot it up with a TOW on a Hummer or LAV. Yes, I know its just a day dream. But it my day dream, dammit! Actually, I think I would want 3 vehicles with TOWS.

I dont think the LAW could penetrate the thicker armor. Even if it did, it would not do much damage either.

A TOW-2A can penetrate 31 inches of armor. Iowans maximum is 2/3s of that. The after effects would of course not be lethal, even with dozens of strikes. However a turret penetrated by such a blast would be out of action.

The armor penetration of the M-72 LAW is about 15 inches, enough to penetration the Iowa's belt, deck, turret sides and roofs, bulkheads and communications tubes. Only the turret faces and three sides of the CT are safe.

The LAW-80 can penetrate about 20 inches, enough to punch though anything on the Iowa.

I'm however just using these as an example of the uselessness of the Iowa's armor; infantry anti tank weapons should never be in a position to hit an Iowa. Though attack helicopters would be a huge threat in the ships 1980s reactivation guise. A single modern helo could stand off outside the range of the ships defense and destroy every weapon and set the ship ablaze by exploding its harpoon canisters with one load of missiles.

A Silkworm with an 800-pound shaped charge could easily repeat the feat of a weapon 1/400th its warhead size. And it has hundreds of pounds of solid rocket fuel along with the jet to cause massive fires. The blast damage from the warhead makes everything worsen.


And CIWS could not cope with a ATGW, there far to small.

ATGMs depend on armor that is all bunched together (there's not a lot of room outside of a tank). The sheer size and spread-out-ness of an Iowa's belt would defeat the projectile.

A modern fleet with air support stands a good chance of stopping all but the most insanely large SSM or ASM attacks, basically you need to fire more missiles then the defender has ammunition. However without even a couple fighters up, things become much easier for the attacker.

I guess Im a bit of a pessimist. Until I see an Aegis cruiser stop 4 or 5 inbound missles, Im skeptical. I do agree though a full carrier group is a hard nut to crack. I tend to think about the most likely scenarios. A small group of warships in the Gulf for example.

There have been over 295 ships hit by missiles in combat

DAMN! I didnt realize it was that many. Is the majority of those attacks from the Tanker Wars in the gulf ?

The last action was an Iranian frigate against three USN ships, a pair of destroyers and a frigate IIRC. The Iranian fired one Harpoon, which missed. IN return it was hit with two Harpoons, Five SM-2 standards fired as SSM's. And it didn't sink. The superstructure was blown away, the gun mount was thrown into the sea by an SM-2 strike and the whole thing was burning but the little 2500-ton thing wouldn't go under. It took another 100 rounds of five-inch shellfire to get flooding going and sink it.

Did you know in the Gulf War the Iraqi's managed to fire a Silkworm at one of the BB's ? It was downed by the Britsh escort.

In the Falklands and the Gulf destroyers and frigates proved more resistant to damage then WW2 cruisers. One British destroyer took a 1000 pound bomb in the engine room, blowing out the bottom, and another two five hundred pounders in the upper hull. It took over two hours to sink

The British were really lucky the Argentinians didnt figure out how to fuse their bombs from the low level attacks they were carrying out.

A British 8000 ton cruiser took a 500-pound bomb hit in the same location in 1941, similar damage to the engine rooms. All power was lost instantly and she went down in under 40 minutes.

I agree with you that ships today are tougher than generally believed, but its not fair to point out to a single instance like this. For every ship that went down from one shell or one bomb, there were ships that took tremdous beatings.

I'll stop now since I don’t really have a point and am just rambling on..

If we dont ramble on the internet we'd have to go outside and get REAL lives.

Howedar wrote:ATGMs depend on armor that is all bunched together (there's not a lot of room outside of a tank). The sheer size and spread-out-ness of an Iowa's belt would defeat the projectile.

If you mean the fact that it is internal and located away from the hull, then your right. The outer hull of the ship would act like spaced armor, and while the HEAT jet has the energy to slice clear though the belt with a solid hit, it would lose almost all of its energy in the 10 or so foot distance.

That wont however be an issue for a Silkworm or late model MM40 Exocet.

Well what about the USS Cole? A speedboat packed with explosives exploded next to it. A hole over 14 feet wide was blown and the ship almost sank.

On the other hand the Iowa would just have laughed at such an assault.