WWIIwarships(split from morons who worhsip 3.Reich)

[kheegster]

Now that the Iowas have been retired, I`m curious if there have been any plans for a big gunned fire support successor.

I would expect Tomahawk armed cruisers/destroyers with VLS to take over that role.

KG

[Admiral Piett]

No, big guns can work for fire support but are not the ideal.Remember, the battleship were built essentially to have a slugging out with enemy battleships.Fire support was a secondary mission when they were designed.
As a replacement there are several options such as ERGMs (guided rounds for the 5inches guns), LASMs (land attack version of the standard missile)
etc.
Some of these systems are going to be fielded,others are uncertain.
Budget is the main problem but this is something that the battleship supporters do not love speaking about...

[Admiral Piett]

I would expect Tomahawk armed cruisers/destroyers with VLS to take over that role.

You cannot fire Tomhawks against every target.Cheaper options are necessary.

[Sea Skimmer]

*snort*, so? your favorite ship can be polished of, I am sure, with either torpedo's or aircraft.

The same can be said for battleships.Only that a Iowa is a sitting duck compared to a Kirov.

Correct, but only if you take one ship vs another, but is hardly a realistic comparison is it? the Iowa class BB's are WW2 ships designed to meet WW2 threats as such there is only so much you can do with them, in regards to self protection. Which is why they had to be well protected by escorts, not that that in itself is different than WW2 times, but the need for escorts is that much greater now than then.
Therefor to decribe them as sitting ducks is inccorect, they are no more a sitting duck than a Kirov that cannot find a CVBG, when the CVBG can find Kirov.

Kirov has three helicopters, and the capacity to embark ones not only with surface but also with air such radar. The thing also a direct data link to Russian orbital sea search radar.
Finding a CVBG would not be very hard unles the CVBG accepts massive limitations on its movement to avoid the ROSATS.

[Frank Hipper]

I worked at McDonnell Douglas when they were doing some developement work on the Tomahawk, with the mis-managrmnt and waste that was going on then, I`m suprised those damn things are even afordable now!

[Sea Skimmer]

Now that the Iowas have been retired, I`m curious if there have been any plans for a big gunned fire support successor.

DD-21 will have one or two automatic 155mm AGS's with 63 miles range GPS guided shells. That's the biggest gun that will see fleet service anytime.

[Sea Skimmer]

I would expect Tomahawk armed cruisers/destroyers with VLS to take over that role.

You cannot fire Tomhawks against every target.Cheaper options are necessary.

The real problem with the Anti ship tomahawk is its speed. It takes about a half hour to reach out to maximum range. By the time it arrives the target could have moved out of range of its seeker and it has no mid course guidance option. The slow speed also makes them very easy to shoot down, even with small caliber gun CIWS.

Kirov's SS-N-19's also lack mid course guidance, but they don’t need it. They fly at over mach two and would arrive in about 10 minutes.


Random note. LASM is totally dead. The stockpile of missiles that they would have been converted from has been mostly sold off; the SM-1 is in such high demand the production line may be reopened. As it USN surpluses 15 year old SM-1's are now worth more then the most advanced block III SM-2's. Plus the conversion cost when the project ended has past 1.5 million per missile, more then twice the planned 600,000.

[Sea Skimmer]

As with most things, you cannot take things in isolation. No rational person would expect a Iowa to survive very long byitself, but then, they never had to operate alone.

Actually many of the Iowa class fans will spend hours trying to demonstrate to you that Styx missiles will not be able to scrape her paint.

I'm always amused when I bring up the fact that a in tests a Styx blew through the 10 inch armor belt of the Sevastopol and the HEAT jet and mass of burning fuel reached the main engine rooms, or the fact that a single AH-6H, Mi-28 or Ka-50 could cripple a refitted Iowa and start a massive possibly lethal fire.

[Admiral Piett]

Random note. LASM is totally dead. The stockpile of missiles that they would have been converted from has been mostly sold off; the SM-1 is in such high demand the production line may be reopened. As it USN surpluses 15 year old SM-1's are now worth more then the most advanced block III SM-2's. Plus the conversion cost when the project ended has past 1.5 million per missile, more then twice the planned 600,000.

Interesting,when was the decision to kill the project taken?

[Sea Skimmer]

Congress removed funding for procurement in 2001. Given that to go forward new SM-2's would have to be brought and then coverted, pushing the price upto more like 2.2-.5 million per round, it was one of the few smart budget cuts Congress has made in the past couple years.

LASM was a great idea because it would have cost more to scrap the SM-1's then to convert them into a LASM. BUt now with no 1200 round SM-1 stockpile to be had and SM-2's also in limited if sufficent supply, its no longer worth while.

[Admiral Piett]

Congress removed funding for procurement in 2001. Given that to go forward new SM-2's would have to be brought and then coverted, pushing the price upto more like 2.2-.5 million per round, it was one of the few smart budget cuts Congress has made in the past couple years.

LASM was a great idea because it would have cost more to scrap the SM-1's then to convert them into a LASM. BUt now with no 1200 round SM-1 stockpile to be had and SM-2's also in limited if sufficent supply, its no longer worth while.

Hell, would not that have been more expensive than a tactical Tomhawk?

[Sea Skimmer]

Congress removed funding for procurement in 2001. Given that to go forward new SM-2's would have to be brought and then coverted, pushing the price upto more like 2.2-.5 million per round, it was one of the few smart budget cuts Congress has made in the past couple years.

LASM was a great idea because it would have cost more to scrap the SM-1's then to convert them into a LASM. BUt now with no 1200 round SM-1 stockpile to be had and SM-2's also in limited if sufficent supply, its no longer worth while.

Hell, would not that have been more expensive than a tactical Tomhawk?

Yes, even if Tactical Tomahawk proves no cheaper the original it would still be cheaper then LASM. But LASM was to be far more responsive on the battlefield. Tactical Tomahawk can be used against targets of opportunity with fairly good effect because of the provisions for in-flight retargeting.

However it could not be used to provide support fire to ground troops both because of the time it took to target the missile, and the long time of flight. LASM could be thanks to the initial mach 3 speed and the high flight profile that needed no waypoint, though it had problems with terrain masking at longer ranges.

But that massive cost killed it as a useful weapon, though its effectivenes would be quite high.

[Howedar]

As with most things, you cannot take things in isolation. No rational person would expect a Iowa to survive very long byitself, but then, they never had to operate alone.

Actually many of the Iowa class fans will spend hours trying to demonstrate to you that Styx missiles will not be able to scrape her paint.

I'm always amused when I bring up the fact that a in tests a Styx blew through the 10 inch armor belt of the Sevastopol and the HEAT jet and mass of burning fuel reached the main engine rooms, or the fact that a single AH-6H, Mi-28 or Ka-50 could cripple a refitted Iowa and start a massive possibly lethal fire.

Certainly the big missiles could do it, but how do you figure that a single attack helo could destroy a refitted Iowa?

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually many of the Iowa class fans will spend hours trying to demonstrate to you that Styx missiles will not be able to scrape her paint.

I'm always amused when I bring up the fact that a in tests a Styx blew through the 10 inch armor belt of the Sevastopol and the HEAT jet and mass of burning fuel reached the main engine rooms, or the fact that a single AH-6H, Mi-28 or Ka-50 could cripple a refitted Iowa and start a massive possibly lethal fire.

Certainly the big missiles could do it, but how do you figure that a single attack helo could destroy a refitted Iowa?

Not destroy, though the fires that will result could doom it.

Attacker stands off at 7-8000 meters. First three Hellfire's destroy one broadsides three 5-inch twins from massively outside the range of the CIWS. Phalanx can't hit such tiny targets. While the 5-inch guns might be able to fight back, the Apache would be at near their maximum effective AA. The Iowa also lacks AA ammunition or directors so its up to a guy looking through an optical sight to hit what is quite a small target. The Apache will easily destroy the mounts before they can find the range.

Next six missiles are aimed at the main battery turrets. 20-pound HEAT warheads will easily penetrate the turret roofs with their diving attack profiles, and even the mantles are not safe. Two hits each will place the turrets out of action with ease.

Next target is the harpoon canisters and Tomahawk Armored Box launchers. These contain on average, 14.5 tons of high explosives and three nuclear warheads. There is also an even greater weight of high-grade jet fuel.

I'd budget three or four missiles to set these ablaze. The resulting fires will burn out a good deal of the superstructure, and once the harpoon warheads begin cooking off, which will take about one minute, the Armored box launchers armor wont matter. Hot shrapnel and heat will ensure they go up was well.

There's a fair amount of fire suppression gear around these, but not nearly enough, and the Iowa wasn't design to have compartment sealed against fuel fires like modern warships are. At this point 12-3 missiles have been expended and 4 or 3 remain in case of misses, unlikely give the target sizes. The last missiles might be tossed into the area of the amidships fires to hamper damage control, used against the armored CT, or the helicopter might opt to sweep around and smoke permitting, take out the last three 5 inch mounts, two of which will likely be throwing ready ammo over the size to avoid it being caught up in the fire.

The Iowa retains its propulsion but has its main battery and missiles out of action along with half its secondary at least and two of the CIWS mounts almost surly destroyed by fire.

Should the fire be contained then the vessel will live and could return to the states under its own power if enough air intakes and at least one funnel live. Should it spread, which given the amount of fuel and explosive where talking about, is likely, the vessel is doomed.


This plan works we'll with the Apache, but if the Russian AT-16 really does have 10,000 and not the once reported 6,000 meter range, then it would be even more effective for this.

The helicopter could fly high as it wanted and would not incur even the relatively minor risk the Apache faces for the few seconds to minute of the attack.

[Howedar]

My God, you are hilarious

Attacker stands off at 7-8000 meters. First three Hellfire's destroy one broadsides three 5-inch twins from massively outside the range of the CIWS. Phalanx can't hit such tiny targets.

You made the assertation, you provide the proof.

While the 5-inch guns might be able to fight back, the Apache would be at near their maximum effective AA.

I'm not so sure either way on this one. Do you have any evidence?

The Iowa also lacks AA ammunition or directors so its up to a guy looking through an optical sight to hit what is quite a small target.

They used to. Provide evidence that they were removed.

The Apache will easily destroy the mounts before they can find the range.

The armor of the 5" turrets is at least 3-4" thick, and the turrets themselves are large enough that a single Hellfire hit might not destroy them. We're not talking about a lot of delicate electronics here

Next six missiles are aimed at the main battery turrets. 20-pound HEAT warheads will easily penetrate the turret roofs with their diving attack profiles

The sides of the turret were armored with 9.5" of steel. Considering USN emphasis on long-range warfare when Iowa was designed, the upper armor would be similar.

and even the mantles are not safe.

What, you mean the barbettes? 11-17 inches of steel? Good friggin luck.

Two hits each will place the turrets out of action with ease.

I rather doubt that.

Oh, at this point we're at no less than 9 missiles.

Next target is the harpoon canisters and Tomahawk Armored Box launchers.

These contain on average, 14.5 tons of high explosives and three nuclear warheads. There is also an even greater weight of high-grade jet fuel.

Bullshit. 4 missiles per launcher, 8 launchers. IIRC, nuclear Tomahawks were never carried on Iowas, and certainly 75% of the Tomahawks weren't nukes. Assuming all 4 missiles are conventional, that leaves over 3.5 tons of explosive (and at least that much fuel) per missile, by your logic. A Tomahawk weighs under 3000 pounds, genius.

I'd budget three or four missiles to set these ablaze. The resulting fires will burn out a good deal of the superstructure, and once the harpoon warheads begin cooking off, which will take about one minute, the Armored box launchers armor wont matter. Hot shrapnel and heat will ensure they go up was well.

First of all, there are 8 launchers. Second, you're assuming that a single Hellfire can penetrate a launcher (there's a reason they're called armored box launchers), let alone two launchers. Third, you're not taking into account that the armor of the launcher is going to contain the explosion and fire a fair bit. Fourth, you assume that warheads cook off - this doesn't seem to be the case, as Exocet hits in the Falklands in which the warhead didn't detonate weren't set off by the fuel fire. Fifth, you're assuming that the fires will penetrate the armored superstructure of the ship, which was designed to protect against heavy shellfire (let alone burning fluid).

There's a fair amount of fire suppression gear around these, but not nearly enough

Wow, nice support.

and the Iowa wasn't design to have compartment sealed against fuel fires like modern warships are.

Its all on the (armored) deck!

The last missiles might be tossed into the area of the amidships fires to hamper damage control

Ahahahah!

used against the armored CT

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! 17 inches of armor!

or the helicopter might opt to sweep around and smoke permitting, take out the last three 5 inch mounts, two of which will likely be throwing ready ammo over the size to avoid it being caught up in the fire.

Right. The ammo that is under the armored deck.

The Iowa retains its propulsion but has its main battery and missiles out of action along with half its secondary at least and two of the CIWS mounts almost surly destroyed by fire.

Yes, because the secondary turrets are on the other side of the ship, and the Phalanx mounts are several decks above the fires.

Should the fire be contained then the vessel will live and could return to the states under its own power if enough air intakes and at least one funnel live.

Meaning you lose.

Should it spread, which given the amount of fuel and explosive where talking about, is likely, the vessel is doomed.

Great joke. You've got fluid on fire on the deck, above 5 inches of steel plate. What, the armor's gonna catch fire?

This plan works we'll with the Apache, but if the Russian AT-16 really does have 10,000 and not the once reported 6,000 meter range, then it would be even more effective for this.

Why? The missiles are no harder to hit, and the range doesn't really matter.



Frankly, things have to go perfectly for the Apache, and even that is with more assumptions than Darkstar makes.

[Vympel]

A supersonic, small anti-tank missile like the Vikhr IS harder to hit for a CIWS than a huge anti-ship missile like a STYX or SHIPWRECK. That's purely common sense.

Of course, the massive supersonic Mach 2.5 SHIPWRECK poses an entirely different problem to a CIWS- even though you'll score hits, the wreckage of it will still slam against your vessel at supersonic speed.

I won't comment on whether an anti-tank missile could actually penetrate though- I'm no battleship buff.

[Howedar]

I was talking about the AT-16 compared to the Hellfire, not compared to a large antiship missile.

[Stuart Mackey]

What are the Iowa advocates actually arguing for, exactly? For fire support, yeah of course they're the best, but as a surface combatant against a missile armed destroyer/cruiser? Lunacy!

For fire support there is some argument for and against, but as for surface action, that another matter, chap from ASVS used to serve on one of them and the opinion was that against 2-3 destroyers/cruisers, they would do ok so long as the escorts could knock down incoming missiles, then launch their own ASM's. If the enemy came up over the horison then use the guns to sink them.
One of the biggist issues that these ships are lost technology, if they were ever damaged in combat, or there are major repairs to be made, how the hell do you fix them? no one can make armour plate anymore and 16 guntubes would be a expensive and time consuming effort to make.
Allso they are manpower intensive, costly to maintain and all this for little or no use in this day and age, when the existing fleet can handle everything they can do, one way or another.

[Stuart Mackey]

The same can be said for battleships.Only that a Iowa is a sitting duck compared to a Kirov.

Correct, but only if you take one ship vs another, but is hardly a realistic comparison is it? the Iowa class BB's are WW2 ships designed to meet WW2 threats as such there is only so much you can do with them, in regards to self protection. Which is why they had to be well protected by escorts, not that that in itself is different than WW2 times, but the need for escorts is that much greater now than then.
Therefor to decribe them as sitting ducks is inccorect, they are no more a sitting duck than a Kirov that cannot find a CVBG, when the CVBG can find Kirov.

Kirov has three helicopters, and the capacity to embark ones not only with surface but also with air such radar. The thing also a direct data link to Russian orbital sea search radar.
Finding a CVBG would not be very hard unles the CVBG accepts massive limitations on its movement to avoid the ROSATS.

And SAG's also have helicopters. As for CVBG's sure a satillite can give a general location, but thats not quite good enough for a missile launch especialy when the Americans are quite able to outrange the soviets, or rather what the Sovs's used to have for a navy. My money, in a naval confrontation would be on the CVBG.

[Stuart Mackey]

As with most things, you cannot take things in isolation. No rational person would expect a Iowa to survive very long byitself, but then, they never had to operate alone.

Actually many of the Iowa class fans will spend hours trying to demonstrate to you that Styx missiles will not be able to scrape her paint.

I'm always amused when I bring up the fact that a in tests a Styx blew through the 10 inch armor belt of the Sevastopol and the HEAT jet and mass of burning fuel reached the main engine rooms, or the fact that a single AH-6H, Mi-28 or Ka-50 could cripple a refitted Iowa and start a massive possibly lethal fire.

Sevastopol ?where did you get that information? That ship was what 1909 construction, and it was scrapped in 1957 not sunk in missile tests. What are your sources for this?

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
This plan works we'll with the Apache, but if the Russian AT-16 really does have 10,000 and not the once reported 6,000 meter range, then it would be even more effective for this.

The helicopter could fly high as it wanted and would not incur even the relatively minor risk the Apache faces for the few seconds to minute of the attack.

Good thing they never went anywhere without escorts eh?
But what you point out is the essential limitations of WW2 technology against a modern threat. If the pro BB crowd were smart, which I doubt {they remind me of rabid trekkies} they would argue for modern capital ships that can lay down shit loads of fire on a target {just dont mention the budget }.
Imagine what the likes of Nimitz or Halsey, or worse some one like Jakkie Fisher, would say if {I know what Fisher would say, if they cant fight or runaway, scrap them}they were told that budget funds were being sunk into ships that were 30 years old {in service life} and were expected to fight against a threat they were never designed for.

[Admiral Piett]

The armor of the 5" turrets is at least 3-4" thick, and the turrets themselves are large enough that a single Hellfire hit might not destroy them. We're not talking about a lot of delicate electronics here

We are speaking about hellfire missiles here.They can destroy a tank without problems.3-4inches of armor will not be a match for them.

The sides of the turret were armored with 9.5" of steel. Considering USN emphasis on long-range warfare when Iowa was designed, the upper armor would be similar.

No,it is not.Horizontal armor is always thinner than vertical one.The armored deck and the turret roofs are thinner than belts and turrets sides.
More specifically the roofs are 7.25 thick.Less than the frontal hull armor of a M60 that certainly an hellfire can destroy.

[Second, you're assuming that a single Hellfire can penetrate a launcher (there's a reason they're called armored box launchers),

They are definitively not armored to the level you are suggesting.Give a look to the penetration figures for the average antitank missile.Usually they can go through 40cm of conventional armor without problems.Probably they are designed to stop splinter and nothing else.Otherwise they would cause too many topweight problems.

Fifth, you're assuming that the fires will penetrate the armored superstructure of the ship, which was designed to protect against heavy shellfire (let alone burning fluid).

May I remeber you that the protection scheme of the Iowa class follows an "all or nothing" philosophy? Superstructures are generally considered expendable (except the conning tower of course) and thus are unarmored.

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! 17 inches of armor!

Conning tower armor may hold,but barely.Again give a look to penetration figures for antitank missiles.

[Vympel]

17 inches of armor:

17x24.5= 416.5mm

Erm ... unless I've made some sort of super bad error (I really SUCK at maths)

That armor is penetrated. The Vikhr-M used by the Ka-50 and Su-39 is rated at 900mm Rolled Homogenous Armor penetration.

Ataka series (radio command Ataka, laser guided Ataka-T, MMW radar guided Ataka-M): 950-1,000mm. The original Shturm complex, used on the Mi-24V HIND-E and Mi-24P HIND-F, uses the 9M114 Kokon missile capable of penetrating 750mm of RHA.

The Hellfire: classified. Definitely in the same ballpark as Vikhr-M and Ataka.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually many of the Iowa class fans will spend hours trying to demonstrate to you that Styx missiles will not be able to scrape her paint.

I'm always amused when I bring up the fact that a in tests a Styx blew through the 10 inch armor belt of the Sevastopol and the HEAT jet and mass of burning fuel reached the main engine rooms, or the fact that a single AH-6H, Mi-28 or Ka-50 could cripple a refitted Iowa and start a massive possibly lethal fire.

Sevastopol ?where did you get that information? That ship was what 1909 construction, and it was scrapped in 1957 not sunk in missile tests. What are your sources for this?

When did I say the missile tests sunk it exactly? The hit was not fatal, Styx almost never causes significant flooding, just starts massive fires. The Information's comes from [1] Stuart Slade [2] my book "History of the Russian navy 1860-1975" which notes that Sevastopol was used for missile tests before being scrapped.

[Stuart Mackey]

I'm always amused when I bring up the fact that a in tests a Styx blew through the 10 inch armor belt of the Sevastopol and the HEAT jet and mass of burning fuel reached the main engine rooms, or the fact that a single AH-6H, Mi-28 or Ka-50 could cripple a refitted Iowa and start a massive possibly lethal fire.

Sevastopol ?where did you get that information? That ship was what 1909 construction, and it was scrapped in 1957 not sunk in missile tests. What are your sources for this?

When did I say the missile tests sunk it exactly? The hit was not fatal, Styx almost never causes significant flooding, just starts massive fires. The Information's comes from [1] Stuart Slade [2] my book "History of the Russian navy 1860-1975" which notes that Sevastopol was used for missile tests before being scrapped.

True enough, you didnt say it was sunk, my bad. Interesting, I asked as I can find no information on this on the web, mind you the web has its limitations and I couldnt be fucked/dont have time to be travelling to the library for a web debate of little concequence.