Montanas vs Carriers

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-25 01:29am

Assuming the Montana Classes were completed, and modernized (in a manner proportional to the Iowas) how would they do if the faced off against a Nimitz Carrier? How many could they face off against and still win? (If any).

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-25 01:32am

A montana? vs A carrier?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 01:32am

Sorry. Nimitz has range in the form of bombers at hundreds of miles. Did the Montana have significant antiaircraft defenses? If it didn't pack an Aegis system its dead, and I don't think it had one of those.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-25 01:34am

I seriously do not think a battleship worth be able to face off against a carrier. That is one of the reasons why we use carriers today isn't it?

Some newer battleship concepts they are comming up with, however, seem to be able to hold their own against aircraft. "Concept" designs.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-25 01:37am

Lets say, for the sake of arguement, that Aegis was installed with the upgrade.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 01:37am

Cornelius wrote:I seriously do not think a battleship worth be able to face off against a carrier. That is one of the reasons why we use carriers today isn't it?

Some newer battleship concepts they are comming up with, however, seem to be able to hold their own against aircraft. "Concept" designs.

No such thing as a big gun battleship that can beat out a carrier without starting the engagement within gun range. (Given that, the battleship wins by virtue of making the carrier eat a broadside or three in the first couple minutes.) World War 2 proved this conclusively and they had prop driven airplanes. Battleships as a primary projector of sea power are done. And these concept designs you speak of wouldn't get the BB designation, I'll wager.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 01:40am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Lets say, for the sake of arguement, that Aegis was installed with the upgrade.

You know what Aegis is? That would involve taking off turrets for a missile system and that big ass radar. And it changes the designation; its no longer a BB with that kind of weapons system. At least, I don't think so. (Watch Sea Skimmer come along and chew me out.)

But with Aegis and enough missiles for it, its conceivable that it could hold off the missiles and shoot down a sizeable number of aircraft. But then the Nimitz runs away and the Montana just couldn't catch it, unless I'm much mistaken about its speed.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-25 01:45am

Stats of the Montana when they were planned in WWII.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 01:48am

Yeah, its max speed is given as 28 knots. Even if it did manage to down every plane the carrier threw at it it couldn't catch the Nimitz.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-25 04:28am

Wait, didn't the Iowa modernization include the addition of Tomahawk missiles? Wouldn't those greatly extend the range of the Montana?

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2004-02-25 08:00am

Both die. The fighters from the carrier overwhelm the phalanx guns and any point defence systems on the Montana, while the Montana demostrates why a volley of cruise missiles are a carrier's biggest threat.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-02-25 08:55am

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Both die. The fighters from the carrier overwhelm the phalanx guns and any point defence systems on the Montana, while the Montana demostrates why a volley of cruise missiles are a carrier's biggest threat.

Do you know how low the odds are of the Montana:

A. Getting targeting telemetry on the Nimitz.
B. Launching more then a few cruise missiles before it gets blown into bits
C. Said missiles making it through the fighter screen of F-14's

????

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2004-02-25 09:56am

A. The OP implies (to me, at least), that both ships know each others positions.
B. A few is all you need.
C. Shooting down a tomahawk or a harpoon is far more difficult than shooting down the large soviet cruise missiles the F-14 was designed to take out. The carrier's phalanx system is the biggest problem, and you need one or two missiles to make it through.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-25 11:40am

You guys are forgetting that capital ships such as carriers or battleships never travel without escort. A air defences of a CVBG, which usually includes 3-5 ships equipped with AEGIS (that is, Ticonderoga class CGs or Arliegh Burke class DDGs), would be able to chew up and spit out anything the Montana and its group could throw at it (judging by several propsals for SAGs led by Iowa class BBs, that group would probably consist of the BB itself, plus 1 CG, 1 DDG or DD, and 2 FFGs).
The normal compliment of F/A-18s (armed with Harpoon ASMs) on a Nimitz class CVN should be able to easily overwhelm the Montana's group.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-25 11:51am

Who much damage would a harpoon do anyway, considering how much armor a Montana would have?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-25 01:00pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Who much damage would a harpoon do anyway, considering how much armor a Montana would have?

Put it this way, you'd need more than one to sink her, but then most sea skimming ASMs tend to just cripple the vessel so it has to go back to drydock else face sinking in any battle. There is nothing in use today that requires the armour a WWII BB has given CIWS and SAM systems replace armour absorbing damage.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 01:08pm

But a Montana would be able to take what did get through a CIWS up to a point. There's an advantage to that.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-02-25 01:12pm

If it's just the Montana vs the Nimitz than I don't see how the BB (BBG even, if you're so inclined) can take it. If one assumes competence on both sides and they each now the other's gunning for them, then the Nimitz would be stupid to close into Harpoon range. And, let's face it: with every F-14, F-18, and S-3 the CVN's got coming after it, something will inevitable get through to a single ship, especially if the EA-6Bs are used to any effect. And with the E-2 in the sky (since we'd assume it's blue ocean and noone else around to mess things up or confuse the issue) the BB/BBG isn't going to be able to hide.

So in the end, it's simple numbers. With all the crap the planes can throw at it in terms of "fire and forget" weapons, there's no way a single ship could stop all of it, especially if they're fighting jamming.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-25 01:13pm

Rogue 9 wrote:But a Montana would be able to take what did get through a CIWS up to a point. There's an advantage to that.

That depends on what ordnance is being carried by the fleet air wing and what they hit. A few LGBs to the superstructure would pretty much put the thing out of action. Decapitate it and the rest is dead meat. Course, I don't know what CIWS we're talking about here unless I missed a decision.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-25 01:14pm

RogueIce wrote:If it's just the Montana vs the Nimitz than I don't see how the BB (BBG even, if you're so inclined) can take it. If one assumes competence on both sides and they each now the other's gunning for them, then the Nimitz would be stupid to close into Harpoon range. And, let's face it: with every F-14, F-18, and S-3 the CVN's got coming after it, something will inevitable get through to a single ship, especially if the EA-6Bs are used to any effect. And with the E-2 in the sky (since we'd assume it's blue ocean and noone else around to mess things up or confuse the issue) the BB/BBG isn't going to be able to hide.

So in the end, it's simple numbers. With all the crap the planes can throw at it in terms of "fire and forget" weapons, there's no way a single ship could stop all of it, especially if they're fighting jamming.

Exactly. Good defence is one thing, but saturation attacks can always win given decent numbers. The BB will die long before the CVN has run out of aircraft.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 01:15pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:But a Montana would be able to take what did get through a CIWS up to a point. There's an advantage to that.
That depends on what ordnance is being carried by the fleet air wing and what they hit. A few LGBs to the superstructure would pretty much put the thing out of action. Decapitate it and the rest is dead meat. Course, I don't know what CIWS we're talking about here unless I missed a decision.

Let me clarify. It can take what would get through a CIWS up to a point, but it still couldn't beat a carrier air wing. I had moved on to overall battleship armor usefulness by that point. Sorry, should have said so.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-25 01:17pm

No problem, that's what I was thinking. I'm sure the S-3s could make more work along with Sea Hawks by using torpedos as the other fast movers do distraction attacks with other weapons.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-02-25 01:20pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:No problem, that's what I was thinking. I'm sure the S-3s could make more work along with Sea Hawks by using torpedos as the other fast movers do distraction attacks with other weapons.

Indeed. I didn't include the SH-60s because they took too long to get there, dammit! Besides, with nearly 60 strike aircraft (guessing here, assuming 3x12 for the -18s, 1x14 for the -14s and 1x8 for the S-3s, since I can't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head), I think it's likely to be largely over before any helos get in range. If anything, they may just make it quicker to finally go to the bottom.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-25 02:11pm

Battleships as a primary projector of sea power are done. And these concept designs you speak of wouldn't get the BB designation, I'll wager.

THe new battleship concept is not just a battleship. It is smaller and functions also as a carrier for swarm of drone aircraft

No such thing as a big gun battleship that can beat out a carrier without starting the engagement within gun range.

Did I say beat a carrier? No. I did say they have new concept designs, I never said they are ment to totally replace carriers, but act as support battleship carriers. They have a fairly long estimated gun range too--about 500 miles.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-25 02:49pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Lets say, for the sake of arguement, that Aegis was installed with the upgrade.

As soon as the battle ship fires it's guns the system is shaken to peice. Carrier kills it anyway. NEXT!