Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by JQBogus »

1) The 155mm AGS on Zumwalt has a far higher rate of fire, each gun being considered about the equivalent of an entire battery (6) of M109s in delivered fire.

2) While both guns have a projectile diameter of 155mm, and carry a roughly equivalent bursting charge, the AGS round is more than twice as heavy. More propellant, a longer barrel, and a stronger/longer burning rocket motor means a lot more range. Nothing fishy there, really.

3) A Burke class destroyer costs $1.8b dollars. I very much doubt that one could build an Iowa equivalent today for $1.6b, no matter what a simple inflation calculation from its 1940s cost says. Even without its armor, an Iowa weighs ~2.5x as much as a Burke. That much more structure, piping, wiring, etc. And since it is a ship designed to carry on with its mission despite maybe being hit, that many more radars, fire controls, and so on, as redundancies. Oh, and while steel may cost only $1000/ton, most of the cost of armoring a ship wouldn't be in the materials, but in the labor. 2.5 Burkes = $4.5b, plus the cost of the armor and armor installation. A modern BB would cost more like $5b or $6b, probably.

4) And that's only the Unit Cost. Zumwalt has 140 crew. Iowa (80s refit version) had ~1800. Figure a 50 year expected lifespan on the ship, and each crew member costs $30k/year per average, with benefits. Crew cost for Zumwalt is $210m over it's lifespan, while crew cost for Iowa would be $2.7B. Add in the unit costs, and Zumwalt = $3.7b, while Iowa would be $7.7-8.7b. So you get 2 to 2.33 Zumwalts per Iowa.

Anyway tired of writing, thats all for now.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

JQ: on a modern remake of a iowa(or similar) i agree that 1.6 is more than a little optimistic, but simpler construction methods(no fancy pants radar absorbent materials or such) but yes, doubtful the unit cost would be under 3b.
a 'new' BB would undoubtedly be larger, nuke powered, and larger again....and with R&D probably at a few billion to boot, would be at a guess 5-6b/unit assuming at least two ships....yup, in agreement there.

crew...could probably be a hell of a lot lower compared to iowa, under 500 should be possible, less redundancy in crew admittedly, but should not be a major issue.

and on construction, it would be relatively simple, a nice uniform 2-3 inches ballistic steel used EVERYWHERE, do note, just plain steel is about half the cost of ballistic steel, 700USD/ton whereas armor steel is 1000+.
this uniform armoring makes repairs simpler, same plate thickness can be used on multiple ship types, and should keep both material and construction costs down, steel is simpler to work with compared to fancy pants stuff.

but seriously though, a simpler and smaller design might be in order....designed as a long ranged independent light cruiser, at about 10-15k ton range, armored patrol ship(would need defense against .50 and RPG's approx.), primary use in peace time? piracy patrol and flag waving, war time? Aegis(and decoy, due to zero stealth) for caps, useful for up and coming naval officers as learning ships.
weapons? i would design it with a couple of bofors 40mm twin barrel turrets(multi purpose+CIWS), Maybe a 5 inch gun, some VLS cells, ASW, and a helo pad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARDO <---- pretty much that, updated for bofors 3p rounds, those are nasty.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

discord wrote:JQ: on a modern remake of a iowa(or similar) i agree that 1.6 is more than a little optimistic, but simpler construction methods(no fancy pants radar absorbent materials or such) but yes, doubtful the unit cost would be under 3b.
a 'new' BB would undoubtedly be larger, nuke powered, and larger again....and with R&D probably at a few billion to boot, would be at a guess 5-6b/unit assuming at least two ships....yup, in agreement there.

crew...could probably be a hell of a lot lower compared to iowa, under 500 should be possible, less redundancy in crew admittedly, but should not be a major issue.

and on construction, it would be relatively simple, a nice uniform 2-3 inches ballistic steel used EVERYWHERE, do note, just plain steel is about half the cost of ballistic steel, 700USD/ton whereas armor steel is 1000+.
this uniform armoring makes repairs simpler, same plate thickness can be used on multiple ship types, and should keep both material and construction costs down, steel is simpler to work with compared to fancy pants stuff.

but seriously though, a simpler and smaller design might be in order....designed as a long ranged independent light cruiser, at about 10-15k ton range, armored patrol ship(would need defense against .50 and RPG's approx.), primary use in peace time? piracy patrol and flag waving, war time? Aegis(and decoy, due to zero stealth) for caps, useful for up and coming naval officers as learning ships.
weapons? i would design it with a couple of bofors 40mm twin barrel turrets(multi purpose+CIWS), Maybe a 5 inch gun, some VLS cells, ASW, and a helo pad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARDO <---- pretty much that, updated for bofors 3p rounds, those are nasty.
I've got a couple questions...

One is on the use of 2-3 inch ballistic plate. What are you armoring it against? I mean, it will stop small arms, but an RPG-7's PG-7V warhead (the original, if memory serves), will ideally penetrate 10.24 inches of RHA (lets halve that for a REALLY terrible hit, so 5.12 inches), so I'm not too sure if it would even be worth the effort as opposed to, say, a layer within the hull to contain the blast... And it certainly won't stop anything fired from another ship, CIWS, ships gun, or missile. How is it not just dead weight and extra cost?

Secondly, from the description in the latter part of your suggestion, isn't that pretty much an (possibly upsized) Arleigh Burke with steel plates and a couple of 40mm twin turrets? Why bother with the plating when it wont stop the threats envisioned? Just use the Burke.

Don't get me wrong, I can see a use for gun platforms beyond 155mm or 5 inch, but armoring up every ship in the fleet with thin steel plating really doesn't seem like it would be much more than an expenditure of resources for little to no performance increase. If we're going to increase protection, why not go with Kevlar liners within the hull in addition to those they already have around critical areas? Or ERA mounts on the outside? Or just mount a few active defense modules (ala Trophy, ARENA, ad nauseum) below the CIWS systems to protect against smaller munitions?

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

senanthes: the points are as following.
#1 the current generation ASM are not designed to penetrate armor at all, so pretty much ANY armor will make them explode on the outside, making them pretty much ineffectual, this is the primary reason for a thicker external armor.
#2 arbitrary number, mostly for it being the amount of steel you need to halve primary radiation(Gamma), ease of math.
#3 seems like a reasonably easy thickness to work with, economics and ease of repairs and maintenance, keeping costs down.
#4 the primary current and future threat would be HEAT based weapons, steel plating is notoriously bad at stopping those, and the use of spaced armor is well known to be effective against HEAT(with liquid filled spacing for external and 'vitals' for extra defense).

think of it like this, first layer will trigger the HEAT, and might wreck the room behind it, but will not go further, damage contained, layers upon layers....this armoring scheme is of course most effective with really large ships, liquid spacing breaks up the explosive jet, since it has to move the water while there is no place for it to move, pretty much the same for kinetic...forces the penetration to basically have a much larger penetration cross section, improving effectiveness of armor.

the optimal thickness and ratios is to me unknown, i am not a materials engineer with a specialization in armor, but it seems to me that ANY armor is better than no armor, and spaced liquid filled(exactly what you fill it with....dunno, but non-newtonian fluid pops to mind.) armor should work pretty well.

#5 such a armored extra anti-stealthy cruiser would also be a gloriously good escort and decoy for stealthy capitals...

#6 in the role of pirate hunter, it would need protection against .50 and RPG-7 and that is about it, 2inch+liquid+2inch external armor should stop most of that.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Nemo »

And once more, the next generation missile capable of destroying this thinly armored ship could be designed tested and fielded in large quantities before this ship is complete.

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by GeoModder »

discord wrote:#6 in the role of pirate hunter, it would need protection against .50 and RPG-7 and that is about it, 2inch+liquid+2inch external armor should stop most of that.
And explosive-loaded boats on a ramming course? :lol:
Image

User avatar
pinheadh78
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:36 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by pinheadh78 »

Discord
The current generation of anti-ship missiles are armor piercing, the Indian BrahMos missile packs a 200-300 kg conventional semi-armour-piercing and nuclear warhead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

Smaller Western (NATO) anti-ship missiles don't pack quite as much punch or penetration capabilities; but they will still mess up the ship real bad and probably achieve a mission-kill at least. The next generation of Western anti-ship missiles such as the LRASM (which is in final evaluation stages) carries a 1,000 lb blast-fragmentation penetration warhead too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range ... ip_Missile

Also do note the instances of the USS Cole and USS Stark which both suffered heavy damage and remained mostly operational despite not having any real "armor" protection. Smart engineering to bypass damaged areas, disperse critical systems, and more allowed the ships to maintain a level of self-defense capability after the initial repairs and damage control were done.

Note that USS Cole didn't _have_ to be towed out of the harbor and shipped out as cargo; it could have actually (the crew wanted to do this) sail out under its own power and most of its self-defense weapons were still operational. It was towed out because command didn't wan to take "un-necessary risks" and to preserve any evidence of the attackers that may have remained or loss of bodies still trapped in the wreckage. USS Stark did loose primary power and systems but remained afloat and did eventually restore self-defense capability. I don't recall if either ship was able to get its primary armaments operational but I would bet they could have as those were further from the blast zones.

On the topic of withstanding small-arms such as RPGs and smaller caliber artillery... I'd have to ask how you let such stuff get so close in the first place. The range of an RPG is less than 1km of which a common 30mm chain-gun on a remote mount would have shredded the boat carrying said RPG launcher long before it got within range. Same for smaller caliber guns and artillery as you should have used your bigger 3in and larger guns to vaporize those before they could get close. USS Cole was ambushed in harbor and the look-outs on deck were not authorized to shoot at approaching small craft and so literally had to watch the small bomb-boat slowly drive up and explode as all they were authorized to do was shout warnings and such. When USS Stark was hit; its CWIS system had been turned off (same for the Israeli ship off of the Lebanon coast) and so the auto-self defense never reacted to counter the approaching threats. Ideally you ship shouldn't have to worry about small-arms at all and instead can focus on the heavier caliber guns and anti-ship missiles.

When dealing with Pirates the main warships do not get close to the Pirate boats (whatever size it may be), they use RIBS and other small boats with boarding parties. Those smaller boats handle the inspections and any arrests or investigations to be done while the main warship provides over-watch and base services. The one time a Pirate type group and boat tried to pick a fight with a warship... the warship simply blew them out of the water with a 100mm naval cannon long before the small-arms of the Pirates got within effective range. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7736885.stm

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

pinhead: 'semi-armor piercing' aka not contact fused, in this manner all ASM's are 'armor piercing' since they are designed to explode inside the target, but the armor they are designed to penetrate is....pretty much civilian hull level of armor...the brahmos might be a pretty nasty customer though, designed as a bunker buster basically.

and the damage against USS Cole was quite survivable due to the blast being outside, ASM's deliver pretty much the same payload but it goes off INSIDE the ship, containing the blast and thereby amplifying damage done, if they explode outside the ship? little to no damage, as shown with the cole, yes the cole could have done field expedient repairs and kept on working, imho they SHOULD have done that, would have been excellent training in damage control.

the Stark simply shows the difference between boom outside and boom inside, armor can prevent boom inside.
(wiki page for stark shows damage from a exocet which carries about half the boom of the cole incident, more damage though, inside vs outside.)

the question really is the value of stealth vs armor.
me? i think armor's passive defense is better compared to the active(since without decoys and such ASM's will lock on to the only signature) of stealth, not as shiny and 'modern' but i think it would get the job done, again, the one does not exclude the other really.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

Mmm... I can see your point, but I have to agree with the "evolution of the measure" crowd on the issue of armor. The measure would immediately evolve past the countermeasure in any number of ways (improved penetration, better/bigger warhead, improved attack profile aimed at the ships weak points, etc.), and render the passive defense gained largely moot in combat. For the weight lost in stem to stern plates, a layered array of CIWS and lighter active defenses would likely do much more to allay the threat of ship-to-ship missiles... After all, you can only build an airframe with so much resistance to weapons fire, as opposed to what a ships structure can support to throw at it, yes?

So... Say a RAM type launcher for use at a distance... 20-30mm cannons on each side, say four mounts total, forming your primary CIWS... And four to six smaller active defense mounts on the outer hull, ala Trophy or Arena, as both a last ditch anti-missile defense, and to defend against RPG's fired at point blank range. Toss some remote barbettes carrying the good old Ma Deuce in twin mounts with the small defensive mounts if you're really that worried about small combatants getting close. Pretty extensive, but probably lighter than the armor you'd need, and likely more effective in the long term.

Addendum; It occurs to me that I may not be understood in the way I intend in my reply. I'm actually not against armoring a warship at all, given that some armor is better than none... What I'm debating is the practicality of using it as a primary means of defense, rather than a damage mitigator after more effective options have failed. On the issue of armor vs. stealth, I really consider it a moot point. They're not exclusive of each other, and neither offers the same attributes as the other.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

senanthes: and when you toss nukes at it even a 'tactical' warhead from a existing ASM platform needs only get within 2km to make the boat a floating coffin, that is a issue active defenses can not handle.

stealth:
pro:
makes lock on difficult, and thereby decoys more effective.
may allow strategic or tactical surprise although both unlikely against first rate navy.
con:
can not take a hit, or in the case of nukes anywhere near a hit.

armor:
pro:
increases chances of surviving a hit.
improved ability to function as decoy for capital ships due to likely larger signature.
con:
larger signatures will make lock on from weapons more likely increasing chance of weapon on target, making active hard stop(CIWS both gun and missile based) systems more important.

what i am basing my heretical idea about armoring ships is that in war you WILL get hit, and you ability to function after taking a hit is damned important.
the question though is if improved ability to take hits outweigh improved probability of not getting hit.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Nemo »

Active defenses can strike out past 2km. Stealth and armor are not mutually exclusive. Given equivalent detection the stealthed vehicle will acquire the non stealthed target farther away creating a disparity in engagement ranges.

Armor reduces freeboard, dramatically cutting into reserve buoyancy. It reduces the tonnage and fiscal budget available to weapons systems, detection systems, protection systems, fuel and range, engines and speed. Armor does nothing to increase detectability. It does not prevent mission kills, as mission critical components will be placed outside the armor belt. It can not stop modern guided weapons from critically damaging or sinking the ship. It can be easily over come by a dedicated weapon. All or nothing armoring schemes are superior to evenly spaced armoring schemes. Given the same budgetary limit, tonnage and or fiscal, the AoN scheme provides more protection to critical locations.

One more time, the difficulty in defeating the battlewagons was in hitting them in the first place. We no longer have that problem. For a blue water naval combatant up armoring is unwarranted.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

Discord... Frankly, I think we're getting to the point of ridiculousness in terms of what's being proposed as a threat to armor against, but I'll play along.

As Nemo has already pointed out, active defenses have the advantage of reach. Many can engage well past the two klick mark, and being that we've moved to nukes here, I submit that the only reasonable defense is to down the delivery system before it goes off. Inside of the two kay range supplied, it doesn't really matter if you're armored up like a modern version of the Monitor, since the thermal and pressure effects will strip your sensors, weapons, and pretty much anything else right off the superstructure (if not get rid of the superstructure entirely). And I don't even want to think about what the ship might do if that blast wave catches it broadside on. Best case scenario, you've got a disarmed, blind, disabled (EMP is an issue too) husk with a lot of dead and dying men inside from being thrown about. It's as good as sunk. And it really wouldn't even take a nuke, truth be told. A powerful enough thermobaric warhead could do the same, as could a volley of missiles with simple blast-fragmentation payloads... For a mission kill, a cluster bomb might even suffice.

Sorry, but I find it hard to see an advantage in heavy armor against that sort of threat versus shooting it down before it gets there.

Also, I have to ask about this decoy for stealthy capital ships theory... The only capital ships I'm aware of are carriers. How is a carrier going to reduce its signature enough for a smaller ship to act as a decoy? And what about image recognition systems (as the first, simplest counter to come to mind) being used for terminal anti-ship missile guidance? Reiterating a bit, armoring isn't useless or "heretical", but it's also worth bearing in mind that it's by no means a standalone solution, or even viable against prevalent threats as a primary mitigator.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

huh.... reduced freeboard(when at combat stations) might not be such a bad idea really, lower signatures and smaller target area....as long as you have prodigious amounts of pumping power.
would also protect the lower crew from radiation unless right on top, even a few meters of water will stop a lot of the nasty stuff.

important point, the reason the BB concept was scrapped was nukes, any future war will be mainly nukes, and you can't armor against that....both of those assumptions were of course not exactly correct.

i just got a gut feeling that screams 'no armor is fucking stupid!', i can see the logic of using a all or nothing(which today translates mostly to nothing) armor scheme, just seems wrong, sort of like a escher painting....just wrong, and i have learned that those gut feelings of mine are often right, i suppose we shall see next time there is a major naval battle, my guess is utter massacre on all sides.

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by JQBogus »

I think the BB concept was scrapped not because of nukes, but because BBs were built around their main weapons system (the big guns) and those guns simply couldn't compete with the range of aircraft, and later, guided missiles.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

JQ: it was the idea of those weapon platforms carrying nukes, on cost effective bombardment, boom/$(non nuclear) nothing beats a BB even today.
and if the 'BB concept' was scrapped, why did the iowa class gat called back to duty for damn near fifty years(first launched 43, last combat mission 91)....why keep using it if it's so crappy? now they are of course so old the hull just does not hold together well anymore.

bottom line, there are few things in the US military that can match the firepower of a 16inch cannon from WW2 without going nuclear(a few heavy bombs, namely the moab which is pretty big boom and the heaviest JDAMs which are pretty close to a single shell, and finally the missiles AGM-130 and AGM-142 Have Nap) and the unit cost is kinda silly when you compare the 'cheap' AGM-130 at only 880000$/unit with the under 1000$ per round for the 16in...
and since most targets worth shooting at are near some coast, cost effective bitch.

on the carrier vs BB, it's simple really.
the BB is a one trick pony, hunt and kill ships, shore bombardment and being very scary, pure warfare.
whereas the carrier is much more versatile(and a lot less scary), and more importantly has many peace time uses, which the BB does not.
Search and rescue, transshipment by being a airport, etc.

i think a modern built BB with modern tech for the guns(base bleed boat tail, ETC, newer propellant and so on for extra range, perhaps go rocket assist smart rounds, but those would defeat the purpose of being cheap, and still mostly a stopgap for railguns anyway.) and other upgrades would be viable.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

discord wrote:JQ: it was the idea of those weapon platforms carrying nukes, on cost effective bombardment, boom/$(non nuclear) nothing beats a BB even today.
and if the 'BB concept' was scrapped, why did the iowa class gat called back to duty for damn near fifty years(first launched 43, last combat mission 91)....why keep using it if it's so crappy? now they are of course so old the hull just does not hold together well anymore.

bottom line, there are few things in the US military that can match the firepower of a 16inch cannon from WW2 without going nuclear(a few heavy bombs, namely the moab which is pretty big boom and the heaviest JDAMs which are pretty close to a single shell, and finally the missiles AGM-130 and AGM-142 Have Nap) and the unit cost is kinda silly when you compare the 'cheap' AGM-130 at only 880000$/unit with the under 1000$ per round for the 16in...
and since most targets worth shooting at are near some coast, cost effective bitch.

on the carrier vs BB, it's simple really.
the BB is a one trick pony, hunt and kill ships, shore bombardment and being very scary, pure warfare.
whereas the carrier is much more versatile(and a lot less scary), and more importantly has many peace time uses, which the BB does not.
Search and rescue, transshipment by being a airport, etc.

i think a modern built BB with modern tech for the guns(base bleed boat tail, ETC, newer propellant and so on for extra range, perhaps go rocket assist smart rounds, but those would defeat the purpose of being cheap, and still mostly a stopgap for railguns anyway.) and other upgrades would be viable.
I don't think anyone has said that the battleship is 'crappy', but rather that it's time has passed as a primary force projection tool in comparison to the power projection capability of a carrier. The biggest limitation is the relatively short range of the Mark 7 16 inch guns on the Iowa class... Just under 24 miles at optimum elevation. The USN recognized this limitation during the 1980's refit, which resulted in the addition of both Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles to the four Iowa class ships that were upgraded, offering the ability to provide fire support farther inland and with greater precision. So, while the firepower of such a platform is undeniable, it is also limited in it's ability to actually apply that firepower in a meaningful way.

To be frank, I would call the idea that 'most things worth shooting at are near the coast' wishful thinking. Beyond that which is within the guns range, a cursory checklist of targets worthy of utter devastation (infrastructure, staging areas, critical command centers) will show them to be well out of range of the 16 inch solution as it currently stands, thus requiring the use of other weapons, that are more easily carried on smaller ships, or aircraft, which is the purview of carriers. However... I do agree that there is a use for heavy gun bombardment during the early phases of a ship to shore attack, perhaps by smaller hulls mounting two to four such guns along with a battery of missiles.

On the issue of shock and awe... Well, to be honest, I wouldn't be worried at all about the ships guns that couldn't reach me. I'd be scared of the eighty or so aircraft that could drop death from above, or the missiles that could come out of nowhere to ruin my entire day. Perhaps the railgun systems in development will change this equation? It's possible, and a heavier platform carrying larger railgun launchers could certainly serve as an effective gunnery platform in the grain of the good ol battleships, but the days of conventional cannons being dominant in naval warfare have passed, having given way to far more precise, farther reaching weapon systems.

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by JQBogus »

The BB concept was dying well before nukes became a concern. BBs in WWII didn't do so well against aircraft, even when those aircraft were armed with conventional weapons.

As to bringing them back : they were already built. Pulling an existing ship out of mothballs is a whole different animal than building one new. The first two times it was done, the BB's tech was not as outdated, we were involved in operations against countries that had a lot of coast relative to their land area, and those countries had no real ability to attack the battleship by sea or air. The third time, their return was more political than military. Reagan wanted a 600 ship navy, part of his 'making America strong again" thing. It was, however, neither physically nor financially possible to reach this goal while he was still in office if all of the larger Navy's task forces were to be centered around new construction Nimitz class Carriers. Instead, a couple of older (clapped out) CVs had their service extended, and 4 BBs were reactivated. I remember at the time that there was a lot of debate and not a little skepticism about the actual military value of the BBs. If we were fighting someone who could mount a decent defense of their coasts, the BB was a lot of eggs in one basket. If we were not, then the refitted Iowas had less mid-ranged firepower (missiles) than a Spruance class destroyer, despite having 5-6 times the crew complement. That isn't so good for cost effectiveness.

During their third recommissioning, $1.7 billlion was spent updating the 4 Iowa class BBs. I could not find the operating cost for an Iowa class, but the Spruance was ~$35million/year. Figure the Iowa will be about 5x that, due the much larger crew, and increased maintenance needed by then 40 year old machinery. They then went on to serve a combined ~26 years. 26x$175m = $4.55 Billion. During their 26 years, they fired ~1400 16" shells, and 52 Tomahawk missiles for effect. 1400 Shells @ $1000 ea (your number) = $1.4m, and 52 Tomahawk @ ~$570k = $29.6m. Totalled up, that is $6.28 Billion dollars.
Unit Cost : $1.7 Billion
Operating Cost : $4.55 Billion
Ammunition Cost : Shells : 1.4 Million, Missiles : $28.6 Million
Total : ~$ 6.28 Billion.

Consider now, if, instead, 4 Spruance class DDs were built, and they fired 1400 tomahawks instead of those 1400 16" shells.

Unit Cost : ~3 Nillion (I couldnt find the price of a Spruance, so I took the Price of a Burke and adjusted for inflation back to 1982)
Operating Cost : $910 Million
Ammunition Cost : $827.6 Million
Total : ~4.735 Billion.

And we'd have 4 ships that are 40 years younger still.

Basically, arguing that bringing back the Iowas was cost effective just isn't a winning position, as far as I can tell.


As to the BB being better at hunting and killing ships... just no. CVs were far more effective ship killers in WWII, and there is no reason to believe that technology has swung that the other way since. All a BB really has is a high 'cool' factor.

And yeah, a modern build BB would be a lot more capable than an Iowa. BUT... it would still be a lot less capable in nearly all situations than a modern CV. And it would cost a lot, especially since i really doubt we would build such a specialist/niche ship in numbers. I'd rather have 5 more Ford class CVs than 10 theoretical modern BBs.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Nemo »

Senanthes wrote:the days of conventional cannons being dominant in naval warfare have passed, having given way to far more precise, farther reaching weapon systems.

Nothing is new under the sun. Stealth, stand off engagement, and armored bruiser. These three elements fought for dominance in the Pacific throughout WW2. Stealth today comes in terms of RAM and angles, stealth then came in terms of submarines. Standoff today comes in a variety of guided munition forms, stand off then came in a variety of semi-guided munitions and technological advantage. Munitions were carried to the target by a manned aircraft, lined up and let go. Radar created a disparity of engagement rage especially in night gunfire battles, see Washington versus Kirishima at Guadalcanal. Autonomously guided munitions weren't over the horizon science fiction. While primitive by our standards, they were in use by both sides.

Of these strategies stand off proved itself capable of power projection, and stealth proved itself capable of area denial and commerce disruption. Armored bruisers proved themselves a tremendous resource sink and capable of being target practice. The war showed, decisively, that the iron clad's time had passed by. The Nuke just puts an exclamation point on it. :!:




As to why they brought the Iowa back, well... The Soviet Kirov class cruisers were launched in 1980 and became the biggest baddest surface ship around. We pulled the Iowas out and quickly modernized them to take that top dawg position back. And to twist the knife a bit, that a ship that old we just happened to have lying around can beat your best. Come at meh brah! It, along with much of the military build up in those years, was designed to apply overt pressure on the Soviet leadership.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

JQ, Nemo: Bingo. :)

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

the rest: the iowa-class was a great machine, but yes, it's time has passed, i was talking about a NEW ship based on the concept of the BB, what kind of new technology could we apply to this 'obsolete concept'.

do we have a need for a 'big guns' platform? in most war scenarios i can come up with it would be pretty useful, admittedly range of WW2 guns are on the low side, peace time navy? not so much, mostly bragging rights.

gun as primary weapon:
currently doable.
someone did a paper study on what would happen if you apply modern artillery tech to a 16in gun, 100+% increase even without rocket assist was his finding.
ETC, modern munition shape, higher pressure gun barrels, newer propellant, 'smart rounds' and rocket assist comes to mind.
also light gas gun tech, but that would be of dubious usefulness, due to probable low fire rate.
near future.
railguns
particle weapons?
lasers?

MBT's are designed to survive near misses from tactical warheads, why can't the same tech be used on a ship?
mostly because sensors i suppose, any way to fix that weakness?
expendable remote drone sensors come to mind, all you need then is communication, and that can be pretty rugged.

mobility? for near future weapons the ship will need absolutely insane amounts of power, a propulsion system that actually can use that power at need? i have some ideas here.
see where i am going here?

Post Reply