And explosive-loaded boats on a ramming course?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.
Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
-
pinheadh78
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:36 am
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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
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
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
JQ, Nemo: Bingo. 
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
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?
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?
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
Maybe the 'stripped sensors' problem could be addressed by building the necessarily exposed part of the sensor as a ejectable module, with replacements ready to deploy at the push of a button. Have multi-cell sensor pods, kinda like the box launchers for missiles. I don't know how easy that would be to get to work, though. The system might might need considerable tuning if it switched dishes, even if the dishes are nominally identical.
-
pinheadh78
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:36 am
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
Good thought, but you can't swap-out sensors quite so easily; each one is unique even if mass manufactured and will require a period of calibration to account for the tiny differences between sensor packs. That is assuming you want the highest precision results (which you do if your trying to shoot-down an inbound missile) so time must be allotted to complete the calibration. Attacks are launched in salvos so if one missile has hit your ship, the follow-up hit is probably only seconds (less than an hour tops) away from impact so being able to rapidly switch-out damaged sensors wont help much.
If your sensor/radar system is active and the ship is radiating emissions then your enemy can easily locate the ship just by using direction-finding on the source of those radar signals and just launch a bunch of missiles down that vector. In modern combat most warships actually have the radar turned off (or tuned down to weak levels) and rely on off-board sensors (AWACS, satellites, etc) for theater level situation awareness and over-the-horizon missile targeting. The local radar only gets turned on when the ship is activity needing to defend itself or a large target and then only when there is suspected to be a terminally in-bound threat.
Of course the other theory is just have the radar on all the time and try and see and shoot-down everything the enemy launches at you. This is done when its assumed that the enemy already knows exactly where you are (aka giant non stealthy carrier) and need to be always-ready to shoot-down in-bound missiles in the terminal-targeting phase
In regards to knowing in advance where ships are via satellites; do consider that the information from the satellite (and even long range patrol/surveillance aircraft) must be relayed to the platform and weapons system that will be doing the actual shooting targeting. A surface ship that is doing 30+ knots (~15m/sec) and be anywhere within a 13.5km circle from its last known position within just 15 minute of last known location. That's allot of area that an inbound-missile or surface ship has to search to be able to complete the kill-chain from detection to terminal-targeting guidance. During the terminal phase its largely the missiles own-sensors that are searching for the target and those can more easily be evaded, confused, jammed, than those of the platform that initially located said surface combatant. Its also why stealth on a warship is very important so the in-bound missile that is searching that 13.5km area can't tell the difference between the ocean-surface, an innocent fishing-boat, or the real warship.
If a conflict as escalated to a point where the targeting and mass destruction of innocent ships in the process of destroying the warship among them the conflict has grown beyond the survivability of a single warship. At that stage of a conflict there are no neutral nations (as everyone now has a grievance to settle) and most of those would be aligned against the nation that's just indiscriminately sinking anything that sorta maybe looks like it might be near a warship. At that point its one verses the world, and that didn't work out well last time.
If your sensor/radar system is active and the ship is radiating emissions then your enemy can easily locate the ship just by using direction-finding on the source of those radar signals and just launch a bunch of missiles down that vector. In modern combat most warships actually have the radar turned off (or tuned down to weak levels) and rely on off-board sensors (AWACS, satellites, etc) for theater level situation awareness and over-the-horizon missile targeting. The local radar only gets turned on when the ship is activity needing to defend itself or a large target and then only when there is suspected to be a terminally in-bound threat.
Of course the other theory is just have the radar on all the time and try and see and shoot-down everything the enemy launches at you. This is done when its assumed that the enemy already knows exactly where you are (aka giant non stealthy carrier) and need to be always-ready to shoot-down in-bound missiles in the terminal-targeting phase
In regards to knowing in advance where ships are via satellites; do consider that the information from the satellite (and even long range patrol/surveillance aircraft) must be relayed to the platform and weapons system that will be doing the actual shooting targeting. A surface ship that is doing 30+ knots (~15m/sec) and be anywhere within a 13.5km circle from its last known position within just 15 minute of last known location. That's allot of area that an inbound-missile or surface ship has to search to be able to complete the kill-chain from detection to terminal-targeting guidance. During the terminal phase its largely the missiles own-sensors that are searching for the target and those can more easily be evaded, confused, jammed, than those of the platform that initially located said surface combatant. Its also why stealth on a warship is very important so the in-bound missile that is searching that 13.5km area can't tell the difference between the ocean-surface, an innocent fishing-boat, or the real warship.
If a conflict as escalated to a point where the targeting and mass destruction of innocent ships in the process of destroying the warship among them the conflict has grown beyond the survivability of a single warship. At that stage of a conflict there are no neutral nations (as everyone now has a grievance to settle) and most of those would be aligned against the nation that's just indiscriminately sinking anything that sorta maybe looks like it might be near a warship. At that point its one verses the world, and that didn't work out well last time.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
Not too bad of a concept, but I'd still push for a smaller hull. Other than that, I can offer a reply as to the issue of nukes and 'MBT armor', which, I'm assuming we're talking about Chobham style composites, not steel.discord wrote: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?
A sufficiently well protected tank might well survive a near miss, but wont be in any shape to fight thereafter. Distance is the deciding factor for a tank caught in a nuclear blast. An MBT taking a near miss from a nuke may, or may not, wind up with shattered hatches, broken seals, stripped treads, or just be outright flipped over, depending... Now, for reference, a Centurion Mk 3 once took a 10 kt detonation at 500 meters during a test, which might seem to add to the idea that this is viable. However, while the tank survived, the tests emphasized that the crew would have been thoroughly dead, regardless, due to the heat transfer and radiation. It is estimated that the same tank would have been outright obliterated at 350 meters. Most reinforced structures would survive a nuke at more than a mile or two out, which includes most warships, still leaving the issue of sensors, fire control, and everything else being knocked out. Chobham armor would do nothing to help with that, and present the following set of issues, which really haven't changed from other types of armor...
Chobham laminar is heavy. Much of a tanks weight weight is in it's armor, and even so, it's distribution is far from even, with a glacis plate and turret front as tough as can be reasonably made, good side protection, but relatively thin plate steel for the upper works, rear, and belly. We shouldn't even consider the depleted uranium that went into one version of the Abrams... The raw weight of using armor materials that are 1.7 times denser than lead would make for a good anchor, but probably not a viable surface combatant that stays on the surface. Even if you just used the Chobham, you'd still be adding mass, the same as any other armor, and require thick plating to resist incoming weapons fire due to another issue... Angle. A warships hull and superstructure is likely to be a straight shot, or near straight shot, every time, which is the worst sort of hit to take. A tank doesn't have to consider buoyancy, and has the advantages of being a far smaller target, and being able to slope thinner, lighter plates for greater protection/deflection.
Since we're on the subject, we have the holy trinity of Lethality, Mobility, and Survivability to consider, in any comparison. Any good MBT is a balanced vehicle in these regards, and the first, best defense for a tank is... Don't get hit. A lesson that can be applied to our fictitious warship, I think.
Finally, it's also worth noting that tanks are taken out of action by fast flying pieces of metal about as long as ones forearm, as well as relatively lightweight shoulder fired weapons, rather than volleys of nukes. While a nuclear weapon may seem like the penultimate threat, it is, in reality, far from the worst that can happen, in terms of incoming fire on a tactical level. It's indiscriminate, unfocused, able to be shot down, and unlikely to destroy your ship unless it goes off rather close. I'd be far more worried about the precision guided top attack munitions, delivered in salvos for a much lower cost, that know where your magazines and fuel stores are on that slow moving, large target, wouldn't you? Or perhaps a quartet of torpedoes detonating under the keel, where the weight of your ship, combined with the sudden sledgehammer of pressure from below, works to literally crack it in half? Both would worry me more than the vague chance somebody might forget he has cheaper, more effective alternatives, and go all-nuclear.
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
Like I said before, the inverse square law is the best protection against a nuke. It is the deciding factor for any such target. It is not reasonable to build up something to survive a direct hit. These tests against tanks were carried out on the supposition of using them to stop tank columns, whole groups of tanks, to learn where and how and whether to use the weapons to best effect. At only 10kt, even such a low yield nuke proves capable of neutralizing AFVs in a wide area.Distance is the deciding factor for a tank caught in a nuclear blast.
More than just that too. Composites are brittle and composite armor on vehicles is modular and designed to be maintained and replaced in the field. Wrapping the ship in such armor is flatly not feasible on a blue navy warship. To say nothing of the cost of doing so. Protecting certain vital areas from certain directions may be feasible, but to what end? To stop what threats? In all practicality the only use for such a ship is near shore gunfire support, particularly of landing forces. Enter the 8,000 ton 400 foot long Erebus class monitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erebus-class_monitor
Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat
Now see... A modern version of the Erebus is about what I'd picture as a useful application for whats being discussed here... Not Big Ship, Big Armor, Big Guns, but rather an effective, comparatively compact warship fitted with a single twin turret of heavy guns, and a supporting brace of missiles, CIWS, and perhaps drones. That, I can see a use for, providing support for inland operations, via missiles and drones (which, coincidentally, would make for good spotters and desginators for it's guns on near shore targets) at range, and against coastal threats with the heavy cannons. Give it enough CIWS and a few Harpoons and it can act as part of a carrier escort as well, providing short range area defense against incoming missiles, and having some anti-ship capability in a pinch. A platform with a primary mission, yes, but a versatile one that can do more than just that one job, and not break the bank in doing either.