Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

[HistoricalDavid]

I have a few nitpicks but this is the only truly relevant point I have.

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

This is a warship that deals out heavy punishment on land or sea, and can withstand heavy punishment in return.

Seven inches of armour - at the thickest - isn't going to do much against modern, massive shaped charge warheads. Remember the penetration values for handheld RPGs? Several feet of steel? Now imagine them for 100lb+ warheads.

This armour layout is not going to be effective against larger threats, and against smaller threats it might survive but is still going to get damaged, requiring expensive repair.

[HoratioNelson]

Well I can't exactly pile battleship-level armour onto a cruiser hull, now can I? I did include explosive reactive armour to defend against shaped charges. Besides, most surface combatants these days are smallarms-proof only, making this ship automatically more armoured. Anyways, how much armour do you think I could put onto a cruiser for it to be considered properly protected?

[Tin Man]

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

Well I can't exactly pile battleship-level armour onto a cruiser hull, now can I? I did include explosive reactive armour to defend against shaped charges. Besides, most surface combatants these days are smallarms-proof only, making this ship automatically more armoured. Anyways, how much armour do you think I could put onto a cruiser for it to be considered properly protected?

If you fitted enough armour to protect it fully, it would become as heavy as a BB. I read somewhere else on this forum, "the trick is not to get hit in the first place".
The days of slugging it out toe to toe is over, it is all about guile and electronic countermeasure....Skip the armour and give it more guile Add more armour, attract more tactical nukes, I`d say.

You only require a good armoured bulkhead system and ceramic armour over critical areas like mags` and machine spaces. Oh, and add a bloody good fire suppression system coupled with top notch damage control training, a better investment than relying in a belief on impenetrable ships....Invest in a good anti-Torpedo noise making system whilst your at it.

[Sea Toby]

You need to watch a few films of the Starship Enterprise under the command of Capt. James T. Kirk. Forty years ago my generation didn't have any problems with electronic countermeasures. Watch this video from You Tube

YouTube - Destroyer Gets Destroyed By Submarine Torpedoes

Notice what happened to the radar, and how useless it was against the torpedo. No amount of armor is going to defend that destroyer after her back is broken by the torpedo. Ain't it better to think in terms of electronic countermeasures, fool the torpedo to think you are 200 yards away?

[zraver]

The tendency has been and will remain shields over armor. CIWS and other anti-missile systems and counter measures. It is much safer to defeat an attack than to try and resist it for the simple reason you cannot be string everywhere aka top-down attack missiles vs tanks.

Nuclear power will eventually be the way to go, once we perfect usable DEW's a reactors unlimited power will make missiles a thing of the past. I predict we will see this within 20-30 years. Once that happens attacks will have to move closer and guns and torpedoes will re-assume dominance and armor will again take prominence as ships fight in visual range and have to ablate enemy DEW attacks.

[Feanor]

Petr Velikiy, Admiral Nahimov, nuclear battleships?

[gunnut]

How about a modern armored cruiser?

10,000t class
2 5" guns
2 57mm guns
2 20mm Phalanx
16x4 ESSM
2 10t helos
enough armor to resist 3" shells, maybe 5" shells

Nothing fancy. Just a very basic warship for fire support, shore bombardment, maybe even enough room on board to carry a small contingent of marines or SEAL team.

[HistoricalDavid]

Trouble is, the armour to resist 3" or 5" will not be good enough to take on shaped charges. The 5" guns, assuming you mean the current 5"/62 type, will not be as good as the 6.1" AGS, which is specifically designed for NGFS. It won't be able to do most other duties since it doesn't have

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

Well I can't exactly pile battleship-level armour onto a cruiser hull, now can I? I did include explosive reactive armour to defend against shaped charges. Besides, most surface combatants these days are smallarms-proof only, making this ship automatically more armoured. Anyways, how much armour do you think I could put onto a cruiser for it to be considered properly protected?

Too much armour for it to remain effective. Lesson is - better to gamble on no hits via a thick, effective defensive screen rather than expect to get hit and pay the price with half your ship's weight being in armour. Piling on the armour is going to significantly reduce the firepower you can carry, increase fuel consumption by making it sit deeper and wider in the water, and most of the time it'll be single-use dead weight anyway, increasing the chance of being hit. At least protective firepower also often has offensive use as well, and protects the whole ship - whereas relying on armour cannot do that, since you have to have an all-or-nothing scheme. I doubt ERA is going to do much against the 1,000lb Styx warhead, or any top-attack munitions.

[HoratioNelson]

Oh, and don't go with Phalanx CIWS. The best modern CIWS gun is, in my humble opinion, the Oerlikon Millenium 35mm. 1000 rounds/minute firing rate, air burst munitions to fill the air with a veritable wall of flak and is the only modern CIWS gun that can keep out targets at ranges exceeding 1.2km. I put a combination of RAM launchers and Millenium guns on my ship, would that be a good defensive screen HistoricalDavid?

[rocket-dog]

This is a bit rushed and I will try to revisit.

I don't think armor is the answer; remember "float, move, fight". I think you need a big hull and lots of compartmentation which can take hits. I have been exploring (in a limited and not too serious fashion) solutions to the NGS problem based on container ships with the majority of the hold filled with containers filled with foam.

The danger of shafts mis-aligning due to explosive damage isn't as much as a problem that some experts/pundits/armchair admirals (like me!) believe.

Using pods would be OK if they were spread down the entire length of a (long!) hull.

That the MoD(N) or BAE/Thales rejected using pods for CVF probably is more an endorsement for the technology than a reason for rejection.

Look at the QMII which in terms of hull and machinery is as complex as the CVF will be. Marvelous ship........

[HistoricalDavid]

Originally Posted by HoratioNelson

Oh, and don't go with Phalanx CIWS. The best modern CIWS gun is, in my humble opinion, the Oerlikon Millenium 35mm. 1000 rounds/minute firing rate, air burst munitions to fill the air with a veritable wall of flak and is the only modern CIWS gun that can keep out targets at ranges exceeding 1.2km. I put a combination of RAM launchers and Millenium guns on my ship, would that be a good defensive screen HistoricalDavid?

For point defence against a few low-flying sea-skimmers, probably, but I'm not sure they have the elevation to take on pop-up-manoeuvering missiles, and I'd want to kill the missiles further out with longer-ranged missiles like ESSM (which was specified, but in small numbers) and SM, etc.

PS they would have the elevation but you'd probably end up with bits of missile falling on you since they're so short-ranged. I'd like something with longer-reach personally.

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Lesson is - better to gamble on no hits via a thick, effective defensive screen rather...

I just finished _Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat_ by Capt. Wayne Hughes Jr.
He states that "NSWC Carderock, at the the David Taylor Model Basin, has done excellent vulnerability analysis for many years. Its quantitative work is classified, but its general conclusion is that US warships of 10,000 tons and up could be made much less vulnerable to firepower kills from cruise missiles than they are now" (page 161).
"...moreover, the toughening will come at only a modest increase in cost" (page 162).

All the models in the book show that gambling on no hits is very poor tactics, only staying power can protect against the unexpected.

Also, as good as a defensive shield is the number of hulls. He suggests that the navy develop many good, small, stealthy ships for coastal surface combat, as well as blue-water scouting.
Some Fridtjof Nansen class frigates and a bunch of AFCON corvettes would fit the bill.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Trouble is, the armour to resist 3" or 5" will not be good enough to take on shaped charges. The 5" guns, assuming you mean the current 5"/62 type, will not be as good as the 6.1" AGS, which is specifically designed for NGFS. It won't be able to do most other duties since it doesn't have

My proposal is based on "cheap and effective" rather than state of the art. Everything is off the shelf and can be implemented effectively with minimal fuss.

AGS is not in service. Mk. 45 is. There's a good chance that AGS might get cancelled just like our last 8" gun project in the late 70s. It worked well. But Peanut Carter cut it.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Too much armour for it to remain effective. Lesson is - better to gamble on no hits via a thick, effective defensive screen rather than expect to get hit and pay the price with half your ship's weight being in armour. Piling on the armour is going to significantly reduce the firepower you can carry, increase fuel consumption by making it sit deeper and wider in the water, and most of the time it'll be single-use dead weight anyway, increasing the chance of being hit. At least protective firepower also often has offensive use as well, and protects the whole ship - whereas relying on armour cannot do that, since you have to have an all-or-nothing scheme. I doubt ERA is going to do much against the 1,000lb Styx warhead, or any top-attack munitions.

The armor is not meant to resist anti-ship missiles. It's meant to resist medium caliber guns that you can't intercept. It's also good against suicide bombers and terror attacks that usually get close without being intercepted.

No amount of armor can resist modern anti-ship missiles so I'm not even going to try. But a certain level of armor against medium caliber shells, auto cannons, machine guns, suicide bombs and such, is still effective.

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by gunnut

No amount of armor can resist modern anti-ship missiles so I'm not even going to try.

Actually, it can. But not in the traditional fashion, and it would only work on a large ship. Picture how torpedo side protection systems work on capital ships, including the latest US carriers.

[IDonT]

Unless you can armor your radar and datalink systems, a hit can still mission kill your ship and you have to go home.

In modern naval tactics, the key is to detect the enemy while avoiding detection. Much of the effort should be to design your ship in a way that it is difficult to detect. A stealthy low radar cross section hull is a lot more effective than an armored one.