Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 212

Thread: Are battleships obsolete?

  1. #91
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    yes sir, and you too.
    Thanks. I appreciate the civility, but no need to call me *sir*. Besides, it really makes me feel old


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Heavy Weight BB Projectiles with Extended Range Tested and/or under Development:
    1900 lb. Super Charge (24 NM)
    2240 lb. DX-149 (30.42 NM);
    1,300/16? (33.82 NM);
    1,350/13.65? EX-148 (44.97 NM)
    Testing in Nov 1968 / Feb 1969 to ranges over 45 nautical miles.
    Says WHO ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    ?
    I'll rephrase : NO DARPA shell (advanced or not) was ever fired from a 16-inch gun.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Well, what'd you expect? It's a ww2 system.
    USS New Jersey's gunnery performance off Lebanon was piss-poor by WW2 standards.

    I've already explained what could expected from this specific *WW2 system* in previous threads.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    But if JDAM can be fitted to a dumb bomb like a Mk-84 then I don't see why not one of the ww2 16" shells. Might be a good idea...if you could produce some sort of tail kit for $18-25k, those could be used for short range, and something like the MK-148 at greater ranges.
    There are quite a few differences between a dumb bomb released from a plane and a bullet fired from a gun, making guidance the latter slightly more complicated.

    Besides, you really would not want a tail kit for a 16-inch bullet.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    A saboted shell based on new tech might be capable of 100+ NM if assisted and guided.
    The operative word in your sentence being *MIGHT*. Major issues being *HOW MUCH* and *WHY*.

  2. #92
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnekgun
    I just wanted say how much we appreciated the New Jersey's efforts. From our perspective as grunts it made tolerable our unrealistic ( and unfair in my opinion ) rules of engagement at the time.
    I certainly understand your feelings.

    Sadly, it's not just the ROEs that were unrealistic and unfair.

  3. #93
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    No one disputes the effectiveness of the 16" naval rifles. What we argue is the logistics of bringing back 60 year old machines.

    We need to have liners for those 16" guns. We need to have parts for all the things that make a battleship move. We need to have a crew to run the ship. Most importantly, like what Gunny said, is the training to safely operate those 16" guns.

    There are a lot of nuances in operating any machinary. Little things that we learn by trial and error, but not written down. Details that are passed down from one gunner to the next. Those details just might get someone killed when dealing with massive quantity of explosives.

    All these things work against the battleship while the benefit is small, and probably can be replicated by aerial bombs, guided munitions, and advances in warfare in general.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  4. #94
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnekgun
    I just wanted say how much we appreciated the New Jersey's efforts. From our perspective as grunts it made tolerable our unrealistic ( and unfair in my opinion ) rules of engagement at the time.
    I agree with you, and if you look back across my arguements in this thread you'll understand why the Iowa class BB's could still be a viable weapon today. The problem is that their guns wore out and their shells were ww2 tech, I'd go so far as to say they were seriously neglected and abused as a weapons platform.

  5. #95
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Says WHO ?

    ????



    I'll rephrase : NO DARPA shell (advanced or not) was ever fired from a 16-inch gun.
    Were there or were there not DARPA shells fired; maybe not from a 16" gun but some calibre of gun?




    USS New Jersey's gunnery performance off Lebanon was piss-poor by WW2 standards.
    Thats what happened when the barrels start wearing out. If you neglect a platform long enough then it's performance will denegrate rapidly. Doesn't detract from the platform in question however, in my opinion.


    There are quite a few differences between a dumb bomb released from a plane and a bullet fired from a gun, making guidance the latter slightly more complicated.
    But it has succeeded with the XM982 shell.

    Besides, you really would not want a tail kit for a 16-inch bullet.
    Whatever works.




    The operative word in your sentence being *MIGHT*. Major issues being *HOW MUCH* and *WHY*. [/QUOTE]

    Well, I'd say we need to take a look at the new rounds developed for the DD(X)'s AGS. And also we need to seriously consider the XM982 and it's abilities. Incidentally the army was happy enough with the XM982's performance that it ordered a fairly decent number of them for further field trials.

  6. #96
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    ????
    Are you saying that there is no identified source for the set of figures you posted [e.g. 1,350/13.65" EX-148 (44.97 NM)] ? Isn't it what's usually called a rumor ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Were there or were there not DARPA shells fired; maybe not from a 16" gun but some calibre of gun?
    There certainly were DARPA shells fired from some caliber of gun.

    None from a 16-inch gun though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Thats what happened when the barrels start wearing out. If you neglect a platform long enough then it's performance will denegrate rapidly.Doesn't detract from the platform in question however, in my opinion.
    I'll rephrase with details I already posted in another thread : USS New Jersey's gunnery performance off Lebanon was piss-poor by WW2 standards, barrel wear and propellant quality being minor factors to explain such a piss-poor performance.

    IOW, the main reasons for such a piss-poor performance by WW2 standards were neither barrel wear, nor propellant quality.

    While this piss-poor performance may not intrinsically detract the platform in question, it definitely indicates that shooting 16-inch guns is much more than a JUST-DO-IT routine.

    IOW expecting USS New Jersey to be able to perform decently off Lebanon as some leaders did by then (e.g. John Lehman) was pure wishful thinking, just like the belief among said leaders (e.g. John Lehamn) that the mere presence of USS New Jersey would somehow *intimidate the fighters into peace*.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    But it has succeeded with the XM982 shell.
    So what ?

    It has not even been attempted with 16-inch bullets while the Iowas were still in commission, 15 years ago...


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Whatever works.
    The ever-popular JUST-DO-IT attitude. You would have loved John Lehman, buddy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Incidentally the army was happy enough with the XM982's performance that it ordered a fairly decent number of them for further field trials.
    I'd hazard this may have something to do with the fact that there is currently a significant number of guns in US service to fire Excalibur from (not to mention potential customers outside the US).

    Much more than 18 guns if you see what I mean (well 0 gun at present actually).
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 05 Jul 06, at 23:31.

  7. #97
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Shipwreck
    Are you saying that there is no identified source for the set of figures you posted [e.g. 1,350/13.65" EX-148 (44.97 NM)] ? Isn't it what's usually called a rumor ?
    So in your opinion, what factors prevent a 16" munition saboted or not, from being being developed with assisted/extended range and guidance?

    Furthermore where's the data on the EX-148 and how about the DARPA shells as well?

    There certainly were DARPA shells fired from some caliber of gun.

    None from a 16-inch gun though.
    Then I rest my case. DARPA shells have been fired, we could use that technology in future 16" munitions.




    I'll rephrase with details I already posted in another thread : USS New Jersey's gunnery performance off Lebanon was piss-poor by WW2 standards, barrel wear and propellant quality being minor factors to explain such a piss-poor performance.

    IOW, the main reasons for such a piss-poor performance by WW2 standards were neither barrel wear, nor propellant quality.

    While this piss-poor performance may not intrinsically detract the platform in question, it definitely indicates that shooting 16-inch guns is much more than a JUST-DO-IT routine.

    IOW expecting USS New Jersey to be able to perform decently off Lebanon as some leaders did by then (e.g. John Lehman) was pure wishful thinking, just like the belief among said leaders (e.g. John Lehamn) that the mere presence of USS New Jersey would somehow *intimidate the fighters into peace*.
    Well then what were the reasons for this piss poor performance? I mean, you've just added to my arguement if anything by stating that the equipment is totally workable and in good condition.




    So what ?

    It has not even been attempted with 16-inch bullets while the Iowas were still in commission, 15 years ago...
    Doesn't matter, it shouldn't be a problem. There's no reason why a 16" advanced munition could not be developed. Unless the laws of physics of ballistic projectiles ceases to exist once you get to the 16" calibre.




    The ever-popular JUST-DO-IT attitude. You would have loved John Lehman, buddy.
    It's a good theory. If you can use a door knob then use it.




    I'd hazard this may have something to do with the fact that there is currently a significant number of guns in US service to fire Excalibur from (not to mention potential customers outside the US).

    Much more than 18 guns if you see what I mean (well 0 gun at present actually).
    But it's not limited to 155mm guns. The technology has been developed so we can put it to good use. It's just like aerial bombs, once the USAF developed PGM capability with bombs, it soon found its way into a large variety of bombs of different types. The technology is there, so we might as well use it. And the money isn't an issue, since the DD(X) has been tossed into the garbage can we might as well use the Iowa's which are pretty cheap and if you modernized them, thats more capability all for that 2.5 B that POLMAR estimated.

    I mean, what better alternatives do we have for right here and right now that is affordable? None. It's the Iowa's or at least 8-10 years of having squat to use for NFS. I mean, I guess curious george and donald duck of the looney toons administration could up the budget for the USN so they could pay for all 21-24 DD(X)'s that would be required to fulfill the NFS/NSFS role. But then again thats 130 B dollars at the estimated price tag of 5 B dollars per DDG-1000. Not gonna happen. Reactivation is lookin real good right now.
    Last edited by Defcon 6; 06 Jul 06, at 00:19.

  8. #98
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    "Reactivation is lookin real good right now."

    How much do you want to bet?

    LOL

  9. #99
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    No one disputes the effectiveness of the 16" naval rifles. What we argue is the logistics of bringing back 60 year old machines.
    Well, if it works use it. Thats right, they are old...and they are already paid for. The B-52 is old too, but we're still using it because it's effective, especially with all the tons of upgrades that platform has undergone since it's inception. if only the Navy had such foresight as the USAF!

    We need to have liners for those 16" guns. We need to have parts for all the things that make a battleship move. We need to have a crew to run the ship. Most importantly, like what Gunny said, is the training to safely operate those 16" guns.
    I'd say the propulsion systems are just fine. And the rest of that are small problems that could be worked out without some huge hassle. 2.5B a ship, thats a bargain.







    All these things work against the battleship while the benefit is small, and probably can be replicated by aerial bombs, guided munitions, and advances in warfare in general.
    I disagree, based on what the GAO stated in the GAO-05-39R report, I think it's imparative that we find a solution for NFS in the here and now. So I say reactivate and modernize two Iowa's and use them as a tempoarary solution.

    According to the USN's statements, naval gun support is prefered in the early stages of a conflict because of scenarios with an immature theatre and because navy guns put let people in danger than CAS and other air mission capabilities.

  10. #100
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by rickusn
    "Reactivation is lookin real good right now."

    How much do you want to bet?

    LOL
    Oh it's not going to happen. At least I don't think so. But that solution is certainly better that the current one.

    Reactivation in my opinion is looking pretty good.

  11. #101
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    I'd say the propulsion systems are just fine. And the rest of that are small problems that could be worked out without some huge hassle. 2.5B a ship, thats a bargain.
    I don't know... The people who have actually worked on the battleships say differently. I think I'll go with their experiences and say "no."

    $2.5 billion to reactivate a single battleship? I think I'll take another carrier please.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  12. #102
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut
    I don't know... The people who have actually worked on the battleships say differently. I think I'll go with their experiences and say "no."
    Rusty battleship says yes, they could serve. He's an expert right here on WAB. So I disagree, with his expertise to back me.

    $2.5 billion to reactivate a single battleship? I think I'll take another carrier please.
    No thats 2.5 B to reactivate and modernize.

    A DDG-1000 costs roughly $5 B a unit and a Nimitz class aircraft carrier costs roughly $12 B a unit in total. The battleships are a bargain.

  13. #103
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    So in your opinion, what factors prevent a 16" munition saboted or not, from being being developed with assisted/extended range and guidance?
    "MONEY", replied Avida Dollars.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Furthermore where's the data on the EX-148
    Not cleared for PD for the most part.

    Not that difficult to make some educated guesses though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    and how about the DARPA shells as well?
    With the exception of some docs from this pro-reactivation group of which I forgot the acronym, I have personnally never seen any official paper on the much-touted 11-inch-100-nm-sabot-assisted-guided-DARPA-uber-projectile-for-the-Iowas.

    I first heard of it from some wannabee pundit who claimed to have in his possession one slide from a DARPA paper depicting the magic bullet but never bothered to forward a copy of said slide.

    I am tempted to believe that it is pure fantasy, all the more as the sketch that has been circulating here and there doesn't look quite *kosher* to me, but I am willing to admit that I could be biased somehow.

    I'll present my sincere apologies should said slide ever surface in its original incarnation with some form of third-party authentification.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Then I rest my case. DARPA shells have been fired, we could use that technology in future 16" munitions.
    What technology are you talking about ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Well then what were the reasons for this piss poor performance?
    Human factors were THE primary reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    I mean, you've just added to my arguement if anything by stating that the equipment is totally workable and in good condition.
    I said was in workable condition. Nowadays propellant is definitely FUBAR and 16-inch bullets are being physically scrapped after sitting for many years in a demil. to name those two parameters only.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    But it's not limited to 155mm guns. The technology has been developed so we can put it to good use. It's just like aerial bombs, once the USAF developed PGM capability with bombs, it soon found its way into a large variety of bombs of different types. The technology is there, so we might as well use it.
    It's slightly more complicated than plug-and-play (the best friend of just-do-it ).

    It would require significant resources like PEOPLE, TIME, TESTING EQUIPEMENT, MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY,... and MONEY.

    All that for 18 guns... (well 0 gun actually).

    Forget about it.
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 06 Jul 06, at 01:21.

  14. #104
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Shipwreck

    3. Objectively, a mere glance at the chronology clearly reveals the complete failure of USS New Jersey as an *instrument of deterrence* :

    * 4 December 1983 : Marines at Beirut airport under heavy gunfire (130mm cannons, 122mm rockets,...) from Syrian-held positions east of Beirut.
    And were nicely dealt a little 155mm attitude adjusters by Hotel Btry. The Amil complained

    * 15 December 1983 : USS New Jersey delivers first 16-inch gunfire strike against ennemy positions in the mountains Southeast of Beirut (11 rounds).
    The SAM Btry I think. Been a long time

    * 13 January 1984 : 30-minute gunfight between Marines in Beirut International Airport and assaillants firing from a position east of USMC perimeter.

    * 15 January 1984 : 3-hour battle between Marines in Beirut International Airport and Druze militias supported by 23mm autocannons, 12.7mm and 14.5mm HMGs, and possibly light mortars (airport closed).
    Again Hotel and the Bn 81s. I think we also got some 5" from one of the DDs on station. The Tanks even got to play

    * 15 January 1984 : USS New Jersey delivers second 16-inch gunfire strike against ennemy positions (5 rounds IIRC, gunnery logs to be checked).
    I think this was still that pesky SAM site

    * 6 February 1984 : Much of Beirut seized in streetfighting by Druze and Shiite militias. Lebanon Pdt Amine Gemayel nearly overthrown as a result.
    We almost got in that fight. The Amil Commanders contacted the BLT and pretty much said they had no beef with us and wouldn't shoot into our positions. Not even if we shot at them. And kept their word. Even on Pepsi road. But really not much of a fight. All the Muslim members of the LAF deserted.

    * 8 February 1984 : USS New Jersey delivers third and final 16-inch gunfire strike in a magistral fireworks (288 rounds ), supposedly against ennemy positions somewhere in the Shuf mountains.
    The CP? And they bounced rounds all over the place.

    I know she did fire a few 5/38 missions during the time she was on station. But that had to do with where she and the Moose were at on the gunline as to who shot.


    While the subjective truth of people who've been in this terrible mess deserves the greatest respect given the circumstances, the idee fixe among people only interested in servicing a mystique without any kind of intimate knowledge of what went on at the time is just breathless silliness.
    I'll stick with what I've always said. She shot like crap. Yes it looked and sounded cool but as the Riflemans Creed states "My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count."
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  15. #105
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut
    $2.5 billion to reactivate a single battleship? I think I'll take another carrier please.
    Gonna be a bit short for a carrier.

    How about lots of nice girls and good cigars instead ?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Big Battleship Doctrine
    By Defcon 6 in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 17 Apr 08,, 10:58
  2. Battleship History Article
    By rickusn in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17 Jan 07,, 16:16
  3. USN Admiral Responds.....
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20 Jun 05,, 08:36

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •