Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[Gun Grape]

GG: " So what do you think are "proper targets" for a 16" gun?"

Infantry positions, Armored formations, Arty positions, rail yards and marshalling facilities, industrial facilities, port facilities, airfields, radar sites, AAA sites, C4i sites, and of course, any ship dumb enough to be within 23nm.

Sniper, WE both know what a proper target is. Anything that comes in range of my weapon system:)

I asked DefCon this question because of his statement.

Thats irrelevant.

First off, now your talking about TLAMS again. No no no. Not all munitions are equal. You wouldn't fire a tomahawk at a target that can be handled by a 155mm shell.

So, it's reasonable to understand that you wouldn't fire a 16" shell at that same target.

So I am wondering what he wants to use them for.

[Defcon 6]

Well its an easy one to make.

2k bomb (I'll be nice) Mk-84 GP in the PD fuze mode.
Filler is 945lb of tritonal.
Weight depends on Fin/Fuze combination between 1,900 and 2,000lbs
Fragmentation radius is 366 meters/400 yds
Info from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk-84

16in round will be the Mk-13 HCC with PD fuze.
Filler is 145lbs of TNT.
Weight is 1,900lbs
Fragmentation radius is 2540meters/2778 yds

Info from
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
and one of your favorites
http://www.usnfsa.org/Technical%20Do.../16%20standard


Also it jives with Unclass JEM and various Fire Support Manuals that you probably don’t have access to.

Now why is that? Because Mk-13 is designed for antipersonnel/shore bombardment. Smaller explosive charge. Large, scored (on inside) case to maximize fragmentation effect.

Mk-84 is designed primarily for destruction of material. Antipersonnel effects are secondary. It has a half inch thick shell casing designed to hold the explosives not designed to cause effective fragmentation. You get large torn chunks if metal that don’t go far and don’t cover much area where the MK-13 fragments in smaller, more uniform pieces that cover a large area.

This is the same reason that a modern 105mm HE round has the same casualty producing radius as the old M107 155mm HE. Even with the smaller shell casing.

This 1,900 pound projectile has been in existence since the late 1930’s. It was developed as the standard bombardment projectile for battleship 16-inch guns, and has a lethal fragmentation area (with a point detonating fuse) of 2778 yards (about 200 x 200 yards) against personnel in the open. None of our missiles today have that capability (for none have high explosive loads).

Now if I had used the USNFSA site you would have gave one of your lengthy speeches about stearman b.s or something. And that bomb your talking about there is filled with tritonal. Either way, that bomb possesses no suppression capabilities, in which case you would want the large lethality radius. But heres the problem...your talking about an outdated shell. I stand corrected, if we developed assisted guided munitions we wouldn't use TNT, I'm guessing!

I still stand corrected, a shell carrying 145 lbs of Tritonol would have a smaller radius of effect. The only reason the 16" shell has such a large frag radius is because it carries the far more volatile TNT payload.

Lets review chemical properties-
Tritonal is a mixture of 80% TNT and 20% aluminum powder, used in several types of ordnance. The aluminum improves the brisance of the TNT -- the speed at which the explosive develops its maximum pressure. The addition of aluminum makes tritonal about 18 percent more powerful than TNT alone. It is used perhaps most notably in the Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (nicknamed the Mother of all Bombs) or MOAB, the largest non-nuclear weapon in the US military arsenal, surpassing the explosive power of even a fuel-air explosive bomb.

As you said, the Mk-84 is not designed for anti-personell situations, and because its air dropped it lacks suppression capabilities to a greater degree. It's designed for a different mission. Either way it doesn't make a case against the 16" shell, which is optimized for anti-personell effects.

[Defcon 6]

Sniper, WE both know what a proper target is. Anything that comes in range of my weapon system:)

I asked DefCon this question because of his statement.



So I am wondering what he wants to use them for.

Smitty is the one that created the question in the first place, when he said that the 16" shell would exceed collateral damage parameters, and thats when I said so you wouldn't fire a 16" shell at those targets.

So what do we want to use them for? Ask smitty since he's the one that was originally addressed to.

[Gun Grape]

No, really, we havn't.

Between the retirement of the EF-111A and the F-4G it left a SEAD/EW hole in the USAF that has yet to be filled.

That is a fact.

Thats why we have joint Navy/MC/AF EA-6B squadrons. They are NCA assets.AF also has ALQ-184s and other pods for their tac air fleet. Navy getting the Growler.

[Defcon 6]

Come on GG. Lets see you start correcting Smitty. lol. M21 and dreadnought have already set him straight a couple of times.

[Gun Grape]

This 1,900 pound projectile has been in existence since the late 1930’s. It was developed as the standard bombardment projectile for battleship 16-inch guns, and has a lethal fragmentation area (with a point detonating fuse) of 2778 yards (about 200 x 200 yards) against personnel in the open. None of our missiles today have that capability (for none have high explosive loads).

Here is 3 TLAM-D MLRS ATACM. Its called ICM

Now if I had used the USNFSA site you would have gave one of your lengthy speeches about stearman b.s or something.

Damn, I used it to make you feel better.

And that bomb your talking about there is filled with tritonal. Either way, that bomb possesses no suppression capabilities, in which case you would want the large lethality radius. But heres the problem...your talking about an outdated shell. I stand corrected, if we developed assisted guided munitions we wouldn't use TNT, I'm guessing!

Oh now I see. You didn't mean the 16 inch shells we have now. Some mythical
shells that we will develop in the future. Is that the ChaChing of the cash register for even more cost required to get a BB?

If I want casualties from a dumb bomb, I'll have them drop something like Rockeye.

And yes we will still use TNT. It is stable enough to withstand the shock of firing at high charges.

I still stand corrected, a shell carrying 145 lbs of Tritonol would have a smaller radius of effect. The only reason the 16" shell has such a large frag radius is because it carries the far more volatile TNT payload.

No its because of the amount of metal in the shell and the design of that shell to produce fragmentation. Did you read all of my post?

As you said, the Mk-84 is not designed for anti-personell situations, and because its air dropped it lacks suppression capabilities to a greater degree. It's designed for a different mission. Either way it doesn't make a case against the 16" shell, which is optimized for anti-personell effects.

Well it was YOUR argument."Less lethal range better at min Collateral Damage" Flip flopped on it now?

[Bill]

I like how he made the parameters "after vietnam" convienent. After the last major war.

And it's STILL more than the cost of a new build iowa once you factor in inflation to 2006 dollars.

Between ODS, Eldo Canyon and the WOT/2d Iraq war we've lost at least 50 combat aircraft since the end of Vietnam.

BTW, in Vietnam, we lost THOUSANDS of fixed wing combat aircraft. Almost the ENTIRE USAF F-105 Thud fleet was removed from the face of the earth by hostile fire. We lost so many A-4 Skyhawks that pilots took to calling them 'DeathHawks'.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Yes, they had lots of AAA. You also would see numerous SAMs fired off as well. You didn't see the fighter aircraft that were shot down, or the ones destroyed on the ground. The point is, airpower was able to neutralize a "heavily guarded airspace" (love it when you manufacter terms) and still perform the mission. And, we've gotten far better at doing it since then.


Ummm Snipe im not sure where that quote came from but it was not I who claimed it to be so. I have no idea of where that came from. I believe you meant B.SMITTY.

It quoted you for whatever reason. Sorry.

[Gun Grape]

Numerous vastly inferior sams. And the point is, there is a huge difference between heavily guarded airspace and sophisticated threats. Evidently you don't understand how inferior and in-effective AAA and other types of AA fire are?

You just don't seem to understand air threat capability.

You should do some reading.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-ODS-EW.html

The Iraqi IADS was a composite system which integrated European and Soviet search and acquisition radars, and a range of Soviet and European SAM and AAA systems, all tied together with a French built Kari C3 (Command/Control/Communications) network. While smaller than the now defunct Soviet system in central Europe (Western TVD), the system had a respectable capability and comparable if not higher density of SAM and AAA systems, with considerable redundancy in communications links and hardened C3 facilities.


Now looking at my old DS OoB I see that they had Roland, SA-6,SA8, SA-9, SA-13
At the time they were considered one of the better AD Systems outside of Russian

[Bill]

A ship IS in hostile territory if it's within 5" or 16" gunfire range.

Actually the range of the Iowa's 16" guns will allow it to fire farther than the internationally accepted territorial waters claim so no, 16" fire does not neccesarily force one to enter enemy waters. Further, with modern munitions, the range of the 16" guns would be much, much farther.

[Bill]

Thats why we have joint Navy/MC/AF EA-6B squadrons. They are NCA assets.AF also has ALQ-184s and other pods for their tac air fleet. Navy getting the Growler.

We have a small fleet of USN prowlers covering ALL of our needs whereas before the USAF had it's own fleet of dedicated EF-111As(which are superior to the prowler in all respects) and it's own fleet of F-4Gs(which were superior to the F-16CJ that replaced them). ON top of that the USN had a larger fleet of prowlers back then, when it was servicing just it's OWN needs.

Nope, i must conclude our SEAD/EW capabilities are a shadow of what they were in Jan 91.

As far as jamming pods, i will give you a quote from an A-10 pilot i know personally, "I'd rather carry an extra bomb for all the good that thing does".

[Bill]

Sniper, WE both know what a proper target is. Anything that comes in range of my weapon system:)

Mine too.

[Gun Grape]

Defcon,

Tell us why we need BBs. You havn't made a case for it yet. And especially why we need them when we have other systems that currently fill the "Gaps" you mentioned. After all you are the thread starter.

[Bill]

"Need" is a very strong word. We don't "Need" B-2s, or heavy bombers at all for that matter....but we have them.

Do we really 'need' precision guided bombs? No, not really.

Modern BBs would be EXTREMELY nice to have, but no, we don't 'need' them.

[TopHatter]

And it's STILL more than the cost of a new build iowa once you factor in inflation to 2006 dollars.

Between ODS, Eldo Canyon and the WOT/2d Iraq war we've lost at least 50 combat aircraft since the end of Vietnam.

BTW, in Vietnam, we lost THOUSANDS of fixed wing combat aircraft. Almost the ENTIRE USAF F-105 Thud fleet was removed from the face of the earth by hostile fire. We lost so many A-4 Skyhawks that pilots took to calling them 'DeathHawks'.

A few figures:

Nearly 400 F-105's were lost by all causes in Vietnam, out of approximately840 produced. An appalling loss rate of 50% in a single conflict.

Approximately 350 Navy and Marine Corps A-4 Skyhawks were lost in Vietnam.

In all, some 3300 fixed-wing aircraft were lost in Vietnam.

1 F-111F was lost during Operation El Dorado Canyon

29 U.S and 11 allied fixed-wing aircraft lost to direct enemy action during Operation Desert Storm. Many more damaged to one extent or another.

Perhaps half a dozen aircraft were lost to enemy action post-Desert Storm to today.