recomissioning Iowa class BB's

[Gun Grape]

Yes, the modern Aircraft Carrier is indeed the new "Quarterback" of the Navy. But I don't see any harm in having a big "Fullback" giving you a bit more extra protection. Sort of having a body guard that can do things that the lesser armed and armored ships in your fleet cannot do regardless of how rare such a situation should arise.

Think of it this way. You are a skinny nerdy kid that is always the target of your neighborhood bully. So having a big husky friend along with you saves on the black eyes and bruises.

But the aircraft carrier has been the "New" quarterback" since 1941.

That "Fullback" is old has bad knees and cost lots of money. Maybe in a 600 warship navy we could afford to have him around. But in todays navy, and todays budget he doesn't bring anything to the table.

Its a very expensive version of "Lets keep the A-1 Skyraider or the 8in howitzer around because SOMEDAY it might be nice to have them.


Stich, you could have at least used a pic of a VFA-14 bird for our mod ;>)

[TopHatter]

Thank you GG :-)

[dundonrl]

Of the 100+ ships that took part in Operation Crossroads 5 were sunk from the Able blast (air burst) and 9 from the Baker shot (underwater). This included everything from dry docks to aircraft carriers.


From both of your post it seems we agree that the aircraft carrier is the Navy's King of Battle. And where we need to put our money. The carrier can do the job of a battleship (Naval Fire Support) but the Battleship can't do its job without support of a aircraft carrier. So why would we want to bring them back?

the problem with sending a carrier to do the job of a battleship.. your sending out aircraft worth 61,000,000 dollars and a pilot to drop a few bombs or missiles. Also, it would be interesting to compare the weight of the fire power that each can put on target in a set amount of time (an Iowa can put 48,600 lbs of ordnance on target per minute, if using AP shells) a modern CAW (Carrier Air Wing) will have 4 squadrons of F/A 18's in it, and each squadron will have 18 fighters. Each of those fighters can carry approx. 13,000 lbs of ordnance/fuel (I'll give them 100% ordnance since were not going far, just the maximum range that a BB can shoot, which is about 26 miles, so no need for external tanks) in the Iraq war during surge sorties, the SGR (Strike Generation Rate) was between 2.0 and 2.1 per aircraft for strike aircraft. So.. a Nimitz class CVN can realistically drop say 2,000,000 lbs of ordnance in 24 hours which equates to 1365 lbs of ordnance on target per minute.. (the Iowa is putting out almost 70,000,000 lbs in 24 hours, not including her 5" guns)..

Suggestions for your homework: Maximum Range USS Iowa fired a 16-inch shell. Number of 20 mm "Gatling" guns on each ship of the class. Number of Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles on board. Number of Tomahawk long range cruise missiles. What the AN/SLQ 32 antennas do. Number of SRBOC launchers on board. How many "Rubber Ducky" missile decoys were on board. What the NIXIE torpedo decoy does. How many tons of armor was added to the ships for their latest reactivation. Last but not least is Admiral Gorshkov's impression (confirmed by the RAF museum) after watching the Iowa put on a firing demonstration in Baltops 85 that was the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

good grief Rusty.. sounds like you were on someone's ESWS board.. LOL

Only at engagements around 5 thousand yards. Speed varies between 670 mps to 414 mps depending on the range. (Speed of sound= 340.25 mps

Also note that the warhead is only 24.5 lbs of High Explosive.

Using the term warhead vice bursting charge because both are where the explosives are in either a round (bursting charge)or missile(Warhead) and what causes the damage.

Compare that to a modern (1970/1980) ASM

P-700 Granit- Weight 15,400 lbs Warhead 1653 Lbs of HE Range 388 Miles. Speed between 1.6 and 2.5 times the speed of sound depending on flight profile.

P-270 Sunburn - Weight 9,900 Lbs. Warhead 710Lbs of HE, Range 155 Miles, Speed 2.3 to 3 times the speed of sound (profile dependent)

I think we can agree that a modern ASM will do substantially more damage that a Japanese 14in round. Or even an American 16in AP round that weighed 2700 lbs with a 41 lb HE warhead


Especially one that didn't explode till after it had passed through the ship before it hit the turret 3 barbette. That was the problem with the Japanese shells. Their delay was set for to long. Why the SD didn't suffer worse damage.

what's the penetrating capacity of the Granit or Sunburn, how much class A armor can they penetrate. They were not designed to penetrate any armor at all, since all their targets are thin skinned modern warships, not heavily armed battleships. The Navy tested 3000 lb semi-armor piercing warheads in 1953 fired from a gun at 1100 fps (the speed of sound).. Five war heads were tested for armor penetration properties. T he results showed that the inert loaded war head fired at 1100-fps striking velocity and 20 deg obliquity will penetrate nominal 2.25-in. homogeneous steel armor and remain in effective condition. At the same velocity and 0 deg or 20 deg obliquity, the war head will fail against nominal 3.25-in. homogeneous steel. Failure of the war head to penetrate the targets in an effective condition was attributed to the welds.

what's the normal all or nothing armor on an Iowa.. Belt = 12.1", Bulkheads = 11.3", barbettes = 11.6 to 17.3" Turret face 19.7" and decks 7.5".. effectively an Iowa class BB is going to be immune to a modern ASCM, since they aren't designed to penetrate that thick of armor.
1

[Gun Grape]

the problem with sending a carrier to do the job of a battleship.. your sending out aircraft worth 61,000,000 dollars and a pilot to drop a few bombs or missiles. Also, it would be interesting to compare the weight of the fire power that each can put on target in a set amount of time (an Iowa can put 48,600 lbs of ordnance on target per minute, if using AP shells) a modern CAW (Carrier Air Wing) will have 4 squadrons of F/A 18's in it, and each squadron will have 18 fighters. Each of those fighters can carry approx. 13,000 lbs of ordnance/fuel (I'll give them 100% ordnance since were not going far, just the maximum range that a BB can shoot, which is about 26 miles, so no need for external tanks) in the Iraq war during surge sorties, the SGR (Strike Generation Rate) was between 2.0 and 2.1 per aircraft for strike aircraft. So.. a Nimitz class CVN can realistically drop say 2,000,000 lbs of ordnance in 24 hours which equates to 1365 lbs of ordnance on target per minute.. (the Iowa is putting out almost 70,000,000 lbs in 24 hours, not including her 5" guns)..

No one cares about throw weight. Its an archaic way of determining the strength of your system before precision weapons.

How much of that 70,000,000 lbs of firepower will have an effect on the target? In the real world it took the New Jersey over 350 16in rounds to score 19 hits on a command bunker.
That would be one of the 2-4 targets (depending on loadout) that a single F-18 would strike during one of its sorties in a day.

As is hammered into us from day one in the Marine Corps

"My rifle and I know that what counts in 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. We will hit."

what's the penetrating capacity of the Granit or Sunburn, how much class A armor can they penetrate. They were not designed to penetrate any armor at all, since all their targets are thin skinned modern warships, not heavily armed battleships.

Actually they were designed to penetrate armor. Don't think you would call a Cv thin skinned. Thats what they are designed to take out.

The Navy tested 3000 lb semi-armor piercing warheads in 1953 fired from a gun at 1100 fps (the speed of sound).. Five war heads were tested for armor penetration properties. T he results showed that the inert loaded war head fired at 1100-fps striking velocity and 20 deg obliquity will penetrate nominal 2.25-in. homogeneous steel armor and remain in effective condition. At the same velocity and 0 deg or 20 deg obliquity, the war head will fail against nominal 3.25-in. homogeneous steel. Failure of the war head to penetrate the targets in an effective condition was attributed to the welds.

Today instead of "Brute Force" (although that can still be used) we finesse armor open. A DPICM grenade can penetrate over 2.75in of homogeneous steel armor. Look at the size of it



Also note the angle that those rounds impacted at. ASM missiles won't hit at the "optimum" angle that BB armor was installed. One designed stop a ballistic round from another battleship

what's the normal all or nothing armor on an Iowa.. Belt = 12.1", Bulkheads = 11.3", barbettes = 11.6 to 17.3" Turret face 19.7" and decks 7.5".. effectively an Iowa class BB is going to be immune to a modern ASCM, since they aren't designed to penetrate that thick of armor.
1

According to my "The Floating Drydock, USS Missouri BB63, 2 Sept 1945 Plan Book" your quote of 7.5in armor on the decks is only for the turret roof. The main deck has 1.5in of armor

We know that Yamato had a 16in belt, that her main deck had 7-9in armor. None of that saved her from air weapons, dumb bombs putting holes in her. Like the Iowas, her armor was installed to protect against another gun firing at her. Not bombs falling from the sky. Not precision guided air launched missiles/bombs or "Pop up" ASMs.

[Shinytop]

Your description of the main deck armor is quite incomplete. Here is a more complete description:

The deck consists of three parts, the bomb deck, the main armor deck, and the splinter deck. The bomb deck is 1.5 inches STS plate, the main armor deck is 4.75 inches Class B armor laid on 1.25 inches STS plate and the splinter deck is 0.625 inches STS plate. The bomb deck is designed to detonate general purpose bombs on contact and arm armor piercing bombs so they will explode between the bomb deck and the main armor deck. Within the immune zone, the main armor deck is designed to defeat plunging shells which may penetrate the bomb deck. The splinter deck is designed to contain any fragments and pieces of armor which might be broken off from the main armor deck.

[Pacfanweb]

In fairness about Yamato, she wasn't sunk by bombs, but by torpedoes....and she was basically fed to the wolves. She wasn't protected at all...so sure, any ship will be sunk if you give hundreds of planes basically open season on it. Sure did take a lot of punishment before going down, though...and I wouldn't expect any US Navy ship in any combat zone to take that many hits, ever.
So I get the example that yes, a Battleship can surely be sunk by air power....but the only examples of it actually happening have come when the other side basically had no defense against the air power.

No US Battleship was ever lost when at sea and fighting back and had her fleet cohorts with her. And it wasn't for lack of trying by the enemy, either.

[Gun Grape]

In fairness about Yamato, she wasn't sunk by bombs, but by torpedoes....and she was basically fed to the wolves. She wasn't protected at all...so sure, any ship will be sunk if you give hundreds of planes basically open season on it. Sure did take a lot of punishment before going down, though...and I wouldn't expect any US Navy ship in any combat zone to take that many hits, ever.
So I get the example that yes, a Battleship can surely be sunk by air power....but the only examples of it actually happening have come when the other side basically had no defense against the air power.

No US Battleship was ever lost when at sea and fighting back and had her fleet cohorts with her. And it wasn't for lack of trying by the enemy, either.

She wasn't protected at all? The light Cruiser and 8 DDs were just for show? Granted it wasn't the support that the US had. Task Force 58 had more firepower than any Navy in history.

And air power and submarines had pretty much sunk the rest of the IJN

No Fleet Carrier was lost in battle either once we got the Essex class either. How many battles were sinking the American Battleships the point of main Effort?

[Gun Grape]

Your description of the main deck armor is quite incomplete. Here is a more complete description:

The deck consists of three parts, the bomb deck, the main armor deck, and the splinter deck. The bomb deck is 1.5 inches STS plate, the main armor deck is 4.75 inches Class B armor laid on 1.25 inches STS plate and the splinter deck is 0.625 inches STS plate. The bomb deck is designed to detonate general purpose bombs on contact and arm armor piercing bombs so they will explode between the bomb deck and the main armor deck. Within the immune zone, the main armor deck is designed to defeat plunging shells which may penetrate the bomb deck. The splinter deck is designed to contain any fragments and pieces of armor which might be broken off from the main armor deck.

No. you are including the first through third decks. The weather deck, access to the interior of the ship was 1.5 in of armor.

But would you like to compare her armor against the Yamato? Still the heaviest armored ship ever built. It took 12 bombs to decimate her topside and make her combat ineffective. 6 or 7 torpedo's put the holes in her to send her to the bottom.

How many ASM would it take to make an Iowa combat ineffective? Or LGBs

My point has always been they were great AA batteries to protect the CVs during WW2 But they bring nothing to the modern battlefield.

Yes we could load them up with VLS. Fill them with Tomahawks and SM-3s But we already have a buttload of those in the fleet. They would have had no role in our war with Iraq or Afghanistan .
We are about to put rail guns on Destroyers. What does the battleship have to offer in the 21st century?

[guicho80]

the problem with sending a carrier to do the job of a battleship.. your sending out aircraft worth 61,000,000 dollars and a pilot to drop a few bombs or missiles.

I am not sure what your argument is here. What would you rather use the plane and pilot for? That is precisely the prescribed use for the $61M plane and the pilot. Sure, they have other uses, but flying about with bombs and missiles is a pretty important one.
If you are making a point about the cost, have you considered what it costs to operate, or heaven forbid, replace a battleship?

I also have some doubts about your assertion that the armor of an IOWA makes it immune to a "modern ASCM". The Roma was not immune to ASMs of WWII vintage. We can do a sight better than the Fritz X nowadays.

[Shinytop]

I was not arguing with you about their current usefulness, I was pointing out the inaccuracy of your depiction of the deck armor, or you may wish to think of it as the armor a shell or missile from above would have to penetrate. Personally I have often seen it referred to as deck armor and I will so use it.

[85 gt kid]

Ok this is NOT for a possible reactivation just me thinking in my head (always thinking of the old girls, hell i have posters of 5 out of the 6 Iowas hanging up in my room) but could you realistically make turrets that could bring the 16" guns to higher elevation? Forget the mounts the were actually made I'm talking purpose built, automated (hopefully reducing size/weight of the machinery unlike the 50% heavier Des Moines mounts) mounts? Again just curious if it's feasible to have enough room for the recoil of the guns.

[Gun Grape]

Ok this is NOT for a possible reactivation just me thinking in my head (always thinking of the old girls, hell i have posters of 5 out of the 6 Iowas hanging up in my room) but could you realistically make turrets that could bring the 16" guns to higher elevation? Forget the mounts the were actually made I'm talking purpose built, automated (hopefully reducing size/weight of the machinery unlike the 50% heavier Des Moines mounts) mounts? Again just curious if it's feasible to have enough room for the recoil of the guns.

Good question. The biggest gun the navy had that was capable of high angle fire was the 6/47 on the Worcester class Cruisers. They took the triple mounts common on light cruisers (Cleveland, Brookland class) and made a dual gun autoloading mount. They could reach 60deg (1067 Mil).

I'm sure they could design a Hydropneumatic variable recoil throttling device, like is used on howitzers, to reduce the recoil during high angle fire. The higher you go , the less recoil you have. But now you are getting into Rustys specialty.

The question is, what would you use it for? Guns fired at high angle are really inaccurate. Fast spinning round, long travel time = a lot of drift. (left/right deviation) We know this from the most inaccurate weapon that US artillery had in the 20th century. The M-107 175mm Self Propelled Gun. It could shoot further than anything else we, or the soviets had. It just couldn't hit shit. So we developed the long tube M-110A1 8 inch howitzer. Didn't go as far, but accurate like a long range sniper (OK I exaggerate just a tad). It was the most accurate, consistent gun we had.

The Navy used the 6/47 HA mount for antiaircraft fire. Any ground fire support rounds would need to be precision (Laser/GPS) guided

[dundonrl]

Actually they were designed to penetrate armor. Don't think you would call a Cv thin skinned. Thats what they are designed to take out.

the flight deck might be a few inches thick, but the hull plates definitely aren't.. so, yes I would call a CV "thin skinned"

[Dazed]

the flight deck might be a few inches thick, but the hull plates definitely aren't.. so, yes I would call a CV "thin skinned"

P-700 Granit- Weight 15,400 lbs Warhead 1653 Lbs of HE Range 388 Miles. Speed between 1.6 and 2.5 times the speed of sound depending on flight profile.

P-270 Sunburn - Weight 9,900 Lbs. Warhead 710Lbs of HE, Range 155 Miles, Speed 2.3 to 3 times the speed of sound (profile dependent)

I would assume anything struck by an object traveling at Mach 1.6 to Mach3(kinetic energy) is going to be thin skinned. This would include the armor on the Iowa and all it's equipment not processing an armor belt.

[Tom24]

P-700 Granit- Weight 15,400 lbs Warhead 1653 Lbs of HE Range 388 Miles. Speed between 1.6 and 2.5 times the speed of sound depending on flight profile.

P-270 Sunburn - Weight 9,900 Lbs. Warhead 710Lbs of HE, Range 155 Miles, Speed 2.3 to 3 times the speed of sound (profile dependent)

I would assume anything struck by an object traveling at Mach 1.6 to Mach3(kinetic energy) is going to be thin skinned. This would include the armor on the Iowa and all it's equipment not processing an armor belt.

They don't have the penetration capability of a 2,400-2,700 pound armor piercing round also traveling at 1.5-2 times the speed of sound and those are designed specifically to penetrate up to 17 inches of armor. I think the kinetic energy of a 2,700 pound armor piercing round is vastly superior to a flimsy lightly constructed missile with both traveling at comparable speed. Those missiles would probably detonate on contact without much or any penetration.

In regards to Yamato, yes basically she was unprotected. 1 light cruiser and 8 DD'S against HUNDREDS of aircraft is basically unprotected. Japanese damage control was vastly inferior and the sheer number of torpedoes and bombs that it took to sink her and Musashi is proof to how much relentless pounding it takes to sink them, and the Iowa's design, protection and quality of armor is far superior to the Yamato's. Any Iowa in service would still have her screening escorts. GG's description of an Iowa's deck armor is not accurate.

I'm not advocating they should be back in service, but once again I see a lot of misleading information being presented by the usual anti BB posters. He hasn't posted here in a while, but As Navydavesof has stated many times, every argument stating how supposedly easy it is to sink an Iowa class battleship can be made against any ship in the USN or the world for that matter, and at the end of that argument the Iowa is still the most survivable. Much better protection than a CVN.