Which ship class would have been 'the best' for 80's reactivation?

[Ming777]

(my best Montgomery Scott impression)

xchen08,

Laddie, you can't win this one. Yer not using yer head right. The iowas are fine ladies. You're sounding like that klingon who claimed the Enterprise should be hauled away as garbage! 'An look where it got him!

(/my best Montgomery Scott impression)

Seriously, though....

The Alaska were by far terrible vessels. There is a bloody reason why any combat vessel larger than 25,000 tonnes has at least two rudder, if you've got a single rudder, you can steer worth s#!t, especially in combat. (PS: Calbear, not sure if 1911 was the year, more like April 14, 1912). Contrary to your ideas on the irrevelance of maneuvering, several Israeli Reshefs sunk several Egyptian Osa class vessels with Gabriel missiles, which were very short ranged compared to the Egyptian Styx. The Israelis used ECM and maneuvering to avoid the Styxes and closed to firing range.

xchen08, have you ever face the equivalent of a Volkswagen beetle in high explosives and metal? How about an average of one every half a minute?

And xchen08, until you show us proof that a standard anti-ship missile can mission kill an Iowa, please let it be. Or we'll get the rest of the battleship brothers in here.

Also, do not insult the longtime members of this board. You have been warned!!!

 

[xchen08]

Which is ireelevant to the discussion because that's true to all of them. And your ignoring CalBear's point about the fact that an Iowa class is all but imperverious to the all but the largest anti-ship missiles, which are only in use in a very small handful of nations. Against the defenses used by most nations, the Iowas are virtually imperious.

Against any missile designed to punch through armor, Iowa's might as well not be there. Against any designed to kill unarmored aluminum hulled modern ships, the Alaska's armor would do near as well.

Now, using torpedoes could be a major problem, but that would be for any vessel

My point is that the Iowa's TDS is irrelevant. Are you contesting this?

and your comments about maneuverability being irrelevant are wrong here.

Are you suggesting there is a torpedo or ASM that an Iowa can dodge but an Alaska cannot?

And for the record, an ASM that bounces off the side armor of a vessel is not going to create enough shock to damage electronics. Battleships were designed to take abuse. The Iowa, which was anticipated to go against Bismarck and Yamato, is going to able to take a lot more than an Alaska. The Alaskas were designed and built as cruiser killers, and couldn't take anywhere near the hammering an Iowa could.

Are you nuts? ASMs don't "bounce." They explode, and whether or not they penetrate, they will still do shock damage, wreck the superstructure and any antennae with shrapnel as well as douse the ship's insides with burning fuel. Modern warships have a hell of alot more electronics critical to combat capability than they did in WWII and they don't handle shock well.

CVNs do not have much armor at all. It was a crucial difference between British and American carriers in WWII - British carriers had armored decks, American ones didn't. The idea was to make it tougher in battle, but the British realized quickly that a couple inches armor on the flight deck wouldn't do much more than add topside weight. The decks and bulkheads on an Iowa are far more effective than on a carrier, because the spaces on a carrier are, by necessity, considerably bigger. You're points are irrelevant to the discussion.

Why exactly do you think common knowledge on WWII carrier design is relevant to the mechanics of killing a supercarrier? And it was Calbear that pointed out spaces are a reasonable way of defeating shaped charges and HEAT.

The fact that the Alaskas would require probably 80-85% of the Iowas is not moot, either. The comments about the Alaskas were with regards to a size/operating costs point of view. In that regard, it's relevant. But the Alaskas, as CalBear rightly points out, were not good vessels. They were big cruisers which didn't function particularly well in their role, and even in the 1980s still had major problems. As you point out, the costs of development are all sunk on all the vessels. The costs of modernizing them will be about the same in every case, and the cost of operating an Iowa over an Alaska will be only about 15-20%, if that much.

Again, cost arguments are based on an already cited source. If you wish to contest them, make your own cost estimates. Note that the above completely unsupported speculation based on unbacked assumptions do not count. If indeed, Alaskas cannot be refitted for less for the bombardment value, then I did not and do not contest that the Iowas would be better. I am only interested in shooting down the idea that the idiocies with the Alaska's design and construction in WWII are relevant to a refit's performance in the 80s.

Then you have the additional problem that only two Alaskas were completed, as opposed to four Iowas, and two ships is not enough to satisfy a demand for fire support vessels.

By OP fiat (see post 3), this is irrelevant.

Bunker buster bombs cost a lot of money. Battleship shells are cheap. And whereas bunker-buster bombs can only be carried in groups of maybe six or eight at a time before the planes carrying them have to return to base for fuel and weapons, the Iowas can drop 18 shells a minute on that target until its destroyed or the ship runs out of ammo.

And with a modern bomb, you can actually kill 1 bunker with 1 bomb, instead of plastering the general area and hope for a direct hit.

Just how many bunkers strong enough to resist a 12in shell but not strong enough against a 16in do you expect to exist within range of a battleship's guns? Do you seriously think D-Day against the Atlantic Wall is ever going to happen again?

Guided shells exist today - its called the Excalibur, and its used by the US military, along with those of Canada and Australia, in Afghanistan right now.

In case you didn't know, those didn't exist in the 80s, nor did the Iowas ever get anything like them during or after their refits. And strange how you were just boasting of how cheap battleship shells are compared to bunker buster bombs...

And as CalBear also points out, the 16" guns do considerably more damage to open ground than the 12" guns of the Alaskas, and it couldn't shoot very much faster. (3 rounds a minute under ideal conditions, as opposed to 2 rounds a minute for the Iowas.) You do the math and you realize that the Iowa could put more ordinance on a target than the Alaskas.

Once again, this is only relevant insofar as equal total weight of fire worth of Iowas is cheaper to refit/operate than Alaskas. Which the source that brought up this whole brouhah suggests is not true.

And that's assuming that the Alaskas keep their third turret, which considering the weight issues the Iowas had to face, is not a given. The difference in displacement between the two classes at full load is nearly 24,000 tons, and the Alaskas did not have adequate flag facilities, which both classes would need as they would almost certainly be used as flagships.

Trying to mount ASMs and land attack CMs onto a ship that is only useful as a shorebombardment platform was an idiotic waste of funds in the first place. Maybe not using a battleship base with all the history behind it could avoid that messup at least. Certainly, there is no particular reason to pack on just as many missiles, and there are still 2 more useless 5in turrets to remove. And why exactly would the Alaska refit need to serve as a flagship? The assault carriers that it would be operating with would and do serve perfectly well. At least with an Alaska, there wouldn't be any idiocy about building a BBBG around them as if they were still capital ships.

 

[TheMann]

Against any missile designed to punch through armor, Iowa's might as well not be there. Against any designed to kill unarmored aluminum hulled modern ships, the Alaska's armor would do near as well.

Most anti-ship missiles are not designed to go through armor. You keep missing that point. Nobody has weapons meant to rip through a ship with a foot thick armor belt. No modern anti-ship missile is meant for that, and if used would smash into the Iowa's armor belt and bounce off, or explode on impact. A Harpoon has a 220-kilogram warhead, which when going off against a foot-thick armor belt, is going to bugger all worth of damage. It probably wouldn't go through the 5" belt on an Alaska, either.

Why exactly do you think information on WWII carrier design is relevant to the mechanics of killing a supercarrier? And it was Calbear that pointed out spaces are a reasonable way of defeating shaped charges and HEAT.

True, but that point is, again, irrelevant. A Harpoon could mission kill a carrier but not easily sink one - it's like shooting a truck with a .22. It'll do damage, but it isn't gonna destroy it. That's why Soviet AShMs are in many cases equipped with massive warheads, a ton or more in many cases, to make a huge mess of carriers. Carriers do not have many spaces between their decks and spaces. It has long been decided that modern warships are more easily protected by active defenses - short or medium range anti-aircraft missiles and close-in weapons systems. They are more effective in terms of weight and ease of construction and maintenance than large armor belts.

Again, cost arguments are based on an already cited source. If you wish to contest them, make your own cost estimates. Note that the above completely unsupported speculation based on unbacked assumptions does not count. If indeed, Alaskas cannot be refitted for less for the bombardment value, then I did not and do not contest that the Iowas would be better. I am only interested in shooting down the idea that the idiocies with the Alaska's design and construction in WWII are relevant to a refit's performance in the 80s.

The cost arguments are based on the fact that the Alaskas required 2,250 crew in WWII, versus the Iowa's 2,700 crew. Now, assuming efficiencies bring the crew sizes down 50% in each case (as was the case with the refitted Iowas), you still end up needing 1,125 crew for an Alaska, compared to 1,350 for an Iowa. Hence, the cost of operating it is only about 20% more, based on the fact that the majority of the USN's operating costs go to salaries and pay for its crews. 20% more cost to get considerably greater capability is better value for money, no?

By OP fiat (see post 3), this is irrelevant.

But if you wanted three Alaskas, you have to have Hawaii completed as its sisters were, which is a tall order at the end of the war, with the USN's massive strength at the time. Even if you avoid that, you still have the problems the Alaskas had.

And with a modern bomb, you can actually kill 1 bunker with 1 bomb, instead of plastering the general area and hope for a direct hit.

The gunfire support on the Iowas wasn't meant for bunker busting, it was meant for obliterating anything that could be set up on a beach to stop Marines coming on-shore. In that regard, the power of the Iowa's main guns was simply superior. If you want to clear a landing area, you blow up anything that could get in the way. And while the Alaska 12" guns COULD do that job, the Iowas do it better. Simple as that.

Just how many bunkers strong enough to resist a 12in shell but not strong enough against a 12in do you expect to exist within range of a battleship's guns? Do you seriously think D-Day against the Atlantic Wall is ever going to happen again?

See above. The Iowas make bigger holes, it's just that simple.

In case you didn't know, those didn't exist in the 80s, nor did the Iowas ever get anything like them during or after their refits. And strange how you were just boasting of how cheap battleship shells are compared to bunker buster bombs...

And bunker buster bombs didn't exist until Desert Storm, so your point about that is equally moot. As far as cheap goes, they still require GPS electronics. Iowa shells are guided by fire control computers and data gathered by the RQ-2 UAVs carried by them after their 1980s refits. Same job, just the shells don't really need guidance electronics, which means they can be made cheaply.

Once again, this is only relevant insofar as equal total weight of fire worth of Iowas is cheaper to refit/operate than Alaskas. Which the source that brought up this whole brouhah suggests is not true.

You mixed in two things here. yes, it IS cheaper to operate an Alaska. But it does NOT do the job as well. Refitting the four Iowa class vessels in the 1980s cost two billion dollars plus for the four ships. If you are spending that kinda money to refit fire control platforms, you get the best value for your money, no? It would have been substantally cheaper in the 1980s to pluck Des Moines, Salem and Newport News from retirement and refit them to do the fire support duties - but why? For this kinda money, you want the job done well, no? If you want it done right, you use the biggest hammer you have on hand. And that was the Iowas.

Trying to mount ASMs and land attack CMs onto a ship that is only useful as a shorebombardment platform was an idiotic waste of funds in the first place.

New Jersey, Wisconsin and Missouri all used their Tomahawks in Lebanon and Iraq. As far as AShMs go, if you get into a war on the high seas, why do you not want anti-ship missiles on as many ships as possible? The only reason this was not done with carriers is the space was more important to use for carrier duties. With the Iowas, what is the harm in it? You never know what you may come up with. If it had been me, I'd have figured out how to mount the Sea Sparrow system on them as well, which was originally planned but ditched because the overpressure from the gun blasts could cause problems with missile reliability.

Maybe not using a battleship base with all the history behind it could avoid that messup at least. Certainly, there is no particular reason to pack on just as many missiles, and there are still 2 more useless 5in turrets to remove. And why exactly would the Alaska refit need to serve as a flagship? The assault carriers that it would be operating with would serve perfectly well. At least with an Alaska, there wouldn't be any idiocy about building a BBBG around them as if they were still capital ships.

The Iowas did not always serve as BBBG centerpieces. Iowa's last deployment in 1989 was part of a battle group including Coral Sea (CV-43) and Nassau (LHA-4), and that was merely one such example. The Iowas did operate as their own battle groups as necessary, but didn't always. The Alaskas would probably have been called upon to do the same, had they been modernized.

And the disparaging of the 5" turrets isn't smart, either. They were kept for a reason, too. And the flagship provisions would be installed on any of these ships, because it would be safer to have them on the fire support ship in case of a massive fight than an assault ship, which is more likely to get hit.

 

[Gridley]

Against any missile designed to punch through armor, Iowa's might as well not be there. Against any designed to kill unarmored aluminum hulled modern ships, the Alaska's armor would do near as well.

xchen08, please list one or more such missiles, preferably by NATO reporting codes, but I'll accept anything you've got.

HE =/= HEAT. Modern anti-ship missiles are HE. Some modern tank gun rounds and most (I believe all, but my knowledge is not encyclopedic here) modern anti-tank missiles are HEAT. HEAT is good for penetrating armor. HE isn't.

Naval guns of the WWII period could generally fire both HE and AP ammo. AP was for sinking other armored ships and the occasional hardened shore target. HE was for everything else. The Iowa's armor was designed for resistance to AP ammo, and it was quite good.

AP: Armor Piercing; slam through armor with kinetic energy focused at a point and then explode a comparatively small bursting charge.
HE: High Explosive; blast with shockwave and fragments.
HEAT: High Explosive Anti Tank; use a shaped charge to focus energy to breach armor, hopefully killing whatever is inside the armor with the spall and the remaining energy.

Edit to add: oh, one other point I didn't see getting a lot of attention. The Iowa's 16" main battery has a range about 10% greater than the Alaska's 12" main battery (42,300 vs. 38,500 yards, roughly). That's 10% more targets you can hit. An 8" sabot round was in development at one point for the 16" round that would have further extended this range while retaining the hitting power of a heavy land howitzer or a WWII-era heavy cruiser.

 

[Bearcat]

I've never heard of an 8" sabot for the 16" gun. I believe the sabots were 11" shells left over from the army's atomic cannon program. So the sabots, with their longer reach, would have close to the impact of the short-ranged Alaskas.

As for the talk of HEAT rounds on an ASM, this is silliness. The penetrative capability of a HEAT round is based on diameter of the shaped charge. You are going to need one awfully big ASM for a shaped charge big enough to penetrate an Iowa's belt. Anything that big will be easily detected by the escorts operating with the BB, and likely won't reach the ship at all. A stealthy sea-skimmer is not going to get through the belt.

As for blast effects, please. The main gun overpressure had to be taken into account when designing all the systems. The Iowas were probably better able to deal with high levels of shock than many modern ships.

 

[CalBear]

The over pressure from the main battery was why the only upgrade to the AAA suite in the 1980s was CIWS. The shock from the 16" firing scrambled any SAM they could hang on the ship.

I've never heard of an 8" sabot for the 16" gun. I believe the sabots were 11" shells left over from the army's atomic cannon program. So the sabots, with their longer reach, would have close to the impact of the short-ranged Alaskas.

As for the talk of HEAT rounds on an ASM, this is silliness. The penetrative capability of a HEAT round is based on diameter of the shaped charge. You are going to need one awfully big ASM for a shaped charge big enough to penetrate an Iowa's belt. Anything that big will be easily detected by the escorts operating with the BB, and likely won't reach the ship at all. A stealthy sea-skimmer is not going to get through the belt.

As for blast effects, please. The main gun overpressure had to be taken into account when designing all the systems. The Iowas were probably better able to deal with high levels of shock than many modern ships.

 

[Gridley]

I've never heard of an 8" sabot for the 16" gun. I believe the sabots were 11" shells left over from the army's atomic cannon program. So the sabots, with their longer reach, would have close to the impact of the short-ranged Alaskas.

No, it was a conventional shell for extended-range shore bombardment.

As for the talk of HEAT rounds on an ASM, this is silliness. The penetrative capability of a HEAT round is based on diameter of the shaped charge. You are going to need one awfully big ASM for a shaped charge big enough to penetrate an Iowa's belt. Anything that big will be easily detected by the escorts operating with the BB, and likely won't reach the ship at all. A stealthy sea-skimmer is not going to get through the belt.

As for blast effects, please. The main gun overpressure had to be taken into account when designing all the systems. The Iowas were probably better able to deal with high levels of shock than many modern ships.

There are some quite large ASMs out there, and someone COULD theoretically develop an "anti-Iowa" warhead for one of them. However, I've yet to see any evidence that anyone ever did. Perhaps xchen08 will provide it.

Until then, I'm with you that the armor of the Iowa's is missile-proof. You can damage them, but you aren't going to get anywhere near sinking them.

 

[xchen08]

Most anti-ship missiles are not designed to go through armor. You keep missing that point. Nobody has weapons meant to rip through a ship with a foot thick armor belt. No modern anti-ship missile is meant for that, and if used would smash into the Iowa's armor belt and bounce off, or explode on impact. A Harpoon has a 220-kilogram warhead, which when going off against a foot-thick armor belt, is going to bugger all worth of damage. It probably wouldn't go through the 5" belt on an Alaska, either.

You aren't reading are you? That's exactly my point. Missiles not intended to go through armor will do bugger all to penetrate the Iowa's belt, but it will also do bugger all at penetrating the Alaska's belt. A solid hit will mission kill both ships however, by destroying radars, knocking out electronics, and starting fuel fires, all of armor does nothing against.

That's why Soviet AShMs are in many cases equipped with massive warheads, a ton or more in many cases, to make a huge mess of carriers. Carriers do not have many spaces between their decks and spaces. It has long been decided that modern warships are more easily protected by active defenses - short or medium range anti-aircraft missiles and close-in weapons systems. They are more effective in terms of weight and ease of construction and maintenance than large armor belts.

Modern carriers do have a few inches of Kevlar over their vitals. Plus of course, the stresses of servicing heavy, high performance aircraft require structural bulkheads that function effectively as armor. And of course, carriers are big, very big, with a very great deal, multiply spaced, between the flight deck and vitals. Soviet (and Chinese and a few others) heavy ASMs are designed to go through all that and gut a supercarrier and will do the same to an Iowa.

The cost arguments are based on the fact that the Alaskas required 2,250 crew in WWII, versus the Iowa's 2,700 crew. Now, assuming efficiencies bring the crew sizes down 50% in each case (as was the case with the refitted Iowas), you still end up needing 1,125 crew for an Alaska, compared to 1,350 for an Iowa. Hence, the cost of operating it is only about 20% more, based on the fact that the majority of the USN's operating costs go to salaries and pay for its crews. 20% more cost to get considerably greater capability is better value for money, no?

Again, you have no basis for assuming WWII crews can be used to estimate post refit crews. I am working under the assumption as given early in this thread that the Alaskas are more economical, and merely arguing the specific failures of the Alaskas as a WWII ship have no bearing on their performance post refit in the 80s.

But if you wanted three Alaskas, you have to have Hawaii completed as its sisters were, which is a tall order at the end of the war, with the USN's massive strength at the time. Even if you avoid that, you still have the problems the Alaskas had.

Again, by OP fiat, that's irrelevant, along with the fact that the Alaskas had far less wear and tear than the Iowas. If you wish to ignore OP fiat, start your own thread.

The gunfire support on the Iowas wasn't meant for bunker busting, it was meant for obliterating anything that could be set up on a beach to stop Marines coming on-shore. In that regard, the power of the Iowa's main guns was simply superior. If you want to clear a landing area, you blow up anything that could get in the way. And while the Alaska 12" guns COULD do that job, the Iowas do it better. Simple as that.

Ah, so you finally accept that their targets are ones that won't care whether a particular weight of shells coming down are 12in or 16in. Thus, given the assumption that the Alaskas are more economical, they are also more economical as shore bombardment platforms, given that they can pump out more weight of fire for tonnage. Simple as that.

And bunker buster bombs didn't exist until Desert Storm, so your point about that is equally moot. As far as cheap goes, they still require GPS electronics. Iowa shells are guided by fire control computers and data gathered by the RQ-2 UAVs carried by them after their 1980s refits. Same job, just the shells don't really need guidance electronics, which means they can be made cheaply.

Umm, yes, so one weapon built easily with off the shelf components within the lifespan of an 80s reactivated vessel, and the other not. And you think they are comparable. And please tell me you don't think artillery with a spotter, you know, something every battleship from the 20s on was designed to take advantage of, is equivalent to guided bombs.

You mixed in two things here. yes, it IS cheaper to operate an Alaska. But it does NOT do the job as well. Refitting the four Iowa class vessels in the 1980s cost two billion dollars plus for the four ships. If you are spending that kinda money to refit fire control platforms, you get the best value for your money, no? It would have been substantally cheaper in the 1980s to pluck Des Moines, Salem and Newport News from retirement and refit them to do the fire support duties - but why? For this kinda money, you want the job done well, no? If you want it done right, you use the biggest hammer you have on hand. And that was the Iowas.

And I'll reiterate again. You have no basis for your assumptions here, and I don't particularly care if you do. I was working under the assumptions made as of post 6, and only care that the specific criticisms of Alaska as a WWII warship do not apply to their being refitted in the 80s.

New Jersey, Wisconsin and Missouri all used their Tomahawks in Lebanon and Iraq. As far as AShMs go, if you get into a war on the high seas, why do you not want anti-ship missiles on as many ships as possible? The only reason this was not done with carriers is the space was more important to use for carrier duties. With the Iowas, what is the harm in it? You never know what you may come up with. If it had been me, I'd have figured out how to mount the Sea Sparrow system on them as well, which was originally planned but ditched because the overpressure from the gun blasts could cause problems with missile reliability.

And Tomahawks were launched from bloody attack submarines as well. Whether or not mounting missiles on a shore bombardment platform would be beneficial is one thing. Whether it's worth the cost is something else again. But I do like that you pointed out how modern systems aren't designed to handle the same kind of things that WWII systems were designed to handle. And this applies to radars and electronics as well as the Sea Sparrow. Though curious you did not catch the immediate followup to your example. The 12in does far less overpressure and shock than the 16in, and would not be nearly as disruptive of any systems you care to upgrade the ship with.

The Iowas did not always serve as BBBG centerpieces. Iowa's last deployment in 1989 was part of a battle group including Coral Sea (CV-43) and Nassau (LHA-4), and that was merely one such example. The Iowas did operate as their own battle groups as necessary, but didn't always. The Alaskas would probably have been called upon to do the same, had they been modernized.

Why would you want a shore bombardment platform to form its own battlegroup? That the Iowas did was because idiots bought into the battleships are capital ships idea, which stopped being true decades ago. Alaskas are less likely to inspire such idiocy, which is another advantage for them

And the disparaging of the 5" turrets isn't smart, either. They were kept for a reason, too. And the flagship provisions would be installed on any of these ships, because it would be safer to have them on the fire support ship in case of a massive fight than an assault ship, which is more likely to get hit.

Umm, yes, the ships full of marines that must be defended at all costs and can stay back from any battle, relying on hovercraft and helicopters to ferry in troops are more likely to be hit than a shorebombardment platform that has to get close to enemy held territory to do its job. Really?

 

[xchen08]

As for the talk of HEAT rounds on an ASM, this is silliness. The penetrative capability of a HEAT round is based on diameter of the shaped charge. You are going to need one awfully big ASM for a shaped charge big enough to penetrate an Iowa's belt. Anything that big will be easily detected by the escorts operating with the BB, and likely won't reach the ship at all. A stealthy sea-skimmer is not going to get through the belt.

Yes, something like 6x the diameter of the shaped charge. You know that a Harpoon has a 13in diameter warhead right? Designing a missile warhead for a light ASM that would get through the Iowa's armor is easy as hell compared to refitting the Iowa.

And of course, the big Soviet shipkillers with 1000kg shaped charge warheads smashing in at Mach 4 don't even need a new warhead to tear an Iowa apart.

There are some quite large ASMs out there, and someone COULD theoretically develop an "anti-Iowa" warhead for one of them. However, I've yet to see any evidence that anyone ever did. Perhaps xchen08 will provide it.

Until then, I'm with you that the armor of the Iowa's is missile-proof. You can damage them, but you aren't going to get anywhere near sinking them.

You realize Calbear has already cited the Moskit (ie Sunburn) with a 320 kg shaped charge warhead slamming into the target at Mach 3 right? More along the lines of instakill of an Iowa would be the Kh-22 with a 1000 kg shaped charge hitting at Mach 4.

 

[Gridley]

Modern carriers do have a few inches of Kevlar over their vitals. Plus of course, the stresses of servicing heavy, high performance aircraft require structural bulkheads that function effectively as armor. And of course, carriers are big, very big, with a very great deal, multiply spaced, between the flight deck and vitals. Soviet (and Chinese and a few others) heavy ASMs are designed to go through all that and gut a supercarrier and will do the same to an Iowa.

xchen08, you're demonstrating quite a lack of technical understanding of this subject. A "structural bulkhead", or a dozen of them, isn't a foot of armor plate.

For that matter the 'designed to gut a carrier' is a hotly debated topic in some circles, but most sane people acknowledge that expecting a single ASM/SSM to even mission kill a US-style CV/CVN is not reasonable. Multiple hits yes, a single one, no.

And please tell me you don't think artillery with a spotter, you know, something every battleship from the 20s on was designed to take advantage of, is equivalent to guided bombs.

Equivalent? Heck no. In some cases better? Heck yes. Cheaper? Heck yes. Less risk to personnel? OH YEAH. Often faster? Also yes.

Bear in mind that you can't just magically make a strike aircraft with the proper ordnance appear over the target. You need an airfield (or a carrier) for it to operate from. The aircraft must penetrate whatever defenses are in place between its base and the target. A 16" shell in a ballistic trajectory doesn't care about SAMs.

Take a look at the CEP on "smart" bombs and 16" shells. You might be surprised.

 

[Gridley]

You realize Calbear has already cited the Moskit (ie Sunburn) with a 320 kg shaped charge warhead slamming into the target at Mach 3 right? More along the lines of instakill of an Iowa would be the Kh-22 with a 1000 kg shaped charge hitting at Mach 4.

Velocity is great for getting through the defense envelope. The velocity of a missile is irrelevant if it mounts a non-kinetic warhead. Yeah, I saw the reference, and I haven't seen anyone yet cite (nor can I find any citation myself) that it ever carried a HEAT warhead. HEAT, not HE.

BTW, the Kh-22 did not have a TERMINAL velocity of Mach 4, not that it really matters. Again, it had a shaped HE warhead. Show me a technical sources that claims HEAT. Better, show me a warhead test against 12" of ARMOR PLATE, not, say, 24 0.5" steel sheets.

Over and over and over again... asserting that the Uber Soviet Missiles would 'instakill' USN battleships and carriers shows a lack of technical knowledge of the subject. I think you could increase your knowledge of the subject by playing Harpoon.

Now, if you use the nuke variant of the Kh-22 I won't argue the point.

 

[Ming777]

Indeed, Gridley well said.

 

[xchen08]

xchen08, you're demonstrating quite a lack of technical understanding of this subject. A "structural bulkhead", or a dozen of them, isn't a foot of armor plate.

For that matter the 'designed to gut a carrier' is a hotly debated topic in some circles, but most sane people acknowledge that expecting a single ASM/SSM to even mission kill a US-style CV/CVN is not reasonable. Multiple hits yes, a single one, no.

You are demonstrating quite a lack of technical understanding of the subject of how shaped charges work. Nobody is going to shoot a 16in shell at a carrier, or shorebombardment platform. Against a shaped charge on the other hand, a dozen bulkheads, each 1 in think with a few feet of space between them is far better than a foot of armor plate.

And if you think 5000 kg of missile and burning fuel slamming in topped by a 1000 kg shaped charge isn't going to absolutely ruin an Iowa, you are kidding yourself.

Equivalent? Heck no. In some cases better? Heck yes. Cheaper? Heck yes. Less risk to personnel? OH YEAH. Often faster? Also yes.

Bear in mind that you can't just magically make a strike aircraft with the proper ordnance appear over the target. You need an airfield (or a carrier) for it to operate from. The aircraft must penetrate whatever defenses are in place between its base and the target. A 16" shell in a ballistic trajectory doesn't care about SAMs.

And you aren't reading. Of course, general bombardment is cheaper with naval artillery than airstrikes. General bombardment also doesn't care if a given kg of explosive arrived in a 16in shell or a 12in. Hitting a hardened bunker that a 12in shell cannot take but a 16in shell can however, is precisely the sort of thing airstrikes are for. And do you seriously think the U.S. would deploy its ships where it cannot deploy strike aircraft? Really? And you think the ships would survive in that environment?

Take a look at the CEP on "smart" bombs and 16" shells. You might be surprised.

Yes, I would be surprised. Enlighten me on the 16in shell's CEP at say, 20 nautical miles.

BTW, the Kh-22 did not have a TERMINAL velocity of Mach 4, not that it really matters. Again, it had a shaped HE warhead. Show me a technical sources that claims HEAT. Better, show me a warhead test against 12" of ARMOR PLATE, not, say, 24 0.5" steel sheets.

When exactly did I claim HEAT? From the wiki article on shaped charges. Though it's amusing that you weren't aware that HEAT is a shaped HE warhead. Hence the name, High Explosive Anti Tank.

A typical modern lined shaped charge can penetrate armor steel to a depth of 7 or more times the diameter of the charge's cone

The Kh-22 has a diameter of 71 inches. Obviously, the Soviets and the Russians do not reveal the test data for their weapons, but it's up to you to demonstrate that their weapons do not have performance typical for the specs.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Frankly, I'd expect that there aren't any ASM designed to kill Iowa-type targets simply because the Iowas themselves weren't in service long enough for the Soviets to go ahead and design a missile just for killing them, and because the Iowas weren't the biggest threat anymore (the carriers were/are). However, I am quite certain you could build one designed to kill an Iowa-type target, by using a large HEAT warhead on a (very) short-range ballistic missile, for instance, with a Durandel-like second stage*.

The way I interpret the OP is that he's looking for the platonic ideal of fire support ship for the '80s and beyond, ignoring the actual limitations that might exist (eg., not enough Alaskas built and none still existing). In that case, it might be wise to take into account fiscal and mission limitations--realistically, as xchen said, no one's going to be conducting D-Day or even Tarawa anytime soon, the most the Marines will have to deal with is Iraq or so, and a 16" shell might not be all that great compared to a 12" shell, especially given the presence of heavy air support in any realistic scenario.

*By which I mean something like a very large missile that is designed to go very fast up to a very high altitude, locate the target, orient itself to hit it, and fire another stage to make it go in like a bat out of hell from as close to straight above as possible. I don't think that would be much easier to take out than an actual battleship shell...

 

[Gridley]

You are demonstrating quite a lack of technical understanding of the subject of how shaped charges work. Nobody is going to shoot a 16in shell at a carrier, or shorebombardment platform. Against a shaped charge on the other hand, a dozen bulkheads, each 1 in think with a few feet of space between them is far better than a foot of armor plate.

And if you think 5000 kg of missile and burning fuel slamming in 4 topped by a 1000 kg shaped charge isn't going to absolutely ruin an Iowa, you are kidding yourself.

One last try.

I already pointed out that terminal velocity of a Kh-22 isn't Mach 4. Do you disagree with that figure? If you do then you and I are working off completely different sources and there's no point continuing this.

Do you contend that the terminal velocity of a non-kinetic projectile is relevant at all? If so then you and I are working in different physical universes.

A dozen 1" steel bulkheads? What ship has that? None that I'm aware of. Yes, against a HEAT round that would be better than an a single 12" plate of the same grade of steel. What relevance does this have to a discussion of an HE-tipped missile?

And you aren't reading. Of course, general bombardment is cheaper with naval artillery than airstrikes. General bombardment also doesn't care if a given kg of explosive arrived in a 16in shell or a 12in. Hitting a hardened bunker that a 12in shell cannot take but a 16in shell can however, is precisely the sort of thing airstrikes are for. And do you seriously think the U.S. would deploy its ships where it cannot deploy strike aircraft? Really? And you think the ships would survive in that environment?

Actually, the size of a given shell is often relevant, especially against hardened targets. One big shell vs. many small shells may be superior or inferior depending on the target. Bunkers? Tanks? Infantry? An ammo dump? I want a few big shells if I'm hitting bunkers, but a lot of little ones if I'm going for infantry. You can drop all the cluster bomblets you want on a heavy bunker and it won't care. BTW, this hints at one reason the Iowa's kept some of their 5" turrets during the post-war refits.

Yes, I think the US would deploy battleships in high-threat environments. They have. I haven't claimed they'd deploy them where they CAN'T deploy strike aircraft, and you're the one who isn't reading if you think I did. I've claimed that in a high-threat environment a salvo of 16" shells from offshore puts fewer people at risk than an airstrike. Again, do you disagree?

Obviously we greatly disagree on the survivability of a battleship. I'll confine myself to the point that a layered belt of SAM's, AAA, and interceptors are entirely useless against a battleship offshore. Of course, a submarines with nuke-tipped torpedoes is entirely useless against an airstrike. A dangerous environment for one platform may not be so for another platform. That's why the US kept the Iowa's around so long: a different weapon for a different job.

Yes, I would be surprised. Enlighten me on the 16in shell's CEP at say, 20 nautical miles.

Look it up yourself, in your sources that claim a Kh-22 carries a kinetic warhead with a terminal velocity of Mach 4. I'd like to see what they say.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Do you contend that the terminal velocity of a non-kinetic projectile is relevant at all? If so then you and I are working in different physical universes.

Er...of course it's relevant, insofar as it is harder for SAMs and AAA to intercept a non-kinetic projectile if it's going faster, since they have a smaller engagement window.

 

[Gridley]

BTW, back to the original post (in a desperate attempt to put the thread back on track):

I vote for the Des Moines's. They can't do everything the Iowa's can do, but given the OP's terms I think they'd be more cost-effective for most missions. Plus, the 8"/55 Mk16 rocks. 8-}

If you give up the 5" wing turrets and keep the fore/aft ones you should have enough tonnage for the minimal desired missile an PD armament, though it might be better to strip off the 5" battery entirely.

I think that given the constraints of OTL the decision to re-activate the Iowa's was the correct one, if anyone cares.

 

[Gridley]

Er...of course it's relevant, insofar as it is harder for SAMs and AAA to intercept a non-kinetic projectile if it's going faster, since they have a smaller engagement window.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: relevant to the projectile's armor penetration characteristics.

Note here I'm assuming non-relativistic speeds. I hope we're all OK with that?

 

[xchen08]

One last try.

I already pointed out that terminal velocity of a Kh-22 isn't Mach 4. Do you disagree with that figure? If you do then you and I are working off completely different sources and there's no point continuing this.

Indeed, I concede that the terminal velocity of the Kh-22 is Mach 2.5. That of the followup Kh-32 is uncertain, but known to be higher.

Do you contend that the terminal velocity of a non-kinetic projectile is relevant at all? If so then you and I are working in different physical universes.

The terminal velocity of the shaped charge warhead doesn't matter with regards to armor penetration. Not that a 70in shaped charge would even notice a foot of armor steel. Where the terminal velocity does matter is the rest of the 5000 kg missile impacting, adding to shock against electronics, and shrapnel against antennae, radars, missile launchers, etc.

A dozen 1" steel bulkheads? What ship has that? None that I'm aware of. Yes, against a HEAT round that would be better than an a single 12" plate of the same grade of steel. What relevance does this have to a discussion of an HE-tipped missile?

12 inches of armor steel is utterly irrelevant against shaped charges that size. A bigger hull, with more bulkheads and more space to get through is better defence than armor. Though I find it amusing that you still seem to be in denial that a HEAT warhead is a shaped HE warhead as already pointed out, and the name specifically refers to the anti-tank application thereof and thus obviously not appropriate to describe an anti-ship warhead.

Actually, the size of a given shell is often relevant, especially against hardened targets. One big shell vs. many small shells may be superior or inferior depending on the target. Bunkers? Tanks? Infantry? An ammo dump? I want a few big shells if I'm hitting bunkers, but a lot of little ones if I'm going for infantry. You can drop all the cluster bomblets you want on a heavy bunker and it won't care. BTW, this hints at one reason the Iowa's kept some of their 5" turrets during the post-war refits.

Yes, I think the US would deploy battleships in high-threat environments. They have. I haven't claimed they'd deploy them where they CAN'T deploy strike aircraft, and you're the one who isn't reading if you think I did. I've claimed that in a high-threat environment a salvo of 16" shells from offshore puts fewer people at risk than an airstrike. Again, do you disagree?

Obviously we greatly disagree on the survivability of a battleship. I'll confine myself to the point that a layered belt of SAM's, AAA, and interceptors are entirely useless against a battleship offshore. Of course, a submarines with nuke-tipped torpedoes is entirely useless against an airstrike. A dangerous environment for one platform may not be so for another platform. That's why the US kept the Iowa's around so long: a different weapon for a different job.

If the enemy has layered SAMs, AAA, and interceptors, then they will also have more than enough ASMs or cheap diesel subs, missile boats, etc to make parking a battleship offshore suicide. And do try to keep track of your own argument. We are not comparing shore bombardment against airstrikes. We are comparing shorebombardment with 12in shells against shorebombardment with 16in shells assuming roughly equal total weight of explosive deployed and with the understanding that there still will be airstrikes ongoing against high value targets anyway.

Look it up yourself, in your sources that claim a Kh-22 carries a kinetic warhead with a terminal velocity of Mach 4. I'd like to see what they say.

Refusal to back up your own statements noted.

BTW, back to the original post (in a desperate attempt to put the thread back on track):

I vote for the Des Moines's. They can't do everything the Iowa's can do, but given the OP's terms I think they'd be more cost-effective for most missions. Plus, the 8"/55 Mk16 rocks. 8-}

If you give up the 5" wing turrets and keep the fore/aft ones you should have enough tonnage for the minimal desired missile an PD armament, though it might be better to strip off the 5" battery entirely.

Man, you aren't good at this reading thing are you? The Des Moines and the problems with it were covered back in post 6.

 

[Archdevil]

What is the obsession with WWII armor here?

Soviet AShM's generally were programmed to perform a radical 'pop-up' manouvre to throw off last ditch CIWS defences and penetrate the deck of their targets.

Iowas did not even have the thickest deck armor in WWII (Richeleu and Yamato had more - that high speed of the Iowa had to come from somewhere), against a Shipwreck (SS-N-19) or Sandbox (SS-N-12 with a 950 kg semi-armor-piercing warhead) it might as well be made of tissue paper. Almost a tonne of explosives hitting the ship at mach 2+ equals mission kill in the real world.

And if it actually does hit directly at the belt, it hits in in the worst possible way: straight on, instead of at a large angle as the belt was made for. Iowa's immune zone against its own guns certainly did not include point blank range, which is the equivalent angle a seaskimming AShM will hit at. And that missile will hit at a higher speed and carry many times the explosive payload of a 16" shell. Let's just hope there isn't a magazine behind the belt in that case.

As inspiration, we can look at the Italian BB Roma, which was attacked by Fritz-X guided bombs during WWII. Only two were enough to sink her. As an indication of the effectiveness of her armor: one of the bombs went through the ship and exploded under her keel. Modern Soviet AShMs will hit harder (they are powered by ramjets, not just gravity) and have an explosive several times that of their WWII predecessor.