Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin bite the dust
Heorot    12/29/2005 3:43:24 PM
A sad day but apparently a boost to the DD(X). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001445.html
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
fitz    Goodbye Arbalest   1/7/2006 1:01:18 AM
I'm done with you. You are a total waste of my time.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Fitz   1/7/2006 1:13:12 AM
First - it's was the USS WORDEN that was hit by a couple US HARM missiles. The Worden was was buily in 1960. To compare any current warship to a 1960's vintage ship is silly. Most of the ships back then were all aluminum above the weatherdeck. Having worked on the antennas on my ship (built slightly after that time) I can say that many of the cable runs and waveguides were shielded inside the mack. Our AS-899 antenna did have 3 feet of waveguide that could have been damaged. The SPS-40 airsearch had even less. A modern ECM system (my area of expertise) are totally different and are actually mounted by the bridge wings in rather secure locations. The SPY-1 radar system is much, much more survivably than a single rotating SPS antenna. The DLG-18 WORDEN was built as solid as a christmas tree ball. It was assumed it would only fight a nuclear war, so armor had no real value. Things are a lot different now. Kevlar is used to protect spaces and equipment. We have automated fire systems, rather then the old damage control teams working with antiquated WWII style gear. I take it you never served on a US Navy warship....
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:Re: fitz   1/7/2006 2:09:59 AM
Fitz has it right on regarding both the Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems. It is why the only Phalanx upgrade currently happening for the US is the ground varient designed to destroy smaller munitions like mortar rounds and rockets, and why the US Navy is moving to the Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) that is based on a combination of missile and gun systems. Also, if you look at AAW in the Royal Navy, it is almost exclusively a short ranged AAW defense system. The Royal Navy has almost given up completely trying to fight cruise missiles at long range, and instead has moved to a making sure whatever is incoming takes a high speed impact (Sea Dart) at greater than 1000 meters. If you just measure the force in megajules of an impact of a cruise missile like an Exocet, that impact alone is about equal to a 16" projectile fired from the Iowa class at point blank range. Since you guys are going in circles, lets break this down to its most basic terms. With the exception of the gun units, all weapon and sensor platforms on an Iowa class BB are exposed. The Iowa class uses the exact same armor configuration the South Dakota class battleship used. On October 27th, 1942, the USS South Dakota took a direct hit from a 500 lb bomb to the top of number one turrent. The next day, the USS South Dakota rammed the destroyer Mahan (DD-364) while avoiding a submarine contact. 3 days later, after sailing at full speed, the South Dakota was able to be repaired at sea by the Vestal (AR-4). A few days later on November 13th, the USS South Dakota joined the battleship USS Washington (BB-56) and destroyers USS Preston (DD-379), USS Walke (DD- 418), USS Benham (DD-397), and USS Gwin (DD-433) to form TF 64 under command of Rear Admiral W. A. Lee. That group engaged Admiral Kondo's bombardment group consisting of battleship Kirishima; heavy cruisers Takao and Atago; and a destroyer screen close to the shore of Savo Island near Guadalcanal. The USS South Dakota was hit 42 times, mostly by the 8" guns of one heavy cruiser and 3" guns of the destroyer screen. The damage was so significant that nearly every weapon system and electronic system was destroyed. After meeting up with the USS Washington, the USS South Dakota sailed to the USS Prometheus (AR-3), where it recieved enough repairs to sail all the way to New York. There is very, very little difference between the USS South Dakota and USS Iowa class in both armor and weapons configuration. When you look at what happened to the USS South Dakota, 42 hits from guns that had no chance penetrating its armor basically destroyed the BBs ability to conduct operations, ranging from the destruction of the radar and communications to the destruction of all 5 of its quad 1.1 inch AA guns, and all 12 .50 cals. What does this tell us? It tells us that 1 500 lb bomb hit on an armored section of the ship, say the top of a turrent gun, is likely to do very little damage to an Iowa class. Sustained hits to the armor plating can buckle the armor though, 42 hits from 8" and 3" guns caused considerable damage to the top armor of the USS South Dakota, and caused several fires. However, it also tells us that 1 cluster bomb would likely completely disable an Iowa class Battleship's ability to conduct war operations outside of shooting its gun systems. And I want to throw one more thought out. I have no idea how to calculate warhead damage modifiers using math or physics, but the kenetic energy of a cruise missile impact can be calculated. For a 1360 kg shell at 850 m/s, KE is 491 megajoules. For a 1000 kg warhead at 1360 m/s KE is 926 megajoules. Basically that means an AS-4 kitchen still dumps more than twice as much KE into a target as a point blank shot from a 16 inch gun, and that wouldn't account for the AS-4s extra weight of the guidance section and bulkhead. Like I said, the USS Iowa uses the same armor scheme as the USS South Dakota class. The USS South Dakotas armor was designed to resist plunging shells at longer ranges, but was quite effective against free flight bombs. I don't buy that a shaped charge blast/frag warhead on a modern cruise missile wouldn't create enormous problems for the USS Iowa class ships, and even if the armor did hold, and even if the compartmented system of a BB prevented massive internal damage, with all of the weapons and electronic systems exposed outside of the armor plating, the ship would could be made ineffective pretty easy if hit. The idea that one of the easist ships to identify in the world with some of the least effective defense systems in the US Navy is a better platform than a DD(X) just doesn't fly with me. Sure, the crew can survive the hits it would take in a major conflict, but since teh ship would be ineffective after just a few hits, a BB becomes nothing more than a big ship with 16" guns. Compared to the DD(X), a stealthy ship hard to detect and target with the most modern defense system on any ship in
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Re: fitz   1/7/2006 2:24:08 AM
Actually the USN has another CIWS available, the RIM-116. Both it and the original Phalanx have had very serious upgrades to their targeting systems. (They also both are now capable of taking out small boats) In addition they are integrated into the Aegis system. This system also includes other ASM killers, like the ESSM and at longer ranges the SM-2. It also can control the use of ECM as well as the Nulka system (thanks OZ). The use of traditional gunfire is limited to good old flak which has even less directional control than the CIWS. Also there are continuous chord warheads for traditional guns, but they are not as effective against wingless ASMs. Remember Aegis will also take advantage of any airborne assets, including the ships own helicopters to confuse enemy radars through IR/ECM/chaff methods.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Re: fitz   1/7/2006 12:38:51 PM
"The RN stopped buying Goalkeeper and Phalanx a short time later." The RN has not stopped buying and using Phalanx or Goalkeeper. The types are used by all major combatants except the Type 23's, and are planned for future combatants, such as the Type 45.
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:Re: fitz   1/7/2006 3:04:08 PM
"The RN has not stopped buying and using Phalanx or Goalkeeper. The types are used by all major combatants except the Type 23's, and are planned for future combatants, such as the Type 45." Taken from old stock, not new procurement.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Re: fitz   1/7/2006 3:15:26 PM
So? We do the same with 4.5 inch tubes and 30mm....
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:Re: fitz   1/7/2006 6:12:03 PM
That means there is no new procurement of these systems, just like I said earlier. Type 45 was supposed to get a new design ILMS to fulfill its CIWS requirements. Second-hand Phalanx were cheaper since obviously, they are already paid for.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Re: fitz   1/7/2006 6:24:44 PM
->"Yes but, there's a big difference between error-prone humans frantically controlling 20mm Oerlikon guns and precision-controlled, radar and EO-directed 20mm gatling fire pitching a stream of tungsten APDS ammo at 3000rds/min plus. I wonder how well a kamikaze would fair against a Phalanx?" I don't think there's so much difference as you might think. " heh! Not enough to make the USAF and USN step away from 20mm weapons arming all their aircraft for the last half century. ->"The problem with 20mm rounds was two-fold; 1. Lack of destructive effect on the target - it could shoot all kinds of holes in an aircraft, but couldn't destroy it." That's a funny one. USMC Cobras have been, with a three-barrel M197 20mm gatling, shooting at AFVs for a couple decades. AFVs are plenty stronger than aircraft. Don't forget the sheer magnitude of shells a Vulcan gun puts downrange into a target, as compared to a single barrel weapon. Would the A-10 be as effective a tank killer if its GAU-8 was only designed as a single-barrel weapon? Gatling cannons depend of number of shells to get around using a larger caliber (such as the Euro-favored 30mm ADEN and DEFA guns). Speaking of watching the History and Discovery Channels (I do with a passion), have you ever watched USAF jets strafe air and ground targets with their M61s? Better yet, have you ever watched footage of those M113-mounted 20mm gatling guns, or the early AC-130s with their 2 20mm Vulcans? 20mm seems to work fine in those instances. ->"I DO notice we've learned that steel armors are still the better choice for AFVs, as opposed to aluminum." The M-113, the most successful AFV ever built, is made from aluminum, as is the M-2/3 Bradley and AAV-7. " Ahhh, but have you noticed that the M1 Abrams, or any other MBT, is NOT built primarily of aluminum? Or that the Stryker has gone back to steel construction instead of aluminum? The M113 and M2/3 series were designed back in the day when we though slightly thicker aluminumarmor was just as effective as (and more importantly, much cheaper than) steel armor. ->"The USS South Dakota was hit 42 times, mostly by the 8" guns of one heavy cruiser and 3" guns of the destroyer screen. The damage was so significant that nearly every weapon system and electronic system was destroyed. After meeting up with the USS Washington, the USS South Dakota sailed to the USS Prometheus (AR-3), where it recieved enough repairs to sail all the way to New York. There is very, very little difference between the USS South Dakota and USS Iowa class in both armor and weapons configuration. When you look at what happened to the USS South Dakota, 42 hits from guns that had no chance penetrating its armor basically destroyed the BBs ability to conduct operations, ranging from the destruction of the radar and communications to the destruction of all 5 of its quad 1.1 inch AA guns, and all 12 .50 cals. What does this tell us? It tells us that 1 500 lb bomb hit on an armored section of the ship, say the top of a turrent gun, is likely to do very little damage to an Iowa class. Sustained hits to the armor plating can buckle the armor though, 42 hits from 8" and 3" guns caused considerable damage to the top armor of the USS South Dakota, and caused several fires. However, it also tells us that 1 cluster bomb would likely completely disable an Iowa class Battleship's ability to conduct war operations outside of shooting its gun systems." OK, show of hands here: who out there thinks any current naval vessel in service with any navy anywhere in the world today can survive 42 hits of 8" and 3" shells and still survive intact enough to sail under its own power to a port for repairs, let alone even be afloat afterwards? ->"And I want to throw one more thought out. I have no idea how to calculate warhead damage modifiers using math or physics, but the kenetic energy of a cruise missile impact can be calculated. For a 1360 kg shell at 850 m/s, KE is 491 megajoules. For a 1000 kg warhead at 1360 m/s KE is 926 megajoules. Basically that means an AS-4 kitchen still dumps more than twice as much KE into a target as a point blank shot from a 16 inch gun, and that wouldn't account for the AS-4s extra weight of the guidance section and bulkhead." NO NO NO! Some people still ain't getting it! Grrr! Yes, a ton of eggs is just as heavy as a ton of steel. But drop them both from 10,000 feet (OK, the eggs will have to be in some kind of netting to keep them all together in one bunch) and see which one makes the biggest dent when it hits a section of concrete on the ground. Missiles are soft in their construction, much like the eggs (or, you can use watermelons instead): they are built with thin sheet metal, normally only a few millimeters thick, not several inches of hardened alloy steel designed to penetrate other hardened steel. And the radome is most often hollow back to the radar element, not so
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:Re: fitz   1/7/2006 8:41:31 PM
Cool, we both watch too much cable TV. This helps. Then like me, you have also seen countless hours of footage of Kamikaze aircraft, in flames, with wings and other major bits flying off diving right into a carrer/cruiser/destroyer/tugboat in a huge fireball of an explosion. That's what 20mm fire does. It can break up the inbound but is unlikely to DESTROY it before the aircraft enters a ballistic path that will lead it - and all of its shot-off bits - into the target. why wehn I say DESTROY I mean DESTROY, as in huge fireball of an explosion that obliterates the aircraft so there are no large pieces remaining to plunge into the ship. 20mm had no problem hitting Kamikaze - and it's not like there were not enough of them around. They were bolted to any place there was free space. 60 or 70 mounts per ship was not unusual. It wasn't a simple matter of shooting them down. They had to be destroyed, obliterated, blasted into millions of tiny pieces. Did I make that part clear enough? Air-to-air combat is not the same thing. Shooting up BMP's from a helicopter or a C-130 is DEFINATELY not the same thing. That 20mm can shoot down planes in air-to-air combat, chew up dirt or defeat light AFV's is totally irrelevant to its effects on a fast moving missile heading right at you! The Kamikaze is a missile and a missile needs to be DESTROYED, not shot down, before it can enter a ballistic path to its target. Because we are talking about a missile, on a ballistic trajectory to its ship target at high speed, the only thing that is going to reliably prevent damage to that ship is the complete and utter obliteration of that missile, preferably as far away as possible. The closer to the ship the kill is made, the more likely the ship is going to be damaged. Friedman noted in "U.S. Destroyers..."; "Initial responses (to the 20mm Oerlikon) were enthusiastic; Pacific Fleet records show that between Pearl Harbor and September 1944 the Oerlikon was responsible for 32% of all identifiable kills. After that date ranges increased, the Japanese shifted to night attacks, and heavier 40mm batteryies and proximity fused 5-inch guns began to increase their share of the kills. By the end of the war, the Japanese had shifted to Kamikaze attacks. Now deterrence was almost irrelevant. Like a cruise missile, the Kamikaze had to be destroyed before it could enter a ballistic path into the ship. That required a much more powerful weapon, at least a 40mm gun, at the most a new 3-inch/50. Thus in May 1945 the commanding officer of USS O'Brien reported that "when the 20mm opens fire, its time to hit the deck"; according to another report "20mm fire was a signal to the engine room to shut down the blowers to keep the flash of the explosion from the suicide hit being drawn into the machinery spaces." Or Robert Sumrall in "Gearing and Sumner Class Destroyers"; "The 20mm guns could throw up an impressive amount of fire for a ship the size of a destroyer. They served as a deterrent against further action, such as strafing after a plain had dropped its ordnance, but was truly a lst-ditch defense and did not deter the Kamikaze pilots. As Kamikiaze tactics became more commonplace, the 20mm became less and less effective. It had to score enough hits on a target to actually tear the plane to pieces before it crashed into the ship." By 1945 even the 40mm Bofors was considered inadequate for the task. A single hit could break up an aircraft into several large and still lethal pieces, but was unlikely to destroy it. A near-miss, just like with the 20mm did nothing. The Bofors was replaced immediately post-war by the 3-inch/50 rapid fire gun which fired much larger and more lethal VT fused rounds to a much greater range. This was at the time, the smallest gun that could fire a VT fused shell. At the same time the 20mm gun, once moutned in such massive numbers - tens of thousands having been procured - virtually disappeared. Again to Sumrall... "As the size, speed, and power of WWII aircraft increased, the effectiveness of the 40mm descreased dramatically. The 40mm shell was too light, and it became necessary to score enough hits to literally tear the aircraft apart to stop it. Even a wingless aircraft with a dead pilot often found its mark. This was especially true with Kamikaze attacks. The smallest round taht could be VT fuzed, the 3-inch shell, still had a payload sufficient to destroy an attacking plane with a single hit. Phalanx for its part hopes to achieve this level of destruction by fuzing the warhead with a direct, penetrating hit, which explains the use of APDS ammunition. But the range at which it can achieve this remains a problem. Moving on, the link you are missing between M-113, Bradley and AAV-7 is that all were designed to float. South Dakota was hit by 8-inch and 5-inch rounds, not 8-inch and 3-inch. Still structurally sound, the damage wreaked havoc with her el
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics