It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese Light Battleship

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

... If you watch closely the test videos of modern torpedos...the manner in which they work is to run under the vessel attacked and explode violently. They displace the water under the vessel. They do not strike the vessel directly. The power of the explosive is such that they remove so much water under the vessel that the vessle drops into a void and breaks its back. ...

Orangetom



Orangetom, a correct analysis. The hydroshock from a "near miss" is more damaging than an actual strike by a weapon. A little known study done after WW2, turned up the surprising evidence that aerial bombs dropped from aircraft did more damage when detonating close abeam, rather than actually hitting the ship. Exceptions to every rule; armor piercing that happens to hit a magazine.

And with the possible exception of a good "semi-" shaped charge, like an Exocet, which is optimized to steer towards the portion of the ship which normally houses the command and control center. (A reason why C&CC is now located somewhere else.) But the Exocet was designed for modern warships and merchantmen, lightly armored, or none at all. Too many have aluminum upper structures, which burn and melt. Having said that, I know that an Exocet might leave nothing more than a dirty smudge on the light upper armor of a "battleship" class warship. Even less on the lower armor.

And if anyone wonders why worry about an older Exocet, it's because they work, in actual wartime conditions, and are sold all over the world. A viable threat.



It's inconceivable that an Exocet-type missile could do anything beyond cosmetic damage to an IOWA-class BB. Those missiles are designed to hurt soft targets only, like destroyers and merchantmen, which have no armor protection at all. The IOWA, on the other hand, is designed to survive and fight through incoming 16" rounds with a mass of 2,750 pounds and an impact velocity of >2,000feet per second. The IOWA protection system would force the missile to come through three layers of steel BEFORE it gets to the (angled) 12" armor belt. - Tom Clancy




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I have seen a video of what happens in a explosion of the type we are describing. This one is in a test mock up submerged. It is taken from the door of a compartment into the compartment where there is mounted a diesel engine.
In the sequence of events the hull constricts greatly inward paint dust etc going everywhere along with anything else loose. The hull also pushs up from the bottom of the boat and the bolts hardmounting the diesel engine all break loose and the engine heaves up and foreward smashing into the bulkhead. The bolts washers and liners all holding the engine down go airborne along with this paint dust and anything else not tied down. We are talking about a large diesel engine about 8 feet tall and about 15 feet long..4 feet wide... a big one... and a very impressive video.

As to arsenel ships..I dont know why they canceled the program but I do know that several Ohio class boomers are being converted to a type of arsenel ship to carry like 7 or so tomahawk cruise missles in each tube ...24 tubes.... thus replacing the ICBMs they used to carry. They had to find a use for these submarines as they were striken from inventory in this use by treaty arrangements covering ballistic missle submarines.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
You mean the same Arsenal proposal that Congress rejected in 1997?

Article outlining Arsenal Ship program

"The Program was officially canceled 24, October 1997."

"... Phase III proposals were not submitted. The official reason given for the program's termination was insufficient funding for FY98."

Shattered OUT...


Wow... talk about eight years behind!

Okay, scratch the Arsenal Ship. Even so, it's clear to me with no need for the battleships, considering it's near-carrier costs and the crew requirements of three cruisers.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
The Iowa class battleships were retired simply because on a cost-per-foot basis they were the most expensive and complex ships in the fleet. The crew of one Iowa class battleship could man 2-3 destroyers easily, and many of the iowa systems have been out of production for so long, it would be too expensive or complex to repair or replace them. Some technology, like the 16 inch barrel liners, hasn't been in production since the 1940's.


That's three cruisers, to be exact. The battleship requires a massive enlistment program in the Navy and is rather pointless when a whole bunch of smaller vessels are more appropriate for today's world situation.

Also, today's Tomahawk's VLS-compatible, whereas the Iowa's Tomahawk's are the older kind. They would have to make the old Tomahawks.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
modern torpedo`s would actually kill a carrier / battleship very quickly - as they don`t actually hit the target ; they are designed to explode underneath the hull , the explosion moving a massive amount of water out of the way. The hull isn`t stressed enough to hold the entire weight of the ship without the water there so the back breaks.

probably badly explained but i hope you all understand



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
The Iowa class battleships were retired simply because on a cost-per-foot basis they were the most expensive and complex ships in the fleet. The crew of one Iowa class battleship could man 2-3 destroyers easily, and many of the iowa systems have been out of production for so long, it would be too expensive or complex to repair or replace them. Some technology, like the 16 inch barrel liners, hasn't been in production since the 1940's.
.


It may even be worse than that. I was reading on another board that the skilled personel needed to build such guns and projectiles simply don't exist any more and the art is lost now.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I agree with your assessment of skills not being available anymore as was the case in the past. Many of these olde skills in manufacturing both on the engineering and actual manufacturing side are long gone and not passed on to the next generation. Many of the instincts/skills in this field are gone replaced by computer thinking. I see this often in my field of work. If its not done by a computer/computer assist ..it is not possible. Amazing!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I agree with your assessment of skills not being available anymore as was the case in the past. Many of these olde skills in manufacturing both on the engineering and actual manufacturing side are long gone and not passed on to the next generation. Many of the instincts/skills in this field are gone replaced by computer thinking. I see this often in my field of work. If its not done by a computer/computer assist ..it is not possible. Amazing!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom


They don't even produce the 16-inch shells for the Iowa's guns anymore. They currently have 15,000 in stock, so if the battleship was reactivated, they'd have only the 15,000 to use.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
As great as the battleship was, we can all agree that it simply isn't necessary in today's world. The Ticonderoga-class CGs and Arleigh Burke-class DDs are more than capable of fulfilling our needs. A battleship would be maximum overkill ( to quote the old Comanche game).

For fans of warships, the CG-21 and the DD-21 are the most exciting develops at this point in time.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Right across the bay from me in Norfolk, Virginia sits the battleship Wisconsin...one of the four remaining battleships in the Navy Inventory. I think the Mo is in Pearl Harbor. I do not know where the other two


The Iowa is in Susiun Bay in the SF Bay Area tied up next to the ready reserve fleet.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I agree with your assessment of skills not being available anymore as was the case in the past. Many of these olde skills in manufacturing both on the engineering and actual manufacturing side are long gone and not passed on to the next generation. Many of the instincts/skills in this field are gone replaced by computer thinking. I see this often in my field of work. If its not done by a computer/computer assist ..it is not possible. Amazing!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom


They don't even produce the 16-inch shells for the Iowa's guns anymore. They currently have 15,000 in stock, so if the battleship was reactivated, they'd have only the 15,000 to use.


Well going on WW-II shoot/Hit rates, it looks like 3 volleys to straddle a target at long range [25 miles] with less than 10% hit per volley. After that hit per shot is on the order of 10-15%. So do the math , it takes 50 -60 shells [~6 volleys or ~3 minutes of firing], to get a statistical hit with no countermeasures. Pretty much any hit equals a sunk ship or crippled capital ship. Its heaviest armor is probably resistant against most AshM.

So the BB has completely adequate selfdefense system against ship and air threats [4 x CIWS & dozens of AAA] and can launch the most intense shore bombardment possible, far ahead of any airstrike in terms of the critical ship to shore phase of an assault.Thats probably where you'd be using lots of shells.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by psteel]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I don't see that a battleship in the traditional sense has any place as a warship of "the line" as such, but there's still use for it in the same manner as "bomb ships" and "fire ships" which were used for shore bombardment in the times of Nelson etc. They had a huge mortar or large cannonades (or carronades?) rather than a traditional armament of rows of cannon. And considering that the people's republic has a rather sizeable airforce with which to protect a "light battleship", I suppose it's not entirely unfeasable.

But in a main battle fleet that's purpose is to engage the enemy directly, then the battleship is a thing of the past. Technology has moved on past the "big guns", aircraft, missiles and torpedos can all wreak far more havoc and are less labour intensive and need (with the exception of aircraft) far less of a ship under them to be truly effective.

Granted, battleships in WWII took a lot of sinking, but even then we got so good at it that carriers became king.

*Bismarck was crippled by a torpedo and hunted down.

*Tirpitz was disabled several times in diferent attempts to sink it, one of them involving special forces and mini subs(far less men than it takes to crew a battleship!) before it was finally sunk by Lancasters dropping conventional, albeit large, explosives... but no mean feat considering the primative technology relative to todays kit.

*Yamato was bombed and torpedoed, neither weapon requires the same manpower or resources as a battleship.

*And as I understand it, Graf Spee, a pocket battleship, now resides in Davey Jones' pocket after being scuttled to prevent it's capture and or destruction at the hands of the Ajax, Achilles and Exeter of the Royal Navy.

And I know it's not a battleship as such, but the light cruiser "General Belgrano", previously USS Phoenix in WWII (I think) was sunk by HMS Conquerer, the only time a nuclear submarine has sunk a surface ship as far as I know. I bet the USSR were watching that one closely...

But my point is, battleships were such a threat before that a lash-back reaction against them came about, something had to be...and indeed was done about them. We've thought up too many ways of getting rid of them that no battleship in the traditional sense can be a viable ship of the line, and most certainly can not roam freely and unsupported like the marauding pocket battleships of the German navy in WWII.

Add to that the fact that the same kind of destructive force can be visited upon an enemy at sea in a far more economic, and due to the smaller scale, usually faster manner...and there's no reason to have battleships as anything but floating anti-shore batterys to support landings. And even that role could be filled by other less expensive and vulnerable means.

Let China build their "light battleship", if it is indeed such a thing. Battleships are big statements of intent, and I suppose it feels like regressing to be using smaller ships... but the battleship is an archaeic concept.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Amazing Phil
Granted, battleships in WWII took a lot of sinking, but even then we got so good at it that carriers became king.

*Bismarck was crippled by a torpedo and hunted down.

*Tirpitz was disabled several times in diferent attempts to sink it, one of them involving special forces and mini subs(far less men than it takes to crew a battleship!) before it was finally sunk by Lancasters dropping conventional, albeit large, explosives... but no mean feat considering the primative technology relative to todays kit.

*Yamato was bombed and torpedoed, neither weapon requires the same manpower or resources as a battleship.

*And as I understand it, Graf Spee, a pocket battleship, now resides in Davey Jones' pocket after being scuttled to prevent it's capture and or destruction at the hands of the Ajax, Achilles and Exeter of the Royal Navy.

And I know it's not a battleship as such, but the light cruiser "General Belgrano", previously USS Phoenix in WWII (I think) was sunk by HMS Conquerer, the only time a nuclear submarine has sunk a surface ship as far as I know. I bet the USSR were watching that one closely...



Yes, but as previously stated, an Exocet, the most easily definable anti-shipping missile as it has been used in anger, doesn't have the power of a ww2 bomb. Simply because it doesn't need it. Modern ships are built small, fast and light. With exactly the same problems the Invincible class Battlecruisers had, they are vulnerble. The Exocets/Sea Skuas etc carry small warheads designed to punch holes in ships and cripple vital operating systems, look again at the stats on an Iowa's armour belt. The most effective hits the Argentine Navy made were with 500lb bombs, not their incredibly limited supply of Exocets.

I pose for you the same question I did earlier:

How many hits did Yamato take?

How much pounding did Bismark take?

How much Amatol/TNT was in the charges the mini-subs lay under the Tirpitz? They damaged her, but she remained afloat and her offensive weaponry remained perfectly operable.

Bombs and torpedoes require air-crew to fly them, groundcrew to arm them, air-traffic controllers to direct them, factories to build them and their planes, an aircraft carrier to fly off, an academy to train your pilots and navigators...the smallest ship you can have is Invincible, the biggest is Ronnie Reagan, take your choice.

Graf Spee was a technological dead-end, useful only for cirumventing the Washington treaty and it sat above the water line in the mouth of the River Plate off Monte Video.

And General Belgrano was sunk with a ww2 torpedo, which is fitting, really.

What Orangetom said reminded me of a demonstration the RAN did to show Collins' abilities. With one torpedo they literally blew a decommissioned hulk out of the water, no neat hole to allow the sea in!



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by The Amazing Phil
Granted, battleships in WWII took a lot of sinking, but even then we got so good at it that carriers became king.

*Bismarck was crippled by a torpedo and hunted down.

*Tirpitz was disabled several times in diferent attempts to sink it, one of them involving special forces and mini subs(far less men than it takes to crew a battleship!) before it was finally sunk by Lancasters dropping conventional, albeit large, explosives... but no mean feat considering the primative technology relative to todays kit.

*Yamato was bombed and torpedoed, neither weapon requires the same manpower or resources as a battleship.

*And as I understand it, Graf Spee, a pocket battleship, now resides in Davey Jones' pocket after being scuttled to prevent it's capture and or destruction at the hands of the Ajax, Achilles and Exeter of the Royal Navy.

And I know it's not a battleship as such, but the light cruiser "General Belgrano", previously USS Phoenix in WWII (I think) was sunk by HMS Conquerer, the only time a nuclear submarine has sunk a surface ship as far as I know. I bet the USSR were watching that one closely...



Yes, but as previously stated, an Exocet, the most easily definable anti-shipping missile as it has been used in anger, doesn't have the power of a ww2 bomb. Simply because it doesn't need it. Modern ships are built small, fast and light. With exactly the same problems the Invincible class Battlecruisers had, they are vulnerble. The Exocets/Sea Skuas etc carry small warheads designed to punch holes in ships and cripple vital operating systems, look again at the stats on an Iowa's armour belt. The most effective hits the Argentine Navy made were with 500lb bombs, not their incredibly limited supply of Exocets.

I pose for you the same question I did earlier:

How many hits did Yamato take?

How much pounding did Bismark take?

How much Amatol/TNT was in the charges the mini-subs lay under the Tirpitz? They damaged her, but she remained afloat and her offensive weaponry remained perfectly operable.

Bombs and torpedoes require air-crew to fly them, groundcrew to arm them, air-traffic controllers to direct them, factories to build them and their planes, an aircraft carrier to fly off, an academy to train your pilots and navigators...the smallest ship you can have is Invincible, the biggest is Ronnie Reagan, take your choice.

Graf Spee was a technological dead-end, useful only for cirumventing the Washington treaty and it sat above the water line in the mouth of the River Plate off Monte Video.

And General Belgrano was sunk with a ww2 torpedo, which is fitting, really.

What Orangetom said reminded me of a demonstration the RAN did to show Collins' abilities. With one torpedo they literally blew a decommissioned hulk out of the water, no neat hole to allow the sea in!


There's no denying they took a severe ammount of punishment you're right, but at the end of the day a battleship would be an easy target for modern weapons. Granted, the bombs used on the Tirpitz were bloody huge, but the same explosive force could be delivered by a modern heavy bomber, and far more accurately. Submarines can effectively fire at a battleship with impunity unless "they" have subs there too.

And I know aircraft require support staff and factories etc, but if a plane goes down, the pilot, maybe a co-pilot if there is one, the munitions and the plane itself are lost. If a battleship goes down with all hands, literally thousands die, aside from the moral tragedy at hand that's a LOT of trained men to lose. A lot of manpower lost to an attack that will in all likelyhood be made with few or no losses to the other side is not acceptable. And then factoring in the financial loss and the loss of resources... it's madness to me.

It's said here that a battleship requires the crew of three modern destroyers...would a battleship be able to take on three modern destroyers? The way I see it a battleship is so unwieldy as to make it a clumsy tool at best. Since any warship will need the support of ASW frigates and the cover of a carrier to stop the other person's carrier it will just slow a task force down.

And lastly, were a powerful battleship to put to sea, ways to sink them would be quickly developed. I imagine something like A-10s strafing the command sections etc...

As for Graf Spee being above the waterline... I just assume when a ship's scuttled or sunk it's gone to the depths...my bad!


Having given it some thought, I supppose a truly modern battleship could be created, but it would have to incorporate anti-cruise missile capabilities, stealth, and some way of being fast. Stuffed chock full of crusie missiles rather than 16" guns I guess it could be truly formidable... but it would not be cost effective, and would still be susceptable to the eggs in one basket factor at the end of the day.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
missiles are expensive compared to laser guided shells

a new age battle ship is needed!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join