|
bewbies posted:They all carry the lightweight torpedoes for ASW work; I honestly don't know if the current launchers could handle a big one but I am inclined to think they can't. They can't, and they also don't need to. Nowadays we have two types of torpedoes. Lightweight (324mm - 12.75in used by surface and air combatants) and heavyweight (533mm - 21in, used by subs). The Russians and Chinese also use the Heavyweight Type 65 class of torpedoes (650mm - 25.6 in) in some of their subs (one of those was the reason for the Kursk disaster)
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Anime cartoon option, does a harpoon have remotely the precision needed to take out fore and aft primary and backup fire directors plus the optics on each turret? No. I mean, they are pretty precise missiles, but not built for something like this (individual component targeting). Btw...a modern NATO counterpart might have problems with a WII BB, but a big Warsaw pact warship probably wouldn't. Those 5 and 7 ton supersonic missiles would hurt a lot more (always speaking about conventional weapons). Dante80 fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Pretend it's an Arleigh Burke Flight III. You have a complete loadout of 96 tomohawk cruise missiles (air warfare is for clowns), 1000 lb high explosive warhead on each. Figure that the short range AA on the Iowa will get a few, and the 5" will get a few as well. 550mph is hittable. 75 hits while accounting for mechanical issues? All of them are going to be non-penetrating. If you're lucky, you wreck all the fire control and then you can close within big gun range and shoot 5" shells at the ship until you run out of ammunition. You probably mission kill the boat Unfortunately we shelved all of the TACTOMs back in the 90s and the new anti ship conversions aren't done yet. So, you've got...some harpoons. And your 5 inch paintball gun. That said there is an X FACTOR: does anyone have any idea how many inches of STS and KC armor an SM-6 can penetrate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Anime cartoon option, does a harpoon have remotely the precision needed to take out fore and aft primary and backup fire directors plus the optics on each turret?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
bewbies posted:That said there is an X FACTOR: does anyone have any idea how many inches of STS and KC armor an SM-6 can penetrate? They got the speed, but their very small (for AsuW weapons at least) blast fragmentation warhead is not optimized for surface targets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Doesn't matter when literally any gun on the iowa can penetrate your ship
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
And as long as we're getting into such a nonexistent scenario, the type of engagement matters. Open water long range engagement where the DDG can just kite the BB around and launch dozens of ASMs from a wide range of angles may well achieve a mission kill, maybe? But if the DDG is told that the BB is coming to shell the harbor and will arrive in firing range in 24 hours, they've really got to gamble that they can mission kill it rapidly, before it shows up and is able to tank your little baby gun shots and murder you with cannon fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Really to properfuck a modern US destroyer you just need to disguise the BB as an asian container ship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
What about the antisub helicopter? Don't they carry hellfires? Just use those. e: yes I know the warheads are small but if they're antitank hellfires then they might be able to penetrate the turret armor from the top, just like on a tank, and maybe cause secondary explosions? Mortabis fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What about the antisub helicopter? Don't they carry hellfires? Just use those. I guess if you had a laser guided version that you could use to direct hit the turrets?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Alternately the DDG just waits till it gets dark then spends all night hammering 5" into the BB from well outside the effective range of visually directed guns. I don't know what the magazine capacity on a Burke is but I bet it's enough to ruin your day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I'd like to know more...in posts not books, i have too many books to read already OK, so Ivan Ilyin, this intellectual managed to combine fascist-style mystic Russian nationalism, fascist hostility to law and rational government, some assumptions that make communists nod in agreement, and a incredibly bizarre religious take. Here is a fascist who never really understood the joke of "there being no truth, and that is a Truth." The cash value of this insanity is that the dude believed "the ends justify any means" and "human life is as worthless as truth" (and that is a truth.) I've no idea how much Putin and co actually believe in this poo poo, but if you want to justify government-less authoritarianism combined with mythical nationalism and justification to do literally whatever you want , his thinking is useful, right down to his sex anxiety. His essays have been given to officials, and Putin has quotes him frequently in speeches. If you think fascism is an aesthetic political movement, then Ilyin appears to be a major style influence in the current government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Alternately the DDG just waits till it gets dark then spends all night hammering 5" into the BB from well outside the effective range of visually directed guns. We're talking about USN BBs right? They all had fire control radars and could direct their guns in zero visibility. Japan never had anything like that however This of course gets into how good the "stealth" is on a Burke, WWII radars were pretty primitive - dump as much power as you can in the transmitter and check the oscilloscope trace of the return. edit: ECM, duh. The WWII radars would only see static so they'd have to target visually hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What about the antisub helicopter? Don't they carry hellfires? Just use those. I'll need to check, but I don't think a hellfire pulls range on AA
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We're talking about USN BBs right? They all had fire control radars and could direct their guns in zero visibility. Japan never had anything like that however
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Doesn't matter when literally any gun on the iowa can penetrate your ship If you're dumb enough to get within range, you deserve exactly what you get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What about the antisub helicopter? Don't they carry hellfires? Just use those. I would not want to be on the helicopter crew told to get close enough to an Iowa to not just hit it with a laser-guided hellfire, but to accurately hit the point moving target of the top of a turret. Then again, hypothetical war is hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
We're approaching this wrong. There's porn on a modern blue water destroyer, yes? On laptops and iPods and phones with colors and sounds and depravities unbeknownst to most young teenagers of the 1940s? Air drop that poo poo, plus Viagra or Ben & Jerry's for the olds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:We're approaching this wrong. Nobody is going to be on the deck of the battleship to pick it up the laptops during general quarters though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I would not want to be on the helicopter crew told to get close enough to an Iowa to not just hit it with a laser-guided hellfire, but to accurately hit the point moving target of the top of a turret. Then again, hypothetical war is hell. With modern EWAR, the BB couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. At least thats what the Burke's skipper will tell his helicopter crew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
I guess with jamming and modern sensors, the DDG will be insanely accurate compared to the BB, but it only has to get lucky with a visually aimed shot one time to seriously ruin your day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Most Burkes don’t carry Harpoons anymore, it’s where they added the hangar space. It’s why LRASM is a big thing. There’s no tomahawk solution currently so you have helicopter launched poo poo, Standards in anti surface mode (not good) and the 5 inch. You also have a Mk32 torpedo launcher but it’s more lightweights, and I don’t know if they do the keel breaking thing of the heavyweights, they are 100% designed to hit submarines, AFAIK directly.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Well I'm glad this recent discussion has demonstrated how bad US Navy surface combatant procurement has gotten. We have no replacement for the TASM. The LRASM is in the procurement bog and isn't VLS compatible. That may be done by the OASuW sometime in 2030  Maybe we'll get a short range antiship ballistic missile out of that future engineering and procurement debacle. There is no good upgrade for the Arleigh Burke, as the Zumwalt demonstrates. The Frigate program is a dumpster fire. LCS etc.And maybe we're lucky that an 1990's DDG could go toe to toe with a WWII ship after all of that. If we're sticking with the WWII analogy a 688 or Virginia could have taken out the entirety of Kurita's force at Samar with impunity. Thats without touching their VLS even were it loaded with crappy retired TASMs. A Block V Virgina with 40 new VLS Antiship missiles on top of a full rack of Torpedos is an anti-ship terror even against a modern peer force. If you want to talk about unrestricted submarine warfare against the US you're going to lose and lose badly. Your entire maritime auxiliary force would be sunk shortly after leaving port so I hope you're dedicated to keeping it to a land war only.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:If you want to talk about unrestricted submarine warfare against the US you're going to lose and lose badly. Your entire maritime auxiliary force would be sunk shortly after leaving port so I hope you're dedicated to keeping it to a land war only. I mean, not entirely true; both sides can do the 'unrestricted submarine warfare' bit. That's kind of the traditional response to a power that dominates the ocean's surface.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Wait so this whole discussion is about how wwII BB ships were so well armored that a modern battleship’s weapons couldn’t really hurt it? Uhm hello our navy has rail guns now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:modern battleship A what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
McNally posted:A what? I think that's the joke
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
McNally posted:A what? You know, something like the 1940s era Iowa class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I mean, not entirely true; both sides can do the 'unrestricted submarine warfare' bit. That's kind of the traditional response to a power that dominates the ocean's surface. Well, no. Not effectively. No one else has a submarine force that can keep up. In the litorals Kilo-derivatives or western AIP's have an edge over US surface combatants if they have surprise, but with modern radar/acoustics/satellite imagery they can be discovered during their recharge cycles on the surface. They're glass cannons. The only capable blue water boat is the russian Akula, and the Yasen is looking alright. However they don't have the numbers to break out of their local AO's. The Russian sub fleet has been suffering long term maintenance and upkeep problems and they haven't been able to keep up sea time. The chinese are slowly getting their, able to field perfectly good Kilo's. But their range for the next five years is limited by how poor their nuclear boats are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:And as long as we're getting into such a nonexistent scenario, the type of engagement matters. Open water long range engagement where the DDG can just kite the BB around and launch dozens of ASMs from a wide range of angles may well achieve a mission kill, maybe? But if the DDG is told that the BB is coming to shell the harbor and will arrive in firing range in 24 hours, they've really got to gamble that they can mission kill it rapidly, before it shows up and is able to tank your little baby gun shots and murder you with cannon fire. As long as we are playing around with this one. A Burke has a range of ~4000, and an Iowa has a range of ~14000 miles, no? ~Four days later the Iowa would be like 'no gently caress you!' If I was the captain of that DDG, my first question would be 'do we really have to??'
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:IIRC even with radar direction accuracy against a small moving target at 10nm is going to be somewhere between "abysmal' and "really bad" and that's before you account for whatever a modern DDG can do to gently caress with enemy radar. Nah not really, by the mid 1940s radar guided 16 inch batteries were quite deadly, even at long range, while maneuvering and at night. Fire control computer technology progressed rapidly from the 1920s to the 1940s. When World War II started battleships like Bismarck and King George V could duel for hours. But in the Philippines around the end of the war battleships lasted 15 minutes to an hour under big gun fire. By the 1950s the fire control computers had progressed to the point that they got 95% hit rates while maneuvering. The real question in this dumb scenario is how this battle ship wasn't sunk in the middle of the Pacific by an attack submarine or wrecked by strike plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Y'all are missing the easy solution. You have ECM, helicopters, and night vision. Just board the drat thing at night and make your way to one of many critical points on the ship and disable it. If you want you can take it as a prize or sink it. Now you're pirates from the future!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
They have search lights
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:They have search lights Search lights and a literal boatload of anti-air guns, but they're still useless if the Iowa isn't expecting an air assault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
BrownieMinusEye posted:Y'all are missing the easy solution. You have ECM, helicopters, and night vision. Just board the drat thing at night and make your way to one of many critical points on the ship and disable it. If you want you can take it as a prize or sink it. Now you're pirates from the future!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Damage control and armor values aside it would be a real mindfuck and crew rest pain in the rear end for a WW2 battleship crew to get hit with a tomohawk an hour for days on end, day and night, while their radar is all kinds of jammed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Well I'm glad this recent discussion has demonstrated how bad US Navy surface combatant procurement has gotten. We have no replacement for the TASM. The LRASM is in the procurement bog and isn't VLS compatible. That may be done by the OASuW sometime in 2030 Minor nitpick but I'm pretty sure they've been testing the LRASM out of VLS using the ASROC(I think) booster, and it has done fine so far. Increment 2 (the surface part, 1 is air launched) or whatever is still pretty far off though, and its Tomahawk vs LRASM and maybe NSM? Either way no anti-ship missile on Burke IIAs and surface harpoons barely qualify anymore, so your point stands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Damage control and armor values aside it would be a real mindfuck and crew rest pain in the rear end for a WW2 battleship crew to get hit with a tomohawk an hour for days on end, day and night, while their radar is all kinds of jammed up. Like watching for kamikaze attacks but with a nearly 100% of hitting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Well I'm glad this recent discussion has demonstrated how bad US Navy surface combatant procurement has gotten. We have no replacement for the TASM. Nothing at all is a pretty good replacement for the TASM's Pk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:If you want to talk about unrestricted submarine warfare against the US you're going to lose and lose badly. Your entire maritime auxiliary force would be sunk shortly after leaving port so I hope you're dedicated to keeping it to a land war only. See this is why we need to keep updated war plans for fighting Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:19
|
|
