|
AFAIK theres no way a current tomahawk is hitting a moving warship, so I'm not sure that qualifies as an option. I guess if you could push GPS updates in real time with like a drone spotter? I don't know if that is a thing for Tomahawks, but it might be with the newer updates. Block IVs can I guess, especially against an emitting target, but thats a few years off still.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
If you think about it the rail gun fires a projectile so fast it has a nearly perfectly flat trajectory. It has taken decades of research to finally achieve this goal, and that’s more proof than anything that the US navy research arm knows the earth is flat. Case closed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Mazz posted:AFAIK theres no way a current tomahawk is hitting a moving warship, so I'm not sure that qualifies as an option. I guess if you could push GPS updates in real time with like a drone spotter? I don't know if that is a thing for Tomahawks, but it might be with the newer updates. The vanilla ones certainly can't but Raytheon has just started upgrading a bunch of them with active seekers and better geo updates that theoretically could hit ship sized targets. I think it was intended as a stopgap before the LRASM arrives but now it looks like they're just going to both?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I believe you will find this scenario is addressed in the documentary Under Siege. Steven Seagal was born in 1952. The best option for a one-man defense against boarders in the 40's is Ronny Reagan and we all know his safety record with battleships.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The Kriegsmarine exploders problems were found out very early on in the war and they disabled it soon after. I want to say it was during the Norway campaign. One of their U-Boat captains apparently had the Ark Royal dead to rights with a spread of torpedoes, all of which missed or failed to detonate on impact. The clanging alerted the crew to the presence of a submarine, and that boat barely escaped after being heavily depth charged by the carrier's escorts. The captain subsequently had a nervous breakdown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Like watching for kamikaze attacks but with a nearly 100% of hitting? That plus damage control, repairs, and it’s very difficult to see an ASM coming compared to spotting a squadron of aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Search lights and a literal boatload of anti-air guns, but they're still useless if the Iowa isn't expecting an air assault. They have a crew of several thousand. SoP would be people posted on watch against the unexpected all day erry day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted: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. This is actually the right answer. The DDGs and DDFs are intended to defend the CVBG not carry the assault. The striking arm is the SSNs and the aircraft. Saying, "A modern surface combatant can't take out a 70 year old BB" is all beside the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Murgos posted:They have a crew of several thousand. SoP would be people posted on watch against the unexpected all day erry day. During combat wouldn't they be looking out through one of these things? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What about the antisub helicopter? Don't they carry hellfires? Just use those. Turret top armor on a Iowa turret is 7.25" which is fairly hefty compared to tank turret roofs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:During combat wouldn't they be looking out through one of these things? They’ll always be a Seaman Schmuckatelli to post outside with a pair of scratched binoculars and a helmet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted: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. Less than 25 miles of effective range. 90 seconds of flight time. Good luck Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Turret top armor on a Iowa turret is 7.25" which is fairly hefty compared to tank turret roofs. The Hellfire is pretty beefy so far as ATGMs go, it's wider and got a heavier warhead than a TOW. Tandem-warhead Hellfire is good for something like a meter of RHA. The turret face on an Iowa is pretty much RHA and is 195" thick in total, I wouldn't be surprised if a Hellfire could poke a hole in it. But an Iowa turret is a hell of a lot bigger inside than a tank. Just poking a small hole in it with a HEAT warhead would probably cause some casualties, but it's unlikely to put the turret out of commission. hobbesmaster posted:During combat wouldn't they be looking out through one of these things? Nah, that's just the bridge. You're going to have lookouts outside, to say nothing of the hundreds of guys on deck at AA mounts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the heat warheads on a hellfire would certainly make a good quality mess of the main armaments, and with persistent hits you could probably get a magazine detonation through the belt but this is rapidly turning into gay black Hitler territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
I would be surprised if a DDG carried more than a small handful of hellfires in their magazines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:I would be surprised if a DDG carried more than a small handful of hellfires in their magazines. I'm sure they don't carry any. BUT YOU KNOW WHO DOES HAVE SOME
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'm sure they don't carry any. Leland Yee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Nah, that's just the bridge. You're going to have lookouts outside, to say nothing of the hundreds of guys on deck at AA mounts. Ah, I figured they'd button up like a tank does for some reason. I did not remember the navy's disregard for the common seaman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Ah, I figured they'd button up like a tank does for some reason. I did not remember the navy's disregard for the common seaman. Excuse me, I think you mean semi-autonomous ablative armor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Ah, right I figured they'd button up like a tank does for some reason. I did not remember the navy's disregard for the common seaman. Just being inside doesn't mean you're behind armor. It's not possible to armor the whole volume of a battleship without ending up with something too heavy to move. Additionally, armor insufficient to protect against the threat you expect to face might as well not be there at all. So the Iowas, and most other post-Dreadnought BBs, were armored with an all-or-nothing scheme; vital areas that if penetrated lead to the ship being dead get full armor protection, areas that don't get nothing (with exceptions like armored secondary turrets, general splinter protection, etc.) This is no more "disregard for the common seaman" than the fact that a HMMWV isn't as well-armored as an Abrams is "disregard for the common soldier." McNally posted:Excuse me, I think you mean semi-autonomous ablative armor. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Who needs missiles when the Iowa Class suffers a -47 penalty against gay sappers, according to the safety board
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'm sure they don't carry any. I'm under the impression they carry them to shoot at small boats
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Murgos posted:This is actually the right answer. The DDGs and DDFs are intended to defend the CVBG not carry the assault. Well that's kind of besides the point of this black gay hitler situation. We all know a sub or a wing of B-1s/Tu-22Ms could do it, but the question was specifically about a Burke or the like. And it's interesting in that the Burke doesn't actually have an excellent go-to in this situation because it's been tailored to do everything else but surface to surface against stuff with armor. Half the Burkes (IIA forward) don't even have the Harpoons anymore, so figuring out how they might best do it is the interesting part. Mortabis posted:I'm under the impression they carry them to shoot at small boats The later ones with the hangar space for Seahawks probably have some, but IIRC none have their own way of firing it from the deck. Mazz fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Who needs missiles when the Iowa Class suffers a -47 penalty against gay sappers, according to the safety board I think it has to be a spurned gay sapper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is no more "disregard for the common seaman" than the fact that a HMMWV isn't as well-armored as an Abrams is "disregard for the common soldier." That is about the worst example you could choose though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6694474/
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Because nobody gives a gently caress about soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Yeah, and? WWII DDs and DEs and submarines had no armor at all. Was that an indication of the Navy's disregard for the common seaman? No, it was an indication of designing a tool to perform a task. They didn't leave the armor off because "gently caress those guys." A HMMWV is a light wheeled vehicle, it's a Jeep. Can you armor a jeep? Sure, but then you can't buy as many of them, they don't perform as well, and they break faster so you're less likely to have one when you need one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
listen if your solution to any naval problem isn't to lay alongside and away boarders I don't want to hear it
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yeah, and? I said button up like a tank, that would just mean going below decks. The unarmored hull is a lot more protection than air.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I said button up like a tank, that would just mean going below decks. The unarmored hull is a lot more protection than air. It's really not, not against the kind of ordnance that's being thrown around. And while your crew is below decks, hiding from the kamikazes they're supposed to be shooting down, who's manning the AA platforms? Are you really going to maintain that the reason the USN didn't decide to build the Iowas with armored turrets for the 130 AA gun mounts they were packing late in the war, or design a system of remote controls and autoloaders so that their crews could operate them while buttoned up, was simply disregard for the common sailor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
One need look no further than Naval reenlistment rates after the first term of service to find evidence of disregard for the common seaman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
spiky butthole posted:I'm pretty sure the heat warheads on a hellfire would certainly make a good quality mess of the main armaments, Not really. RHAe used for todays' missiles has no real bearing against actual RHA, neither is it tested on it (or designed to defeat it). This may sound a little illogical, but it is true. Moreover, K.C. and STS armor of that thickness were designed to withstand AP capped shells weighing more than a ton in both direct and plunging fire in certain distances. No 8kg conventional warhead of whatever property can penetrate that. Run a regular "fist to finger" action calculation using the Monroe effect for a 14cm Hellfire EFP, and you will see that pretty quickly.  Then you have the problem of actually firing (from what platform?) and guiding that missile (to hit something specifically you need the SALH version). All while dodging 5'' AAVT flak shells (and Bofors shells if you are anywhere inside your max hellfire range). In a helicopter. To actually do appreciable damage to an Iowa main/turret belt you would need something more than a Hellfire. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Could the radar directed AA even spot an ECM cloaked low flying Apache two or three miles out? Yeah they could shoot in the general direction but you're not going to get precision fire. I doubt they could spot and hit a reaper overhead either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Just send one of these out there in the middle of the night while the EWAR is active and tell them if they don't disable the main gun batteries of a 55,000 ton battleship that's about 900 by 100 feet with 2,700 people on board, then it's a leadership failure and they need more commitment to the Navy.  Even if the AA radar is reduced to zero effectiveness, life is going to get really interesting for that Seahawk crew after the first hellfire hits and all hands on deck are firing up searchlights and unleashing hell trying to find what hit them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
The shaped charge on a Styx/Silkworm can cut through a Iowa's armor easy enough. And even if it doesn't penetrate you've still got 300-500kg of high explosives going off on the superstructure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:The shaped charge on a Styx/Silkworm can cut through a Iowa's armor easy enough. And even if it doesn't penetrate you've still got 300-500kg of high explosives going off on the superstructure. We talked about this up-thread. Any major Soviet/Russian surface combatant has an extremely easy job in this scenario (their ASuW weapons are built differently). Like...imagine a Bazalt or Granit hitting the deck at mach 2. We were talking about something like a Burke. Regarding the Knighthawk, assuming the ship got lucky and had a block III helo then it would be possible to fire 8 hellfires at the BB before coming back. Assuming it lived long enough to guide them. In this scenario, you'd probably aim for the citadel/conning tower, and hope the 8th missile penetrates. Bonus thought. SK-2 Air Search Radars are practically un-jammable by a Burke. SLQ-32s have no ability to deal with this lo-fi tech (60Hz PRF for crying out loud!) The last thing that did was the AN/WLR-1 (V1 or 2), and then, by accidentally producing positional Lloyd mirror effects at range. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Mazz posted:We all know a sub or a wing of B-1s/Tu-22Ms Two B-1 wings, and one fuselage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
bewbies posted:hot take: a NATO surface combatant with a contemporary loadout would have one hell of a time beating a WWII-era battleship Assuming your ships have planes or "other", page 7 of this Unclassified brochure makes it seem like its less "in our lifetime" and more "currently being installed" https://www.rockwellcollins.com/-/m...T_brochure.ashx "Instantaneous retargeting" seems like a cute way of avoiding the words "fire control" CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2018 00:43
|
|
