Battleships (and trolls)
TMOliver
improbable), one would think he might have a greater knowledge
of naval history, the design and capabilities of BBs (at least
1905-1945 vintage BBs and their upgrade-refits), current naval
operations and the design and capabilities of modern naval
vessels.
Jim simply can't be a troll. Even a troll would not caper quite
so clumsily and unknowingly on to and from the stage.
Accidentally (or maybe on purpose) another poser here
successfully consigned the entire debate to the pierside
dumpster with an astute observation....
"For thrice the price and almost thrice the displacement, just
what does a KIROV provide not available to a TICO? Range."
The same remains true of the "modern BB concepts", including the
thousands which have flowed from well-inked pens and fertile
imaginations since 1945. Where are those domed turret/missile
launcher tops on the SOYUZ big cats now when we need them so?
TMO
Sleepycat
> TMOliver <olive(DEL)@calpha.com> wrote:
>>If Sleepycat were a troll, certainly possible (if in my mind
>>improbable), one would think he might have a greater knowledge
>>of naval history, the design and capabilities of BBs (at least
>>1905-1945 vintage BBs and their upgrade-refits), current naval
>>operations and the design and capabilities of modern naval
>>vessels.
>
> I don't think he needs to know that information in order to
> be an effective troll for this newsgroup. The only information
> he needs is basic knowledge of battleships and their weapons
> and knowledge that a person talking about how cool battleships
> are would surely churn the waters for 100s of posts.
That's all it takes? Just say "battleships are cool" and it "churns the
waters for 100s of posts?" Wow. And people actually claimed there
*wasn't* a bias?
(That about wraps up the argument for anti-battleship bias, methinks.
There is a massive anti-battleship bias here. That is a fact.)
> I think everyone can agree he's an idiot.
Ooh, look, more name calling. Well that certainly is better conversation
than "battleships are cool" isn't it?
> In other words, he hasn't bothered to educate himself yet
> insist battleships are the coolest thing since the invention
> of the wheel.
Hey, know what? And I realize this might come as a surprise to you but I
didn't enroll in a class here. People are allowed to discuss things
without earning a Master's Degree in the subject matter, and without
getting permission to think battleships are "the coolest thing since the
invention of the wheel."
> It's self-admission that he hasn't looked up any
> facts that have been presented. Idiocy. Ripe idiocy.
Third name-call.
>
> Regardless, the person is troll.
Fourth name-call.
> If he is ignored, he will
> disappear. Count on it. I'd bet good money in three weeks
> he'll be gone.
Sure. Reply to every word that comes out of someone's mouth with "you're a
troll, you're an idiot, etc." and yeah, they'll probably leave.
Noted that you failed to reply directly to my point about the "idiot"
thread. Of course, you're so busy typing "troll" every fourth word, I can
understand why, I guess.
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
Given the hooting and jeering that took place after I suggested using a
CVN, is there any doubt, hypothetically, that if I were to "look up" this
information and agree that battleships suck, that it wouldn't be followed
by an additional 50 messages of "see, you really are an idiot?"
Yeah, that's what I thought.
--
Sleepycat
John Mianowski
get out of this group, anyway?
JM
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 07:57:23 -0700, Sleepycat <dev...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jim
> >Jim simply can't be a troll. Even a troll would not caper quite
> >so clumsily and unknowingly on to and from the stage.
>
Well thanks or the vote of confidence, I think.
No I am not a troll. Somewhat new to the group and have been lurking mostly.
Thought this was an intresting thread. I saw a ongoing debate between a
moderan
DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a moderanized Iowa who
carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD and just slightly fewer
T-LAMS.
Neather have AAW to speak of and both have simular sensors. Fair is Fair
So in a modern BB Vrs DD/FF is pretty much a wash. I give the nod to the BB
her Sensors
are higher and have longer LOS. and she can launch more poons and has more
twice the CIWS.
But it is pretty much a wash. Now A DDG/FFG has AAW and would be a diffrent
story.
On a side note concerning moderanized Iowa BB the 16" guns were not the only
guns she
carried that could do NGFS. She also had 12 5" guns (six per side) as well.
You would need 3 DD's to equal her 5" capability just for the record...
Lease you think I am a "nut" I spent 15 years in the US Navy from 1981-1996
of which 10 were assigned to sea duty.
I worked as part of the Combat team specializing in Electronic
countermeasures till I was medically discharged.
I am not to obsolite. I think I know weopon systems and platforms and
capability pretty darn well.
In fact I would venture to say I understand them better then most folks
running around.
I think I could hang in pretty well with folks here knowledge wise. However
I am still restricted on what I can talk about.
I made 2 West pacs, a Med cruse, a North Atlantic, Worked with Nato and
conducted Leo ops around South america.
I don't know everyone elses background but I like to think I have a little
insite to the navy and Naval warfare.
Each ship I rode had unique capabilities and each had vulnerabilities.
None were all powerful or invincable.
CVN 65 had awsome striking power but without escorts in battle group would
be dead meat...
DD 969 was pretty good with subs and surface threats but was sorely lacking
Vrs AAW.
CGN-25 was an awsome AAW ship and good at ASUW but aginst the sub was out
it's area of expertise.
AOE 4 was capable of nothing at all, but the fleet wouldn't go far without
her and her supplies.
LHA 3 was usless unless you need to put marines on the beach somewhere. No
one ship or sub can do it all.
I will tell I do admire the copcept of a modern Battlecruser for exampe the
Kirov
Many long discussions were had vis a via the Kirov and what it would take to
defeat her.
No CO/TAO I know ever said she was a "Peice of Junk". No harpoon simulation
ever had her being a wimp.
My concept was to take this as a model and while I am at it give her a
credable NGFS capability.
That could be guns or could be other artilery for example MLRS. Just a
sustainable bombardment capability.
I like grunts and they get the short end of the stick...
As for armor, I have been on ships with it and ships without it. As for me
I perfer to have it thank you.
Would be nice knowing the ship I am riding won't be riddled by a tiny 50
BMG. Call me Crazy but I liked the armor.
Jim
Andre Lieven
>> >Jim simply can't be a troll. Even a troll would not caper quite
>> >so clumsily and unknowingly on to and from the stage.
>>
>> I agree that Jim isn't a troll.
>
> Well thanks or the vote of confidence, I think.
>
> No I am not a troll. Somewhat new to the group and have been lurking mostly.
> Thought this was an intresting thread. I saw a ongoing debate between a
> moderan DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a moderanized
> Iowa who carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD and just
> slightly fewer T-LAMS.
The problem here is, that your facts are mostly *wrong*.
First of all, its not a one of each question. *Affordibility* counts,
so, for the operating and manning costs of one BB, you could have at
least *six* DDGs. Now, if each DDG has 8 Harpoons, 6 X 8 = 48, v/
the 16 on an Iowa.
> Neather have AAW to speak of and both have simular sensors. Fair is Fair
Better than " fair " is *accurate*. Even a Sprucan has a better AAW
suite than an Iowa, since a Sprucan has Sea Sparrow, which a BB *doesn't*.
Of course, once you're talking about a Tico or a Burke, the difference
becomes whole. AEGIS ships have an amazing AAW and CCCI capability that
no BB can even come close to matching.
> So in a modern BB Vrs DD/FF is pretty much a wash.
Indeed. The BB gets mission killed, and, when an SSN shows upo with
some Mk 48s, its <glug, glug> for the BB crew...
Remember the Belgrano... <glug, glug>
> I give the nod to the BB her Sensors are higher and have longer LOS.
Yet, are orders of magnitude less capable than is AEGIS... So, again,
your facts are wrong.
> and she can launch more poons and has more twice the CIWS.
Pne on one, yes. But, its not one on one, as, if you can afford to
man an Ioaw, I can afford to man *six* Burkes...
> But it is pretty much a wash. Now A DDG/FFG has AAW and would be a
> diffrent story.
Nope. Same story. BB goes <boom, glug>.
> On a side note concerning moderanized Iowa BB the 16" guns were not the only
> guns she carried that could do NGFS. She also had 12 5" guns (six per side)
> as well.
> You would need 3 DD's to equal her 5" capability just for the record...
Thats IF a 5/38 1944 mount/tube was equal in range, firepower, and
ability to fire guided shells as a modern 5/62 is.
Since, its NOT, your facts are wrong... again.
You really DO need to start looking this stuff up in some reference
works. Consider the Friedman Cruiser and Destroyer Design Histories.
> Lease you think I am a "nut" I spent 15 years in the US Navy from 1981-1996
> of which 10 were assigned to sea duty.
And, yet you never found out that the 5 inchers of the Sprucans, and
since, are not the same as a 5/38 mount... Hmm....
> I worked as part of the Combat team specializing in Electronic
> countermeasures till I was medically discharged.
> I am not to obsolite. I think I know weopon systems and platforms and
> capability pretty darn well.
Not well enough, thats clear from your holwers of errors.
> In fact I would venture to say I understand them better then most folks
> running around.
Talk is cheap. Show some signs of getting your *facts right*.
> I think I could hang in pretty well with folks here knowledge wise. However
> I am still restricted on what I can talk about.
Ah, the old troll " I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you "
routine...
> I made 2 West pacs, a Med cruse, a North Atlantic, Worked with Nato and
> conducted Leo ops around South america.
Name some ships you wer on, plus when.
> I don't know everyone elses background but I like to think I have a little
> insite to the navy and Naval warfare.
Not lots...
> Each ship I rode had unique capabilities and each had vulnerabilities.
> None were all powerful or invincable.
Yet, you keep claiming that BBs are...
> CVN 65 had awsome striking power but without escorts in battle group would
> be dead meat...
If the enemy got past her aircraft.... Taffy 3 ring any bells ?
> DD 969 was pretty good with subs and surface threats but was sorely lacking
> Vrs AAW.
Yep. Thats why you got CG-47s and DDG-51s.. Even FFG-7s...
> CGN-25 was an awsome AAW ship and good at ASUW but aginst the sub was out
> it's area of expertise.
Well, Bainbridge did have SQQ-23A sonar, plus ASROC and tubes... Thats
not nothing.
> AOE 4 was capable of nothing at all, but the fleet wouldn't go far without
> her and her supplies.
Yep. So ?
> LHA 3 was usless unless you need to put marines on the beach somewhere. No
> one ship or sub can do it all.
Yep. So ?
> I will tell I do admire the copcept of a modern Battlecruser for exampe the
> Kirov
" No one ship can do it all. " Sound familiar ?
> Many long discussions were had vis a via the Kirov and what it would take to
> defeat her.
One DDG....
> No CO/TAO I know ever said she was a "Peice of Junk". No harpoon simulation
> ever had her being a wimp.
Look up " threat inflation ", plus in the 80s, their shortcomings
weren't as well known.
> My concept was to take this as a model and while I am at it give her a
> credable NGFS capability.
Indeed. We've already shown why thats a *bad* idea for the USN...
> That could be guns or could be other artilery for example MLRS. Just a
> sustainable bombardment capability.
Better yet, 5/62s...
> I like grunts and they get the short end of the stick...
At times...
> As for armor, I have been on ships with it and ships without it. As for me
> I perfer to have it thank you.
Thats why they don't get you to design the real ships... Since people
versed in that area *know why* armour, classical steel armour, is a
*bad idea* to face modern antu ship threats.
> Would be nice knowing the ship I am riding won't be riddled by a tiny 50
> BMG. Call me Crazy but I liked the armor.
Thats not " armour ", thats splinter shielding. A real sailor would've
known the difference...
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Andre Lieven
Geoff Cashman (theobvio...@theobviouskiva.net) writes:
> In article <3dad9eab$1...@news.qgraph.com>, Jim <Jim....@qti.com> wrote:
>>Well thanks or the vote of confidence, I think.
>
> :) You're welcome, I think :)
>
>>DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a moderanized Iowa who
>>carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD and just slightly fewer
>>T-LAMS.
>
> 16 instead of 8 harpoons. Big whoop. If that's the big advantage you're
> seaking, two Sprucans (we have some in decommission too!) can give you
> the same outfit as a modernized Iowa.
>
> Slightly fewer TLAMs? Er, no. Try 29 less (assuming the Sprucan's Mk41
> is fully loaded with TLAMs). You'd need two Iowas to *barely* exceed
> one Sprucan.
Indeed.
>>Neather have AAW to speak of and both have simular sensors.
>
> Sprucans have significantly *more* punch in the AAW realm because
> of RAM and Sea Sparrow, which Iowa distinctly *lacks*. You can't
> fit them to an Iowa. The 16"'s blast effects damage them.
>
>>Fair is Fair So in a modern BB Vrs DD/FF is pretty much a wash.
>
> Er, nope.
>
>>I give the nod to the BB her Sensors are higher and have longer LOS.
>
> That's not the only consideration...*especially* with modern radar.
>
>>and she can launch more poons and has more twice the CIWS.
>
> Give me two Sprucans (*way* less expensive than a single Iowa).
> I have You have
> 16 Harpoons 16 Harpoons
> 122 Tomahawk (if supplied so) 64 Tomahawk
Actaully, thats... 32 Tomahawk for the BB.
> 42 RAM missiles 0 RAM missiles
> 16 Sea Sparrow (plus reloads) 0 Sea Sparrow
> 4 Mk15 CIWS 4 MK15 CIWS
> 780 Crew at risk and being paid 1524 Crew at risk and being paid
> 4 SH-60Bs 0 Helicopters
> 4 Triple 12.75 inch torpedo tubes 0 Torp tubes
>
> Systems: Systems:
> SLQ-32(V)3 SLQ-32(V)3
> SLQ-25A SLQ-25
> Mk36 SRBOC decoy RL <none>
> SPS-40 2-D air search SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search
> SQS-53B/C LF bow mounted <none>
> SQR-19 TACTAS towed array <none>
>
>
> Other: Other:
> Higher top speed (a few knots) Armor (which is a negative)
> Faster acceleration 16" and 5" rifles
> Better shock protection scheme (which wouldn't be used...
> Lower RCS out of range)
> AGM-114 Hellfire missiles
> AGM-119 Penguin missiles
> (and you CAN'T TOUCH THE PLATFORM THAT LAUNCHES THEM)
> Air launched torps
>
> Look, the bottom line here is that your battleship won't even get
> in range to LAUNCH its Harpoons against a single Sprucan much
> less two.
Exactly.
>>carried that could do NGFS. She also had 12 5" guns (six per side) as well.
>
> Yeah. The 5"/38s...fine guns for their time, but antiquated and obsolete now.
Unsupported by logistics, and without trained crews for them...
>>You would need 3 DD's to equal her 5" capability just for the record...
>
> Nope. The 5"/54s can out range her 5"/38s. Plus, the destroyers would
> *never* have to close within 30 miles to mission kill the Iowa.
Yep.
>>Lease you think I am a "nut" I spent 15 years in the US Navy from 1981-1996
>>of which 10 were assigned to sea duty.
>
> So you were active during the time the BBs around. Good bet you saw at least
> one of them around. I'll give you a nod for having experience, and I'll try
> (I admit I have a hard time holding my tongue against BB lovers at times)
> to hold my tongue with a bit more respect.
>
>>I am not to obsolite. I think I know weopon systems and platforms and
>>capability pretty darn well.
>
> Then you would know the Iowas have *nothing* to shoot down the SH-60s
> with. You would know that the Iowa's CIWS isn't going to have much
> of a chance against a saturation attack with a horde of inbound
> Harpoons, Penguins and Hellfires (assuming the SH-60 even gives
> you the chance by flying close enough for the Hellfires to go in).
>
>>Each ship I rode had unique capabilities and each had vulnerabilities.
>>None were all powerful or invincable.
>
> PRECISELY. USN Doctrine is not based on the idea that there is one
> all powerful ship that goes into a medium or high risk threat envelope
> without some friends along for the ride.
>
>>I will tell I do admire the copcept of a modern Battlecruser for exampe the
>>Kirov
>
> Why? There's nothing that a Kirov brings to the table that three Burkes
> couldn't wreck and walk away from with at least one if not all three Burkes.
> Kirovs were an interesting diversion, and had some interesting attributes,
> but they weren't some fanciful bad-ass kick-everyone-else's-ass ship.
>
>>No CO/TAO I know ever said she was a "Peice of Junk". No harpoon simulation
>>ever had her being a wimp.
>
> Nobody's saying she and her sisters were pieces of junk. They are *now*
> because the Russian navy can't afford them.
>
>>My concept was to take this as a model and while I am at it give her a
>>credable NGFS capability.
>>That could be guns or could be other artilery for example MLRS. Just a
>
> You keep coming back to MLRS (unless I'm confusing you with someone else)
>
> Please, please, please, please give up on the idea of MLRS being fitted
> to a ship platform. It is completely *incapable* of going to sea.
>
> Besides, the ERGM can easily outrange MLRS, and can put FAR more weapons
> on target than MLRS can. MLRS has a *9* minute reload!! Tell that to the
> Marine on the beach..."Uh, you're gonna have to wait 9 minutes. We're
> reloading!".
>
> Please, divorce yourself of this idea that you can plop an MLRS on the
> deck of a DDG/FFG and poof...all your NGFS problems are solved. If you
> experience is true (and I believe you), you must recognize that.
>
>>As for armor, I have been on ships with it and ships without it. As for me
>>I perfer to have it thank you.
>
> Then you prefer to die quicker. That's reality today.
>
>>Would be nice knowing the ship I am riding won't be riddled by a tiny 50
>>BMG. Call me Crazy but I liked the armor.
>
> If a ship is taking hits in a high threat environment from .50s somewhere,
> it's in the wrong place or is already dead.
Yep.
Keith Willshaw
"Jim" <Jim....@qti.com> wrote in message
news:3dad9eab$1...@news.qgraph.com...
>
> > >Jim simply can't be a troll. Even a troll would not caper quite
> > >so clumsily and unknowingly on to and from the stage.
> >
> > I agree that Jim isn't a troll.
>
> Well thanks or the vote of confidence, I think.
>
> No I am not a troll. Somewhat new to the group and have been lurking
mostly.
> Thought this was an intresting thread. I saw a ongoing debate between a
> moderan
> DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a moderanized Iowa who
> carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD and just slightly fewer
> T-LAMS.
> Neather have AAW to speak of and both have simular sensors. Fair is Fair
> So in a modern BB Vrs DD/FF is pretty much a wash. I give the nod to the
BB
> her Sensors
> are higher and have longer LOS. and she can launch more poons and has more
> twice the CIWS.
> But it is pretty much a wash. Now A DDG/FFG has AAW and would be a
diffrent
> story.
Huh
The Destroyers currently being built for the USN are the
Arleigh Burkes and have an outstanding AAW capability
> On a side note concerning moderanized Iowa BB the 16" guns were not the
only
> guns she
> carried that could do NGFS. She also had 12 5" guns (six per side) as
well.
> You would need 3 DD's to equal her 5" capability just for the record...
>
No sir that is incorrect
The 5"/38 as fitted to those mounts compares very poorly
to the modern 5" guns as fitted to modern ships in rate of
fire, range and accuracy
Keith
Andre Lieven
>
> That's me blasted fingers again! I think it's time for the table saw...
> :) 8x4 = 64^H^H32!
LOL. Its Ok, we all make the occasional oopsie.
>>> Look, the bottom line here is that your battleship won't even get
>>> in range to LAUNCH its Harpoons against a single Sprucan much
>>> less two.
>>
>>Exactly.
>
> Earlier on in this discussion I hadn't really considered the organic
> aviation the Sprucans carry. That's the nail in the coffin in any
> Sprucans vs. Iowa battle. Damn. Wish I'd thought of it when I played
> around with NAVTAG.
True. Even the RN Sea Lynx drivers in DS found that teaming up
with a 60 was a good thing, due to the search radar of the US helo.
Very useful for targeting a platform out of range of the soon to be
sunk ship...
> ----
> (what follows is addressed to the Iowa lovers, not you Andre)
Gotcha. Its still fun to read, though...
> Iowa, even with the latest refit, has virtually no hope against
> 2 Sprucans. The SH-60s working in concert with the Harpoons could
> probably overload the CIWS mounts on one side. Mk15 can engage
> what...6s target per minute? Some number like that.
>
> Mk15 range is apparently classified. But, we know that it's maximum
> range is under 25,000 yards (1). Let's assume it's 20,000 yards (though
> I am quite certain it's significantly *less*). The AGM-119 has a range of
> 50,000 yards, and a top speed of mach 1.2. Let's assume 1.0, thus 1116
> ft/sec (sea level) (2). AGM-84 Harpoon has a range of >120,000 yards and
> a speed of 855 km/h or 260 ft/sec (3).
One thing here. Are you sure your fingers haven't done the saw slip,
again ? My admittedly older copy of Polmar's Ships/Aircraft US Fleet,
has a Mk 15 Phalanx showing a max range of 1,625 yards.
> Transit time for a Penguin in the envelope of the Mk15: ~18 seconds.
> Transit time for a Harpoon in the envelope of the Mk15: ~77 seconds.
1,625 yards for the Mk. 15 makes this way less time in the envelope...
> 2 Sprucans can put up 16 Harpoons. 4 SH-60Bs can put up 4 Penguins.
> Total of 20 inbound missiles. Assuming the 6 targets/min figure for
> the engagement ability of the Mk15, in 77 seconds it can engage 15,
> possibly 16 targets. That's assuming it's 100% effective. 4 missiles
> inbound left unengaged. Assuming 75% hit, 3 missiles...say 2 Harpoons
> and one Penguin...have hit. This is with a pretty good case scenario
> in favor of the Iowa. If you knock Mk15 effectiveness down to 75%,
> that's another 3 missiles that will hit (out of 4 more let through).
>
> Meanwhile, the Iowa will not have been able to launch its own Harpoons
> since it will not have target data on the Sprucans. Even if it did,
> (another good case scenario for the Iowa) and it tossed all 16 at
> once Sprucan, that Sprucan might die, but you're left with one Sprucan.
> It also might not die, since it has far better ability to take out
> the Iowa's Harpoons, with RAM, Sea Sparrow and CIWS.
>
> If you want to suggest TLAMs in use in an anti-shipping role, then
> it's 122 TLAMs on the 2 Sprucans to 32 on the Iowa. If you though
> letting through 4 missiles was bad....the Iowa is NOT going to fair
> well against hordes of TLAMs inbound. There's no prayer that the
> Iowa can stop them all or even close. Meanwhile, the Sprucans have
> a chance to stop them all. Regardless, the Iowa is dead for the
> price of two Sprucans.
Reminicent of the hoards of a/c that killed Yamato, yes ?
> This is only the missiles element of this discussion. It does not
> include the possible ability of the SH-60Bs to toss MK-46/50 torps
> at the Iowa with impunity or nearly so. I don't have the knowledge to
> know if these ASW torps would be useful in an ASuW role. But, it is
> entirely possible. Someone want to comment?
>
> As for guns, in this engagement neither side would ever use its guns
> except for the ones in the Mk15 mounts. The ranges would be too
> great for the guns to be of any use, unless you tried using the 5"/54s
> against the inbound missiles on the Sprucans. I'm not sure they can
> do that very effectively though. It's talked about, but I've never
> heard anybody rave about it.
There was the claim that a RN Type 21 fired at an Exocet during the
Falklands War, with differing claims as to whether the missile was
actually hit or deflected by it. But, that was with a far more modern
gun system than the old 5/38 twin mount.
> -Geoff
>
> (1) See http://www.atgpac.navy.mil/Training/batpac/bp2003/batpac/Combat%20Systems/FC/FC32.doc,
> page 11 question 41.
> (2) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-119.htm
> (3) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Andre Lieven <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>"Jim" (Jim....@qti.com) writes:
>> Would be nice knowing the ship I am riding won't be riddled by a tiny 50
>> BMG. Call me Crazy but I liked the armor.
>
>Thats not " armour ", thats splinter shielding. A real sailor would've
>known the difference...
Disagree. My father may not ever have been regular Navy (he'd regard
himself as having been a professional, unlike the regulars: the Wavy
Navy hath its pride..), but he did Atlantic convoys in '40-'42
(having waited on the beach at Skegness in '40 with a Maxim gun and
a Martini-Henry the night Cromwell was sent), channel in MLs
in '43, command course in HDMLs in '44 and back to atlantic escort
(Freetown local group) in '44-'45. Post-war he ran the Tyne coast
defence batteries in one exercise, drove minesweepers and local defence
forces for the Clyde during Mariner and ended his sea career taking
minesweepers out to Gib. in the early 70s. He's always expressed
discomfort at the what the Sampan-with-a-browning (or an Oerlikon)
might do to a modern warship and expressed a preference for ships
with some protection to 'em. What he's talking about is splinter
protection, but the word used is 'armour'. Egret had 3/4" 'armour'
on parts of her bridge - now we'd use Kevlar and not call it armour,
but the principal applies.
I don't see any conflict between what Jim's saying and what my old man
does, and he has been out there and seen the elephant.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
James Hunter
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:aok9do$npe$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Jim" (Jim....@qti.com) writes:
> >> >Jim simply can't be a troll. Even a troll would not caper quite
> >> >so clumsily and unknowingly on to and from the stage.
> >>
> >
> > BMG. Call me Crazy but I liked the armor.
>
> Thats not " armour ", thats splinter shielding. A real sailor would've
> known the difference...
No they wouldn't, they would be clueless. Since real
sailors don't wear hardhats, like real real sailors do.
RLM
What the problem with this newsgroup is you have a buncha armchair admirals
and backyard generals that are all self styled experts on everything. They
take great offense at anyone that doesn't live, breath and eat the subject
in question and can't be bothered to reply with civilized posts that may
educate or discuss it normally.
Its much easier to call them a troll and dismiss them as idiots.
RLM
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Keith Willshaw
"RLM" <CptMatt...@ameritech.nojunk.net> wrote in message
news:3dade...@goliath2.newsgroups.com...
> Sleepycat,
>
> What the problem with this newsgroup is you have a buncha armchair
admirals
> and backyard generals that are all self styled experts on everything. They
> take great offense at anyone that doesn't live, breath and eat the subject
> in question and can't be bothered to reply with civilized posts that may
> educate or discuss it normally.
>
> Its much easier to call them a troll and dismiss them as idiots.
>
> RLM
>
Now here we have the genuine article.
An unmistakeable troll emerging from hiding just
as a thread approaches its natural end.
Its rather a poor example of the species with inadequate
camouflage and a sloppy technique so I'd hazard a guess
that its an immature juvenile.
Keith
Jim
> :) You're welcome, I think :)
>
>
> >carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD and just slightly fewer
> >T-LAMS.
>
> seaking, two Sprucans (we have some in decommission too!) can give you
> the same outfit as a modernized Iowa.
>
> Slightly fewer TLAMs? Er, no. Try 29 less (assuming the Sprucan's Mk41
> is fully loaded with TLAMs). You'd need two Iowas to *barely* exceed
> one Sprucan.
Snip
If a ship is taking hits in a high threat environment from .50s somewhere,
> it's in the wrong place or is already dead.
>
> -Geoff
Geoff
You have some points and some errors. My turn.
I didn't make the rules or senerio someone else did. The senerio was 1 DD/FF
Vrs 1 BB not 2 DD vrs 1BB. But ok.
In this face off It will be a missle battle agrreeded. Guns will unlikly
play a role period.
Frankly the Captain/TAO and the tactial decisions would at least be as large
a factor as the platforms themselves
Each has pluses and minuses.. Frankly what it is likly going to come down
to is aquisition.
In naval warefare whoever shots first generally wins.
I think we could each provide ample senerios where eather side could loose.
The BB has more missles, and higher antennas the give a longer RLOS
That effects aquisition Both Active and Passive.
Emcon would be important to prevent passave detection. This goes both ways.
Some DDs have Spooks and the BB had spooks also.
Helos are great and can do localization but you need that first sniff too.
Helos don't operate in open ocen without moma near by and they
don't stray far with out comms or radar or tacan or a datalink and they are
all subject to intercept. The helo radar will give a blip but a skunk is
just a skunk with out an id. and if the BB isn't helping the helo would need
a visual and if at night the helo might get into 5" 38 range.
Stay to the shipping lanes and use deception/emcon and eather ship could get
with-in visual range at night, if that happens the DD would be mauled
period.
bettween missles and guns say dead meat! Dont say never happen!
In 1982 fleet-ex I was on the Billy B (CGN-25) playing Orange we did
exactly that. We successfully prentrated the Big E's screen off Cataliona
Is. as we were passing the Big E at 6k yards to starboard we lit everything
up (went active radar /fire control/ ECM etc etc ) and rang up a flank max
speed bell to shoot and scoot . I would have loved to see the faces on the
Big E that night!
Per the Umpires Blue lost a CVN, CG and DD. 8 poons into the E and and a
double ender firing SM2-ER (real nasty at that range!) FWD at the CG and
Aft at the DD Was a fun suprise and we got Ice Cream to boot!
As I said it is really Tactics and luck as much as platforms. Neather has
squat for AAW and each can be overwelmed.
I know for a fact the BB with take more damage before sinking! It is
larger and more tonage and more water tight compartments.
1 poon will pretty much blow a tin can in hafe or at least to the waterline
I have seen poon hits on cans it isn't pretty!
As for AAW the SPS40 stinks for low flyers. The SPS55 is better as is the
Spq-9 but they scream DD shot me
without aquasition Nssms is useless. An in this case turning on a unique
emmitted would get you TMA'ed
and shot long before you aquire.
If missles fly the BB SPS 49 is worlds better at low flyers then the 40b is
but who cares they have no AAW eather
the only benifit is early release of chaff decoys and battening down the
hatches.
NSSMS is pretty much a last ditch shot same as CIWS. Not good at low flyers
based on my experience.
I havs seen lots of failed NSSMS shoots. We used to figure we need to
soft-kill a Missle or pray R2 would take it.
I wouldn't bet my life on NSSMS!
I estamate 6 poons to take out a DD, between multi-axis and skimmers and
pop-ups I could overwhelm a DD .
No problem. Pretty much the same for the BB. so bach to detection.
A note in the Navy on severial units CIWS replaced NSSMS. between the two I
wouldn't can say the isn't a distint advantage Vrs cruse missles..
CIWS works pretty well.
The MK41 is useless. Now if they have ENSSMS Maybe However last I knew
ENSSMS wasn't deployed.
The TASM isn't in current Inventory or currently loaded. TLAMs are no
good in ASUW.
SO Frankly I don't care how many TLAMS you have, can't use them.
2 Same for ASW torps VLS ASROC etc etc etc.
3 So it is Harpoons Vrs Harpoons
In short whom ever detects and launches and hits first wins..
And that is the way it goes.
Jim
Oh When I was on the Pete we didn't have RAM sorry. I checked and it still
dosn't...
and Tasm Are not in the invantory anymore Goodday.
Andre Lieven
The gist of what Jim appeared to be talking about was thick steel
plate battleship type armour. Which is what has been under discussion
throughout the BB threads.
Now, some shielding, thats another matter. Many modern warships
do have some Kevlar protection over some spaces. Thats a good
thing. 16 inches of it would not be such.
Andre Lieven
There are medications for your condition...
Ogden Johnson III
>I didn't make the rules or senerio someone else did. The senerio was 1 DD/FF
>Vrs 1 BB not 2 DD vrs 1BB. But ok.
Actually, the original poster merely asked whether something he'd
heard, something like that a modern DDG has more firepower than a BB
[it's already spooled off my machine and I'm too lazy to google right
now], was true.
It was after sleepycat's arrival that things started going downhill,
seriously. I don't know who turned in to a DDG or DD or FF or
whatever vs BB thing. I suspect sleepycat, if only on GP, but I don't
really remember *who* started that BS.
I'll leave the Navy side of the BB vs whomever to you Navy guys. As a
Marine, all we've ever asked for is 5" - 8" NGFS/NSFS. We like the
new 155 that seems to be on the way, and in the meantime, if you've
got the 5"/54s we need where we need them when we need them, we'll be
happy.
OJ III
stackclimber
Which major countermeasures systems were you trained on/worked with? I ask
as a former EW myself with background in all the major systems from BLR-1
and APR-12 through to WLR-1C,D,E,F,G,H and through to SLQ-34(Ha-Ha),and so
on to SLQ-32(V)2,3,5. I loved the work.news:3dadf6f3$1...@news.qgraph.com...
jim hiett
Andre
I am writing to you this way so can answer to an real address at home vice work. so if you wish to replay
and see I am real go ahead.
I will try to answer your questions. As directly as I can.
First I am not particular lover of the BB. The look nice but that is about it.
In modern navy they are obsolete. Period. I did post what I did because frankly
VRS a FF or DD It wouldn't be as one sided as some claim. compared to a Tico or Burke
they are totally out classed. I never claimed an Iowa was a wise move I was simply stating
capability of one against another.
I have been out since 1997 so while some of my information may be dated
much of what I know concerning weapons system and capability is likely still classified.
Since I don't want 10 years in club fed I won't be able to go past unclassified information.
>The problem here is, that your facts are mostly *wrong*.
>First of all, its not a one of each question. *Affordibility* counts,
>so, for the operating and manning costs of one BB, you could have at
>least *six* DDGs. Now, if each DDG has 8 Harpoons, 6 X 8 = 48, v/
>the 16 on an Iowa.
No doubt, never said otherwise was simply that a dd vrs BB scenario not if it was right or wrong.
>> Neather have AAW to speak of and both have simular sensors. Fair is Fair
>
>
Better than " fair " is *accurate*. Even a Sprucan has a better AAW
suite than an Iowa, since a Sprucan has Sea Sparrow, which a BB *doesn't*.
Bull
1. The SPS-40b is crap compared to the SPS-49v5 period.
2. Sea sparrow we called it (nato sea chicken) in is highly unreliable vrs sea skimming threat and worse Vrs a pop up.
It isn't a SM2 they have serious problems I have witnessed with my own eyes many misses few hits!.
3. CIWS when working is very effective Vrs Sea skimmers
4, neither was designed to operate ISE with any significant air threat.
Of course, once you're talking about a Tico or a Burke, the difference
is light years. AEGIS ships have an amazing AAW and C4I capability that
no BB can even come close to matching. Actual no other ship I am aware of can match them
period. The AEGIS system is in a world of there own, The best I used was NTDS NTU.
>> So in a modern BB Vrs DD/FF is pretty much a wash.
>
>
Indeed. The BB gets mission killed, and, when an SSN shows up with
some Mk 48s, its <glug, glug> for the BB crew...
Remember the Belgrano... <glug, glug>
Frankly either would be likely be dead Vrs a LA unless the LA was dumb period.
The Spru with that tail would have a better chance but it should it was built specifically for that function.
However neither unit is a complete package or designed to operate ISE. Now if the spru were built as planned
(kidd class) it would have been a complete package.
>> I give the nod to the BB her Sensors are higher and have longer LOS.
>
>
Yet, are orders of magnitude less capable than is AEGIS... So, again,
your facts are wrong.
And I wasn't talking vrs a CG or DDG or even a FFG was simply talking Vrs a FF/DD
you assuming... I never said that.
>> and she can launch more poons and has more twice the CIWS.
>
>
one on one, yes. But, its not one on one, as, if you can afford to
man an Ioaw, I can afford to man *six* Burkes...
The exercise was 1 vrs 1 as I read it. not budgets...
No doubt the BB were manpower and cost intensive I never claimed they were not.
why are you saying I did?
>> But it is pretty much a wash. Now A DDG/FFG has AAW and would be a
>> diffrent story.
>
>
Nope. Same story. BB goes <boom, glug>.
Frankly in a 1x1 conflict who ever fired first would win period
>> On a side note concerning moderanized Iowa BB the 16" guns were not the only
>> guns she carried that could do NGFS. She also had 12 5" guns (six per side)
>> as well.
>> You would need 3 DD's to equal her 5" capability just for the record...
>
>
>Thats IF a 5/38 1944 mount/tube was equal in range, firepower, and
>ability to fire guided shells as a modern 5/62 is.
>Since, its NOT, your facts are wrong... again.
>You really DO need to start looking this stuff up in some reference
>works. Consider the Friedman Cruiser and Destroyer Design Histories.
>> Lease you think I am a "nut" I spent 15 years in the US Navy from 1981-1996
>> of which 10 were assigned to sea duty.
>
>
>And, yet you never found out that the 5 inchers of the Sprucans, and
>since, are not the same as a 5/38 mount... Hmm....
I Never said they were 5/54... I know they are 5/38 twin mounts shorter range then the 54.
However and was talking strickly NGFS, when everyone talks BB they talk 16" and forget the 5"
And I assume you refering to The ERGM project AKA EX-171 (x means expermential)the one that has yet to pass op-eval
and has had significant problems and the CBO warns it may be canceled, because it is missing the range requirments
is grossly over budget and is 50k a pop. however it is currently projected in 2005.
>> I worked as part of the Combat team specializing in Electronic
>> countermeasures till I was medically discharged.
>> I am not to obsolite. I think I know weopon systems and platforms and
>> capability pretty darn well.
>
>
>Not well enough, thats clear from your holwers of errors.
I beleive you have assumed falsly
>> In fact I would venture to say I understand them better then most folks
>> running around.
>
>
>Talk is cheap. Show some signs of getting your *facts right*.
> I think I could hang in pretty well with folks here knowledge wise. However
>> I am still restricted on what I can talk about.
>
>
Ah, the old troll " I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you "
routine...
No it is called classified and if you ever sailed one F'in day you would know and respect that.
You know Red Manuals, custody cards, page checks, Bold words top and Bottom, Safes, Cyper locks...
Compartmented info. If you don't know what I am refering to go away and play video games...
>if you have ever operated
well have you?
>> I made 2 West pacs, a Med cruse, a North Atlantic, Worked with Nato and
>> conducted Leo ops around South america.
>
>
Name some ships you wer on, plus when.
OK you wanted ships better yet here is my career, want cruse books, awards, too.
1980 enlisted bootcamp San Diego
1981 Pensacola Fl A and C school Trained on WLR-1G / WLR-11/ SLQ-23
Feb 1982- Oct 1983 Uss Bainbridge CGN 25 +40 knots and no smoke! Best ship I ever rode!
Departed West pac sept 1982-june 1983 with Enterprise Battle Group.
Highlight of cruse
Conducted 3 carrier ops withy Big E, Coarl Sea and Midway off Petropovlask. Messing with Ivan,
First Intercept of Backfire. Capt Jack Shaw AKA Adm Shaw became project head for DDGX (burke)program
2nd skipper Capt Reason later to be Adm Reasom you may have hear of him black guy real smart...
Transfered to Uss Belleau Wood when Billy B went to yards
Oct 1983-Dec 1984 Uss Belleau Wood LHA 3 West Pac Jan 1983-Jul 1983
Highlight of Cruse Team Spirt and having my appemndix out while at sea.
Jan 1984- Aug 1986 USS Detriot AOE 4
Highlights Operations in the Viest Feord Norway fall of 1985 with USS America CVBG and USS New Jesery SAG
messing with Ivan again...
Feb 1986 deployed to med Highlight Gulf of Sitra Operations slapping Kadaffi
Aug 1986-1988 Naval Reserve station Milwaukee. Basic BS hated it
1988-1991 Assigned Recruiter at NRS RAcine Hard job someone had to do it
1991-1992 NTTC Pensocola for re-training on SLQ-32V4/Adv apps
1992-1995 USS CVN-65 Enterprise Shipyard and Shakedown, local ops, car-qauls Bomb-cat eval (f-14 in strike role).
1995-1996 USS DD969 Peterson Shipyard, Local ops and Summer of 1996 deployed Leo Ops off Of south america.
1996-1997 Med-hold and Med-discharge.
any questions? how about your background impress me please.
>> I don't know everyone elses background but I like to think I have a little
>> insite to the navy and Naval warfare.
>
>
>> Each ship I rode had unique capabilities and each had vulnerabilities.
>> None were all powerful or invincable.
>
>
>Yet, you keep claiming that BBs are
I have never said that that was the other guy. simply said a dd vrs a BB insn't all one sided.
Who ever aquires first wins...
>> CVN 65 had awsome striking power but without escorts in battle group would
>> be dead meat...
>
>
>If the enemy got past her aircraft.... Taffy 3 ring any bells ?
Peice of cake, ever hear or an Akula, Oscor II, Charlie II.....
Ding Ding Ding ding idiot departing...
>> DD 969 was pretty good with subs and surface threats but was sorely lacking
>> Vrs AAW.
>
>
Yep. Thats why you got CG-47s and DDG-51s.. Even FFG-7s...
CG yup, DDG correct, FFG nope were built for escorting transports and phibs and the nato low end comitment
Try again...
>> CGN-25 was an awsome AAW ship and good at ASUW but aginst the sub was out
>> it's area of expertise.
>
>
>Well, Bainbridge did have SQQ-23A sonar, plus ASROC and tubes... Thats
>not nothing.
Contrair my friend the 23 pair was deaf as a post passive... good active but hey a CGN NEVERS goes slow!
Our Average was 20+ knots, way to fast for ASW. Our idea of ASW was let the spu-can get torped then asroc the dynamic event or yell for a p-3 and run like hell! Them is the facts! Tactally as an SM2-ER shooter we were Piraz and out on the threat axis always humping to keep on station. Oh, if you let a sewer pipe in MK-46 range you are long past caring!
>> the 23 AOE 4 was capable of nothing at all, but the fleet wouldn't go far without
>> her and her supplies.
>
>
Yep. So ?
>> LHA 3 was usless unless you need to put marines on the beach somewhere. No
>> one ship or sub can do it all.
>
>
Yep. So ?
>> I will tell I do admire the copcept of a modern Battlecruser for exampe the
>> Kirov
>
>
" No one ship can do it all. " Sound familiar ?
>> Many long discussions were had vis a via the Kirov and what it would take to
>> defeat her.
>
>
>One DDG
Highly unlikly! Kirov has a vastly better SSM range. More AAW Missles and after 8 poons your winchester...
The DDG would be engaged way before she could shoot and would be purley defensive!
>> No CO/TAO I know ever said she was a "Peice of Junk". No harpoon simulation
>> ever had her being a wimp.
>
>
>Look up " threat inflation ", plus in the 80s, their shortcomings
>weren't as well known.
and never underestamate you enemy!
>> My concept was to take this as a model and while I am at it give her a
>> credable NGFS capability.
>
>
Indeed. We've already shown why thats a *bad* idea for the USN...
That is an opinion not a FACT.
>> That could be guns or could be other artilery for example MLRS. Just a
>> sustainable bombardment capability.
>
>
>Better yet, 5/62s
IF they become operational. I am still waiting for the A-12 too.
>> I like grunts and they get the short end of the stick...
>
>
At times
most the time...
>> As for armor, I have been on ships with it and ships without it. As for me
>> I perfer to have it thank you.
>
>
>Thats why they don't get you to design the real ships... Since people
>versed in that area *know why* armour, classical steel armour, is a
>*bad idea* to face modern antu ship threats
You mean the brillent folks that designed aluminim ships that when hit become a Class "d" fire
like the stark or develope stress cracks in the aluminim hey was that your idea?
Or the ones that placed 70 tons of worthless steel and Kelvar ARMOUR on the Burke class?
Prosacution rests...
>> Would be nice knowing the ship I am riding won't be riddled by a tiny 50
>> BMG. Call me Crazy but I liked the armor.
>
>
Well the 5" armoured deck on the E was called an armoured deck
Oh a ship is much more vaulnerable in port then at sea... Ever hear of the cole...
Ok salior? where where you and when? your turn.
Jim
Jim
Keith Willshaw wrote:
> The Destroyers currently being built for the USN are the
> Arleigh Burkes and have an outstanding AAW capability
>
>
>>On a side note concerning moderanized Iowa BB the 16" guns were not the
>
> only
>
>>guns she
>>carried that could do NGFS. She also had 12 5" guns (six per side) as
>
> well.
>
>>You would need 3 DD's to equal her 5" capability just for the record...
>>
>
>
> No sir that is incorrect
>
> The 5"/38 as fitted to those mounts compares very poorly
> to the modern 5" guns as fitted to modern ships in rate of
> fire, range and accuracy
>
>
> Keith
keith please read it again.
I was simple stating that they had 5" as well a 16" that is all.
I know a 5/38 is inferior to a 5/54.
Also the burke is a DDG not a DD, in the Current navy a DD is a 963 class.
Jim
Jim
thanks...
I didn;t see the ddg vs BB it was before i joined. in that case yes a
Burke should win or at least not be damaged.
And I an a squid not a grunt but would also like to see more of a NGFS
capability... When on the Belleau wood we got to close to shore for my
lilking and the reg nav was 50 miles out to sea...
Jim
Jim
had a G/WLR-11 mx-9442(I think that was it) and 23 on the Billy B
Had a C on the Belleau wood and Detroit
Was re-schooled on the SLQ-32V4 before going to the E
and worked the V3 on the pete. but by then did more evaluating then
operating...
Liked the 32 for active side Didn't care for it passive
But I trully loved the WLR-1. (that is just me i guess)
Loved to be able to see and hear it and know what it was doing. instead
of a dumb symbol, loved the range do you know what I mean...
Jim
Ogden Johnson III
>Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>> I'll leave the Navy side of the BB vs whomever to you Navy guys. As a
>> Marine, all we've ever asked for is 5" - 8" NGFS/NSFS. We like the
>> new 155 that seems to be on the way, and in the meantime, if you've
>> got the 5"/54s we need where we need them when we need them, we'll be
>> happy.
>thanks...
>
>I didn;t see the ddg vs BB it was before i joined. in that case yes a
>Burke should win or at least not be damaged.
>
>And I an a squid not a grunt but would also like to see more of a NGFS
>capability... When on the Belleau wood we got to close to shore for my
>lilking and the reg nav was 50 miles out to sea...
Try the Saipan drifting around its anchor in a Norwegian fjord with
the tides, aft end never further from shore than a few hundred yards.
;->
Seriously, if you get into the "From the Sea ..." et seq concepts, you
will see the reason for the Marines desire for the Osprey, the AAAV,
etc. The idea is to get the ARG back there with the reg Navy, while
having the whole thing do it where the bad guys ain't, hopefully
obviating the need for the new 155s or the old 5"/54s having to do
anything.
OJ III
GLof815619
I won't go into the BB Vs. bussiness because I realy feel other a better
qualify to comment on it. My studied are a aim more toward what the navy should
do to improve the ships in the future, so a spend alot of time reading tech
journels for new and interesting possiblities.
As for your interest on MLRS, I sugest going to the Lockheed martin website and
look up the POLAR weapon system, you will find it interesting.
As for ARMOR. there been alot said on that subject. My only sugestion is to
think in terms of passive protect instead of armor plate, it allows you to look
in area you would go to otherwise.
G Lof
Engineer
Keith Willshaw
"Jim" <Jeh...@direcpc.com> wrote in message
news:3DAE2CDD...@direcpc.com...
>
> > Keith
>
> keith please read it again.
> I was simple stating that they had 5" as well a 16" that is all.
> I know a 5/38 is inferior to a 5/54.
>
Actually your statement was
>>>You would need 3 DD's to equal her 5" capability just for the record...
This is inaccurate
> Also the burke is a DDG not a DD, in the Current navy a DD is a 963 class.
>
> Jim
>
The last one built was launched the best part of 20 years ago
and they are in the process of retirement. That said with
a 61 cell VLS , 2 5"/54 cal guns they have a far better land
attack capability than the 5"/38 guns of the BB
That 5"/51 as you should well know has a much better
range, rate of fire and accuracy.
Keith
Andy Spark
<dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> > As for guns, in this engagement neither side would ever use its guns
> > except for the ones in the Mk15 mounts. The ranges would be too
> > great for the guns to be of any use, unless you tried using the 5"/54s
> > against the inbound missiles on the Sprucans. I'm not sure they can
> > do that very effectively though. It's talked about, but I've never
> > heard anybody rave about it.
>
> There was the claim that a RN Type 21 fired at an Exocet during the
> Falklands War, with differing claims as to whether the missile was
> actually hit or deflected by it. But, that was with a far more modern
> gun system than the old 5/38 twin mount.
Avenger claimed to have hit one with her Mk8 4.5, but there is some
doubt as to the veracity of this statement.... -The alternate
suggestion being that it ran out of puff...
RLM
>
> An unmistakeable troll emerging from hiding just
> as a thread approaches its natural end.
>
> Its rather a poor example of the species with inadequate
> camouflage and a sloppy technique so I'd hazard a guess
> that its an immature juvenile.
>
> Keith
>
And here we have the perfect example of what I was talking about.
While I have been reading this newsgroup from almost its inception (though I
don't append very often) and the writer doesn't bother to find out that I'm
44 years old, it is easier to dismiss me with the epithet of "immature
juvenile" troll. This is also regardless of the fact that this subject
apparently hasn't reached its "natural end" because I found 12 more appends
to it other than mine this morning..
In this case, he also casts some allusions to camouflage which I haven't
done. It is very obvious what to remove from my email address to reply to me
directly. The only thing that could be construed as camouflage is that I use
my initials in my signature, rather than my full name.
RLM
Vince Brannigan
RLM wrote:
> > Now here we have the genuine article.
> >
> > An unmistakeable troll emerging from hiding just
> > as a thread approaches its natural end.
> >
> > Its rather a poor example of the species with inadequate
> > camouflage and a sloppy technique so I'd hazard a guess
> > that its an immature juvenile.
> >
> > Keith
> >
>
> And here we have the perfect example of what I was talking about.
> While I have been reading this newsgroup from almost its inception (though I
> don't append very often) and the writer doesn't bother to find out that I'm
> 44 years old, it is easier to dismiss me with the epithet of "immature
> juvenile" troll. This is also regardless of the fact that this subject
> apparently hasn't reached its "natural end" because I found 12 more appends
> to it other than mine this morning..
> In this case, he also casts some allusions to camouflage which I haven't
> done. It is very obvious what to remove from my email address to reply to me
> directly. The only thing that could be construed as camouflage is that I use
> my initials in my signature, rather than my full name.
>
> RLM
As we are discussing in a separate thread KW is a rich user of metaphor. you are
attempting to take poetic language literally. This is of course characteristic
of those identified as 'trolling" in newsgroups and who are for the purpose of
response "personified" trolls. In this personification Juvenile has nothing to
do with literal age as a human, but only with the talent and technique one
displays as a troll. He was critiquing your timing and technique. Some would say
that a literal response to the metaphorical critique confirms the wisdom of the
original comment.
Vince
Sleepycat
> 4 SH-60Bs 0 Helicopters
IIRC, Iowas can launch and recover helicopters from an aft flight deck.
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
> "Jim" (Jim....@qti.com) writes:
>> No I am not a troll. Somewhat new to the group and have been lurking
>> mostly. Thought this was an intresting thread. I saw a ongoing debate
>> between a moderan DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a
>> moderanized Iowa who carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD
>> and just slightly fewer T-LAMS a troll. Somewhat new to the group and
have been lurking
>> mostly. Thought this was an intresting thread. I saw a ongoing debate
>> between a moderan DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a
>> moderanized Iowa who carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD
>> and just slightly fewer T-LAMS..
>
> The problem here is, that your facts are mostly *wrong*.
Wow. Guess real experience doesn't help either.
>
> First of all, its not a one of each question.
Yes, it IS a one of each question. All this "get your six-pack O' DDGs!"
discussion is a red herring.
--
Sleepycat
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Sleepycat <dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Geoff Cashman wrote:
>> 4 SH-60Bs 0 Helicopters
>IIRC, Iowas can launch and recover helicopters from an aft flight deck.
But not maintain or support them. As aircraft ships they're in the
same league as an OPV, and I'd be inclined to give the edge to the
Castles.
Sleepycat
> Sleepycat <dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>Oh, and one other thing:
>>
>>Given the hooting and jeering that took place after I suggested using a
>>CVN, is there any doubt, hypothetically, that if I were to "look up" this
>>information and agree that battleships suck, that it wouldn't be followed
>>by an additional 50 messages of "see, you really are an idiot?"
>>
>>Yeah, that's what I thought.
>
> Jumping to conclusions.
Not hard to do. Things seem to be fairly predictable in these discussions.
> This group is filled with experienced, knowledgeable people who have
> actually been on or worked with the BBs. You've continually screamed
> about how wrong they are, and how right you are. That's part of the
> reason I know you're a troll. Nobody would be so ridiculously stupid
> as to cast their comments in the bit-bucket...comments from literally
> experts in the field...and scream holy-hell about how right their own
> ideas are instead.
Yep. Then we've got people who have actually been there who are told they
are WRONG over and over again. So tell me again just how much credibility
I can get out of a book when people who have actually BEEN THERE are told
they are wrong (and almost called trolls, again)?
Sounds to me like credibility doesn't count for much, which certainly
doesn't make me too enthusiastic about doing hours of research.
> Send me an e-mail with your ideas for recommissioned Iowas or
> brand new battleships. I promise you I will keep our e-mail
> conversations private.
I'd be happy to discuss theoretical battleship designs, and I'm not worried
about discussing them here.
However, I know any such conversation will INSTANTLY devolve into biased
"but you can afford X _______s for that price!" and "I'll just park my sub
and <glug glug>" and so forth, making the entire discussion meaningless.
--
Sleepycat
Jim
Thanks you
Nice not to called a Troll,
It is nice not be hit at all!
However I think (could be wrong) Steel, kevlar etc has its place...
I would like to see more armor and a design process where Armor, double
Hulls/bulkheads, Voids, water tanks, compartmentation etc can be used to
reduce effetivness of a hit and allow the ship to maintain sea worthness
and hopefull remain "in the immedate Fight" Not to say the she won't
need repair when the smoke clears. Being a (former) sailor I would like
to think we could keep her from going DIW and simply be reduced to a DC
struggle to keep her afloat (like the Sammy B). I would like to see more
done to "dampen" Impact effect and and minimise damage to
systems/people inside.
I fully know that this isn't sexy but it would sure be damn nice!
Concerning Polar, intresting thanks for the tip.
Conceptually that is exactly what I had in mind...
Just Had not though to place them in a VLS. But that was the exact
capability I was trying to acheive.
Didn't someone alude I was nuts to even consider MLRS?
I said and "adapted MLRS type system" or in the case of polar
an outgrowth from MLRS... Guess Lockheed is crazy to.
Thank you
Jim
Jim
BB don't carry Sea Hawks, but have you ever hear of a UAV?
the BB deployed UAV's in DS ooops, forgot about thoes little gems hey.
Shall we talk detabilty compaired Vis a via one to another?
a stealthy UAV VRS a sea hawk. guess they are not quite so blind.
Game, Set, match...
Good-day
Jim
stackclimber
on the passive side. Should have been teamed with a cheap close analysis
suite.
WLR-1 had superb sensitivity and selectivity. The MX 9414 was built by Texas
Instruments as a digital pulse train sorter/analyzer, and we had a similar
setup in DDG-33. I liked the angle gating unit/IFM interface. The operator
could slew the NB gear onto the WLR-11 signal strobe so quickly, it made it
feasible to fight a low intensity air action (although I wouldn't really
want to!). Remember the goofy alert klaxon on the 11?
"Jim" <Jeh...@direcpc.com> wrote in message
news:3DAE367...@direcpc.com...
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
>Oh one last note for the know it all land lubbers..
>
>BB don't carry Sea Hawks, but have you ever hear of a UAV?
The idea of a battleship operating Sea Hawks came as *seriously*
bizzare, until I remembered that it's also a USian helicopter.
Had visions of one on a launch platform atop 'B' mount, a la
Sopwith Pup...
Fighter away!
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
If God had intended people to program in C++
he wouldn't have invented FORTRAN (Keith Willshaw)
Keith Willshaw
> > Now here we have the genuine article.
> >
> > An unmistakeable troll emerging from hiding just
> > as a thread approaches its natural end.
> >
> > Its rather a poor example of the species with inadequate
> > camouflage and a sloppy technique so I'd hazard a guess
> > that its an immature juvenile.
> >
> > Keith
> >
>
> And here we have the perfect example of what I was talking about.
> While I have been reading this newsgroup from almost its inception (though
I
> don't append very often) and the writer doesn't bother to find out that
I'm
> 44 years old, it is easier to dismiss me with the epithet of "immature
> juvenile" troll. This is also regardless of the fact that this subject
> apparently hasn't reached its "natural end" because I found 12 more
appends
> to it other than mine this morning..
It is of course entirely posible for a 44 year old to behave
in away that is juvenile and immature.
> In this case, he also casts some allusions to camouflage which I haven't
> done. It is very obvious what to remove from my email address to reply to
me
> directly. The only thing that could be construed as camouflage is that I
use
> my initials in my signature, rather than my full name.
>
Your inability to recognise that the reference to camouflage was not
a reference to either a literal physical disguise or the hiding of
your address but was referring insted to your attempt to clothe
your trolling in the form of a genuine response only helps to
confirm my initial judgement as to your sophistication.
Your initial post rated 6/10 on the trollmeter , this one
barely scores a 3
Keith
Tom Schoene
Pioneer wasn't exactly an area search tool. (very narrow field of view,
like looking through a soda straw). If you're going to give the battleship
a non-existent stealthy area-reconaissance UAV, be fair and let the other
ship carry one too.
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
"It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but
the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment."
Karl Friedrich Gauss
Keith Willshaw
Lots of luck hunting a sub with one of those
UAV's or firing hellfires and Penguins at
Fast Patrol Boats
Jim
"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3daeb6f0$1...@news.newsgroups.com...
>
> "Jim" <Jeh...@direcpc.com> wrote in message
> news:3DAEAE4F...@direcpc.com...
> > Oh one last note for the know it all land lubbers..
> >
> > BB don't carry Sea Hawks, but have you ever hear of a UAV?
> > the BB deployed UAV's in DS ooops, forgot about thoes little gems hey.
> > Shall we talk detabilty compaired Vis a via one to another?
> > a stealthy UAV VRS a sea hawk. guess they are not quite so blind.
> >
> > Game, Set, match...
> >
>
> Lots of luck hunting a sub with one of those
> UAV's or firing hellfires and Penguins at
> Fast Patrol Boats
>
> Keith
Keith,
You keep trying to add more assests to you side why ?
As much as you would like to muddy the waters it isn't working.
For this exercise a Sub wasn't in the game. Never was.
Orignailly my coment was simply that a DD vrs A Moderanized BB wasn't as
one sided as someone said it would be
Nothing more or nothing less. For this drill it was simple the simple
question. Just 1 BB vrs 1 DD
(not 2 DD, CGs, DDGs, FFGs, SSNs, CVBG, F-15s, A10s , B2s, Starship
Enterprise, Curlry, Larry or Moe) .
That is all I ever compaired period. A diffrent ship or ships would yeild a
diffrent opinion.
Concerning Penguins (I was never really impressed with them,) of all the
ASCMs in the world they were way down the threat list.
They have as many weaknesses as stregnths.
To the vernerable Hellfire... It is a nice anti-tank weapon and would be
cool against T-72's, and BogHammers..
Vrs warships, give me a break and put down the crack pipe.
You really think your going to get an SH-60 driver to close within 3nm of a
Warship, any Warship, we don't ask out polits to
be sucidial. Next you will be suggesting everyone man the rails and and
you will everyone a LAWS rocket and call that ASUW.
Topic change (for those who can't seem to tell when I am changing
thoughts).
I also said and I would like to see a Moderan BattleCruiser With a
significant NGFS capabilty.
My opinion is 1 or 2 tubes isn't significant, I would want more. I have a
right to my opinion as you have a right to yours.
I said it could be Guns or Rockets I really didn't care. Be it 5/62 with a
workable EX-171 a couple Auto 8", POLAR (LIKE MLRS)
I really didn't specify or even care. I just want a platform that can
produce a "battery" like heavy barrage for my friends the Marines... Then I
am Happy!
By the way POLAR Looks to be an intresting Canadate.
The ship would share many capabilities to the Ageis CG/DDG for obivious
reason. Just a bit larger with More Missles and more rockets (or Guns) for
NGFS.
I like the Tico and the Burke and think they are fine ships. I just would
would like to see ones capability boosted a smig more.
I indicatedthe role it could fill
1. AAW Area Defense/ NGFS/C4I for an ARG.
2. C4I/AAW/ASUW For the LHA(D) when used in a sea control role.
3. C4I/AAW/ASUW/Strike in A SAG
4. C4I/AAW/STRIKE in a CVBG
Could the Tico or Burke do this? Sure, just not as well. My idea was a ship
Larger then a Tico Smaller then the Arsenel Ship (concept)
and with capabilities of each. IE AGIES C4I and significantly larger
magazines be it TLAMS, POLARS, SM2 whatever...
That dosn't mean I think they will build one. Just that I "think it would
be an intresting concept".
With limited CV's we have it is unrealistic to think they can cover
everything. They can't be every where at once.
When you outfit a Burke or Tico for strike you give up the AAW... I would
just want both at the same time that is all
In closing there seems to be a Boat load of armchair quarterbacks here. I
have been asked on what I base my evaluations on
I sure would like that same curtisy... do folks know tell the diffrance
between the head and the a scuttlebutt.
who has been there done that experience not I read tom clancy and Janes.
When did you sail and what ship/boat/plane did you sail on.
Jim
Andre Lieven
> Andre
> I am writing to you this way so can answer to an real address at home vice
> work. so if you wish to replay and see I am real go ahead.
OK..
> I will try to answer your questions. As directly as I can.
>
> First I am not particular lover of the BB. The look nice but that is about
> it. In modern navy they are obsolete. Period.
Which has been the consensus here on this thread, other than for loons
like " Sleepycat ".
> I did post what I did because frankly VRS a FF or DD It wouldn't be as one
> sided as some claim. compared to a Tico or Burke they are totally out
> classed. I never claimed an Iowa was a wise move I was simply stating
> capability of one against another.
As were we...
> I have been out since 1997 so while some of my information may be dated
> much of what I know concerning weapons system and capability is likely still
> classified. Since I don't want 10 years in club fed I won't be able to go
> past unclassified information.
Well, as are we also not using classified materials, for very sound reasons...
>>The problem here is, that your facts are mostly *wrong*.
>>First of all, its not a one of each question. *Affordibility* counts,
>>so, for the operating and manning costs of one BB, you could have at
>>least *six* DDGs. Now, if each DDG has 8 Harpoons, 6 X 8 = 48, v/
>>the 16 on an Iowa.
>
> No doubt, never said otherwise was simply that a dd vrs BB scenario not
> if it was right or wrong.
The point of our matching up more than one DD/DDG/CG was that, one
could not operate an Iowa BB on only the resources ( People, money,
logictics, UNREPs ) that a DD/DDG/CG would need.
>>> Neather have AAW to speak of and both have simular sensors. Fair is Fair
>>
>
> Better than " fair " is *accurate*. Even a Sprucan has a better AAW
> suite than an Iowa, since a Sprucan has Sea Sparrow, which a BB *doesn't*.
>
> Bull
> 1. The SPS-40b is crap compared to the SPS-49v5 period.
Seeing it helps you not at all if you have zipo to shoot at it...
> 2. Sea sparrow we called it (nato sea chicken) in is highly unreliable vrs
> sea skimming threat and worse Vrs a pop up.
But, its better than the *nothing* that a BB had.
> It isn't a SM2 they have serious problems I have witnessed with my own
> eyes many misses few hits!.
>
> 3. CIWS when working is very effective Vrs Sea skimmers
So, no diff. A pair of DD/DDG/CGs have as many of those as a BB.
> 4, neither was designed to operate ISE with any significant air threat.
Which we've been pointing out to loons like "Sleepycat ".
> Of course, once you're talking about a Tico or a Burke, the difference
> is light years. AEGIS ships have an amazing AAW and C4I capability that
> no BB can even come close to matching. Actual no other ship I am aware of
> can match them period. The AEGIS system is in a world of there own,
> The best I used was NTDS NTU.
Which wasn't bad, aside from it not being AEGIS.
>>> So in a modern BB Vrs DD/FF is pretty much a wash.
>>
> Indeed. The BB gets mission killed, and, when an SSN shows up with
> some Mk 48s, its <glug, glug> for the BB crew...
>
> Remember the Belgrano... <glug, glug>
>
> Frankly either would be likely be dead Vrs a LA unless the LA was dumb
> period.
Well, a ship with ASW sensors, helos, and shipboard weapons would have
some chanves, wheras a ship with none of any of those, the BB, would
have... none.
> The Spru with that tail would have a better chance but it should it was
> built specifically for that function.
> However neither unit is a complete package or designed to operate ISE. Now
> if the spru were built as planned (kidd class) it would have been a complete
> package.
How would AA and Mk 26s help in ASW ?
>>> I give the nod to the BB her Sensors are higher and have longer LOS.
>
> Yet, are orders of magnitude less capable than is AEGIS... So, again,
> your facts are wrong.
>
> And I wasn't talking vrs a CG or DDG or even a FFG was simply talking Vrs
> a FF/DD you assuming... I never said that.
Well, that was the example that the rest of us were using.
>>> and she can launch more poons and has more twice the CIWS.
>
> one on one, yes. But, its not one on one, as, if you can afford to
> man an Iowa, I can afford to man *six* Burkes...
>
> The exercise was 1 vrs 1 as I read it. not budgets...
That wass only coming from the troll who wanted to load it up against
the non-BB ships. In reality, subs have to be factored in, just as
logistics and budgets, people and money, have to be.
> No doubt the BB were manpower and cost intensive I never claimed they were
> not. why are you saying I did?
It was rather implied in the one on one scenario.
>>> But it is pretty much a wash. Now A DDG/FFG has AAW and would be a
>>> diffrent story.
>
> Nope. Same story. BB goes <boom, glug>.
>
> Frankly in a 1x1 conflict who ever fired first would win period
Not necessarily. Otherwise, the AAW, CIWS and AEGIS wouldn't be worth
having.
>>> On a side note concerning moderanized Iowa BB the 16" guns were not the
>>> only guns she carried that could do NGFS. She also had 12 5" guns (six
>>> per side) as well.
>>> You would need 3 DD's to equal her 5" capability just for the record...
>
>>Thats IF a 5/38 1944 mount/tube was equal in range, firepower, and
>>ability to fire guided shells as a modern 5/62 is.
>
>>Since, its NOT, your facts are wrong... again.
>>You really DO need to start looking this stuff up in some reference
>>works. Consider the Friedman Cruiser and Destroyer Design Histories.
>
>>> Lease you think I am a "nut" I spent 15 years in the US Navy from
>>> 1981-1996 of which 10 were assigned to sea duty.
I said nothing about " nuts ". I just know enough not to equate 5/38s
with 5/62s...
>>And, yet you never found out that the 5 inchers of the Sprucans, and
>>since, are not the same as a 5/38 mount... Hmm....
>
> I Never said they were 5/54... I know they are 5/38 twin mounts shorter
> range then the 54.
Indeed. Thus, a DDG with a modern gun can shoot at many things that the
5/38s *will be out of range of*, thus in reality making it a one for
the DDG, *none* for the BB comparison.
> However and was talking strickly NGFS, when everyone talks BB they talk
> 16" and forget the 5".
Well, here we know better... <g>
> And I assume you refering to The ERGM project AKA EX-171 (x means
> expermential)the one that has yet to pass op-eval and has had significant
> problems and the CBO warns it may be canceled, because it is missing the
> range requirments is grossly over budget and is 50k a pop. however it is
> currently projected in 2005.
Indeed. ERGM only adds to the advantage of the modern gun over the old
ones. The modern guns start at a greater range and accuracy at range.
Thus making them the weapons of choice for NGFS.
>>> I worked as part of the Combat team specializing in Electronic
>>> countermeasures till I was medically discharged.
>>> I am not to obsolite. I think I know weopon systems and platforms and
>>> capability pretty darn well.
>>
>>Not well enough, thats clear from your holwers of errors.
>
> I beleive you have assumed falsly
I'm only working with whats here...
>>> In fact I would venture to say I understand them better then most folks
>>> running around.
>
>>Talk is cheap. Show some signs of getting your *facts right*.
>>
>> I think I could hang in pretty well with folks here knowledge wise.
>> However I am still restricted on what I can talk about.
>
> Ah, the old troll " I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you "
> routine...
>
> No it is called classified and if you ever sailed one F'in day you would
> know and respect that.
I know about that, I just don't see relevence to 5 inch fire issues...
> You know Red Manuals, custody cards, page checks, Bold words top and
> Bottom, Safes, Cyper locks... Compartmented info. If you don't know what
> I am refering to go away and play video games...
I don't play them, never have.
>>if you have ever operated
>
> well have you?
>
>>> I made 2 West pacs, a Med cruse, a North Atlantic, Worked with Nato and
>>> conducted Leo ops around South america.
OK. In which case then, you know that the BBs are functionally obsolete.
Which was the topic...
> Name some ships you wer on, plus when.
>
> OK you wanted ships better yet here is my career, want cruse books, awards, too.
>
> 1980 enlisted bootcamp San Diego
> 1981 Pensacola Fl A and C school Trained on WLR-1G / WLR-11/ SLQ-23
> Feb 1982- Oct 1983 Uss Bainbridge CGN 25 +40 knots and no smoke! Best ship
> I ever rode!
> Departed West pac sept 1982-june 1983 with Enterprise Battle Group.
> Highlight of cruse
> Conducted 3 carrier ops withy Big E, Coarl Sea and Midway off
> Petropovlask.
Ah yes, I've seen pics from that op.
> Messing with Ivan, First Intercept of Backfire. Capt Jack Shaw AKA Adm Shaw
> became project head for DDGX (burke)program
> 2nd skipper Capt Reason later to be Adm Reasom you may have hear of
> him black guy real smart...
> Transfered to Uss Belleau Wood when Billy B went to yards
>
> Oct 1983-Dec 1984 Uss Belleau Wood LHA 3 West Pac Jan 1983-Jul 1983
> Highlight of Cruse Team Spirt and having my appemndix out
> while at sea.
Ouch. Hope you had calm seas for that one..
> Jan 1984- Aug 1986 USS Detriot AOE 4
>
> Highlights Operations in the Viest Feord Norway fall of 1985 with
> USS America CVBG and USS New Jesery SAG messing with Ivan again...
>
> Feb 1986 deployed to med Highlight Gulf of Sitra Operations slapping Kadaffi
Coral Sea and America, right ?
> Aug 1986-1988 Naval Reserve station Milwaukee. Basic BS hated it
>
> 1988-1991 Assigned Recruiter at NRS RAcine Hard job someone had to do it
>
> 1991-1992 NTTC Pensocola for re-training on SLQ-32V4/Adv apps
>
> 1992-1995 USS CVN-65 Enterprise Shipyard and Shakedown, local ops,
> car-qauls Bomb-cat eval (f-14 in strike role).
Interesting timing. I may have met you then CO and XO, who attended a
convention I was at in the summer of '93 or '94, can't quite recall
right now. Got a signed copy of the Big E's cruise book " Power In
Motion ", signed by Capts Roper and Richardson.
I think that was the same summer in which my then g/f and I visited
two Russian warships in Boston, and I got to speak with some of their
crews about their systems, speaking in Russian.
> 1995-1996 USS DD969 Peterson Shipyard, Local ops and Summer of 1996
> deployed Leo Ops off Of south america.
>
> 1996-1997 Med-hold and Med-discharge.
>
> any questions? how about your background impress me please.
Oh, mine's strictly for fun. I am a fan and student of history, and
I got into naval matters a very long time ago.
Nonetheless, many of the kind folks here are pros in the field,
from Navy to design and builders, so when they agree with
comments of mine that are point specific, I'd say that I'm doing OK.
>>> I don't know everyone elses background but I like to think I have a little
>>> insite to the navy and Naval warfare.
>>
>>> Each ship I rode had unique capabilities and each had vulnerabilities.
>>> None were all powerful or invincable.
Indeed. No one here, other than the trolls, ever said or intimated
otherwise. A good read, such as my re-reading of Sandy Woodward's
book on his command of Operation Corporate, can well show that, too.
>>Yet, you keep claiming that BBs are
>
> I have never said that that was the other guy. simply said a dd vrs a BB
> insn't all one sided. Who ever aquires first wins...
Possibly...
>>> CVN 65 had awsome striking power but without escorts in battle group would
>>> be dead meat...
>>
>>If the enemy got past her aircraft.... Taffy 3 ring any bells ?
>
> Peice of cake, ever hear or an Akula, Oscor II, Charlie II.....
> Ding Ding Ding ding idiot departing...
Indeed, though some S-3s and H-60s could make it a bad day for the
sub driver.
>>> DD 969 was pretty good with subs and surface threats but was sorely
>>> lacking Vrs AAW.
>
> Yep. Thats why you got CG-47s and DDG-51s.. Even FFG-7s...
>
> CG yup, DDG correct, FFG nope were built for escorting transports and
> phibs and the nato low end comitment
> Try again...
Well, with the SM-1 capability, a FFG would have more to shoot than just
Sea Sparrows.
>>> CGN-25 was an awsome AAW ship and good at ASUW but aginst the sub was out
>>> it's area of expertise.
>
>>Well, Bainbridge did have SQQ-23A sonar, plus ASROC and tubes... Thats
>>not nothing.
>
> Contrair my friend the 23 pair was deaf as a post passive... good active
> but hey a CGN NEVERS goes slow! Our Average was 20+ knots, way to fast
> for ASW. Our idea of ASW was let the spu-can get torped then asroc the
> dynamic event or yell for a p-3 and run like hell! Them is the facts!
Oh, I believe it. I was only saying that a ship with SQQ-23, ASROC,
and tubes has a bit more of a chance, depending somewhat on what else
shes doing, then a BB that has none of those things.
> Tactally as an SM2-ER shooter we were Piraz and out on the threat axis
> always humping to keep on station. Oh, if you let a sewer pipe in MK-46
> range you are long past caring!
Gotcha. Tough to do two jobs at once, when each job required your ship
to behave very differently.
>>> the 23 AOE 4 was capable of nothing at all, but the fleet wouldn't go
>>> far without her and her supplies.
>
> Yep. So ?
Also, no one needs remind me about UNREP ships. Most navies these days,
USN I fear included, have too few of them. In a real shooting match, I
could see the bad guys going for the UNREPs, to try to starve out
warships from their stations.
>>> LHA 3 was usless unless you need to put marines on the beach somewhere.
>>> No one ship or sub can do it all.
>
> Yep. So ?
>
>>> I will tell I do admire the copcept of a modern Battlecruser for exampe the
>>> Kirov
>
> " No one ship can do it all. " Sound familiar ?
>
>>> Many long discussions were had vis a via the Kirov and what it would take
>>> to defeat her.
>
>>One DDG
>
> Highly unlikly! Kirov has a vastly better SSM range.
Yeah ( Assuming we don't bring back T-ASMs ), but the Kirov's targetting
sensors don't match as AEGIS ship's. So, shooting blind wouldn't be a
good thing.
> More AAW Missles and after 8 poons your winchester...
Assuming its one on one...
> The DDG would be engaged way before she could shoot and would be purley
> defensive!
I'm not convinced that a Kirov could acquire, on her own, a DDG that
far out.
>>> No CO/TAO I know ever said she was a "Peice of Junk". No harpoon
>>> simulation ever had her being a wimp.
>
>>Look up " threat inflation ", plus in the 80s, their shortcomings
>>weren't as well known.
>
> and never underestamate you enemy!
Overestimating isn't good, either.
>>> My concept was to take this as a model and while I am at it give her a
>>> credable NGFS capability.
>
> Indeed. We've already shown why thats a *bad* idea for the USN...
>
> That is an opinion not a FACT.
Not based on the considered and informed opinions here, for a host of
already expressed reasons.
>>> That could be guns or could be other artilery for example MLRS. Just a
>>> sustainable bombardment capability.
>
>>Better yet, 5/62s
>
> IF they become operational. I am still waiting for the A-12 too.
Also, as others have pointed out, putting MLRS on a ship is about as likely
as getting a squadron of A-12s...
>>> I like grunts and they get the short end of the stick...
>
> At times
>
> most the time...
They did OK in DS...
>>> As for armor, I have been on ships with it and ships without it. As for
>>> me I perfer to have it thank you.
>
>>Thats why they don't get you to design the real ships... Since people
>>versed in that area *know why* armour, classical steel armour, is a
>>*bad idea* to face modern antu ship threats
>
> You mean the brillent folks that designed aluminim ships that when hit
> become a Class "d" fire like the stark or develope stress cracks in the
> aluminim hey was that your idea?
Um... No, and that went out after the Kennedy/Belknap collison of '75.
> Or the ones that placed 70 tons of worthless steel and Kelvar ARMOUR on the
> Burke class?
No one ever said that some passive protection wasn't a good idea. The
topic was BBs, so its clear that we were talking BB-type armour, which
is useless. Note that the modern protection schemes, including void
spaces, double hulling, Kevlar, etc., bear no resemblance to any
heavy ship armouring schemes of pre-1950.
That was our point on this.
> Prosacution rests...
>
>>> Would be nice knowing the ship I am riding won't be riddled by a tiny 50
>>> BMG. Call me Crazy but I liked the armor.
>
> Well the 5" armoured deck on the E was called an armoured deck
T'ist a belt, though.
> Oh a ship is much more vaulnerable in port then at sea... Ever hear of
> the cole...
Or, Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Alexandria... Its not a new thing for me to
consider at all.
> Ok salior? where where you and when? your turn.
Done. As I said, I rely on the considered and published wisdom of
pros, along with other sources.
Speaking Russian, when your dad knew sailors and worked in short
wave radio had it's moments... :-).
Jack Love
<keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>"RLM" <CptMatt...@ameritech.nojunk.net> wrote in message
>news:3daea...@goliath2.newsgroups.com...
>> > Now here we have the genuine article.
>> >
>> > An unmistakeable troll emerging from hiding just
>> > as a thread approaches its natural end.
>> >
>> > Its rather a poor example of the species with inadequate
>> > camouflage and a sloppy technique so I'd hazard a guess
>> > that its an immature juvenile.
>> >
>> > Keith
>> >
>>
>> And here we have the perfect example of what I was talking about.
>> While I have been reading this newsgroup from almost its inception (though
>I
>> don't append very often) and the writer doesn't bother to find out that
>I'm
>> 44 years old, it is easier to dismiss me with the epithet of "immature
>> juvenile" troll. This is also regardless of the fact that this subject
>> apparently hasn't reached its "natural end" because I found 12 more
>appends
>> to it other than mine this morning..
>
>It is of course entirely posible for a 44 year old to behave
>in away that is juvenile and immature.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's
Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
Andre Lieven
Yeah, its debatable as whether it hit. It would have been very
interesting, were it possible to know for sure.
Then again, since many modern FFs/corvettes carry a main gun whose
secondard mission is being a second CIWS to kill SSMs, it seems
that the idea lives on, and is developing further.
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> "Jim" (Jim....@qti.com) writes:
>
>>> No I am not a troll. Somewhat new to the group and have been lurking
>>> mostly. Thought this was an intresting thread. I saw a ongoing debate
>>> between a moderan DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a
>>> moderanized Iowa who carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD
>>> and just slightly fewer T-LAMS a troll. Somewhat new to the group and
> have been lurking
>>> mostly. Thought this was an intresting thread. I saw a ongoing debate
>>> between a moderan DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a
>>> moderanized Iowa who carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD
>>> and just slightly fewer T-LAMS..
>>
>> The problem here is, that your facts are mostly *wrong*.
>
> Wow. Guess real experience doesn't help either.
>> First of all, its not a one of each question.
>
> Yes, it IS a one of each question. All this "get your six-pack O' DDGs!"
> discussion is a red herring.
Go away, oh deliberately ignorant troll...
Brian Allardice
says...
>
>In article <3dadf6f3$1...@news.qgraph.com>, Jim <Jim....@qti.com> wrote:
>>Frankly the Captain/TAO and the tactial decisions would at least be as large
>>a factor as the platforms themselves
>
>capabilities. Furthermore, the discussion is platform vs.
>platform, not skipper vs. skipper.
>>Each has pluses and minuses.. Frankly what it is likly going to come down
>>to is aquisition. In naval warefare whoever shots first generally wins.
>
>before the Sprucan was. In fact, (again, remove the skippers from this)
>it is unlikely the Iowa would ever detect the Sprucan except for having
>a general arc of direction that it most likely is in.
>
>>The BB has more missles, and higher antennas the give a longer RLOS
>>That effects aquisition Both Active and Passive.
>
>to the presence of the SH-60Bs. The SH-60Bs can sit off 20 miles, keeping
>the Iowa under constant surveillance...even eyeballing them if they want
>to, and there's not a single damn thing the Iowa can do about it. Nothing.
&c
What the hell......
I would hope that at least some of you have seen the images off Radarsat. I
recall one of Singapore... OK, so you couldn't actually count the guys on
deck, but give it time. The next generation radarsat is already under
construction. It must be time to face the probability that within a few years
(if not already) the location of every surface combatant is known, all the
time... and with that quite a change in what naval warfare is seen to be.
Sigh, we would lose all the best bits... (where is that pesky
Emden/Bismark/bunch of carriers?)
Cheers,
dba
Andre Lieven
> "Jim" <Jeh...@direcpc.com> wrote in message
> news:3DAEAE4F...@direcpc.com...
>> Oh one last note for the know it all land lubbers..
>>
>> BB don't carry Sea Hawks, but have you ever hear of a UAV?
>> the BB deployed UAV's in DS ooops, forgot about thoes little gems hey.
>> Shall we talk detabilty compaired Vis a via one to another?
>> a stealthy UAV VRS a sea hawk. guess they are not quite so blind.
>>
>> Game, Set, match...
>
> Lots of luck hunting a sub with one of those
> UAV's or firing hellfires and Penguins at
> Fast Patrol Boats
And, this kind of howler claim made by a driver is why we don't
treat all driver's claims *uncritically*...
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>Geoff Cashman (theobvio...@theobviouskiva.net) writes:
>>> That's me blasted fingers again! I think it's time for the table saw...
>>> :) 8x4 = 64^H^H32!
>>
>>LOL. Its Ok, we all make the occasional oopsie.
>
> :) Thanks.
Hey, we're all people...
>>True. Even the RN Sea Lynx drivers in DS found that teaming up
>>with a 60 was a good thing, due to the search radar of the US helo.
>>
>>Very useful for targeting a platform out of range of the soon to be
>>sunk ship...
>
> Precisely. The Iowa has no equivalent capability. It's supposed
> advantage in LOS by having the radar a few decks higher than a Sprucan
> is completely wiped out by the presence of the SH-60Bs.
Exactly. Even Janes makes the comment that a shipbourne helo is
likely the most useful system on a modern surface combattant.
>>> (what follows is addressed to the Iowa lovers, not you Andre)
>>
>>Gotcha. Its still fun to read, though...
>
> Except I think I made a math error. You know those times at night
> when you're laying in bed thinking about the events of the day...
> my eyes popped open last night when I thought I might not
> have converted yards to feet for the Mk15 envelope. Turns
> out I did exactly that! Doh!
> %RCVD-!DATA%BAD%BRAIN: Brain malfunction. Twist skull and try again.
LOL. Think " Gimli Glider "... :-)
>>One thing here. Are you sure your fingers haven't done the saw slip,
>>again ? My admittedly older copy of Polmar's Ships/Aircraft US Fleet,
>>has a Mk 15 Phalanx showing a max range of 1,625 yards.
>
> You and I both know it's short, otherwise they wouldn't be fitting
> RAM and the like. I wanted to check the range, and found one source
> that claimed it was classified (I think fas.org). I found another
> source (the (1) from the prior post) that indicated it couldn't
> be any further than 25,000. So, I went with that.
OK.
> If it is 1,625...and the Mk15 can engage 6 per minute...it gets
> *really* bad for the Iowa. Recalculating...The Iowa gets about
> 18 seconds...two Mk15 mouonts, 100% effectiveness, 6 missiles
> downed, leaving 14 inbounds. Oww. Big, big oww. The Iowa might
> not be sinking, but there's lots of dead and she's mission killed.
Exactly. Thats why most ships want a layered defense, with the CIWS
being the last layer. But, for a lone BB, its the *only* layer...
>>> letting through 4 missiles was bad....the Iowa is NOT going to fair
>>> well against hordes of TLAMs inbound. There's no prayer that the
>>> Iowa can stop them all or even close. Meanwhile, the Sprucans have
>>> a chance to stop them all. Regardless, the Iowa is dead for the
>>> price of two Sprucans.
>>
>>Reminicent of the hoards of a/c that killed Yamato, yes ?
>
> Yep, and just as dead....even more quickly.
Indeed. One may consider that Yamato was quite stubborn.
>>> As for guns, in this engagement neither side would ever use its guns
>>> except for the ones in the Mk15 mounts. The ranges would be too
>>> great for the guns to be of any use, unless you tried using the 5"/54s
>>> against the inbound missiles on the Sprucans. I'm not sure they can
>>> do that very effectively though. It's talked about, but I've never
>>> heard anybody rave about it.
>>
>>There was the claim that a RN Type 21 fired at an Exocet during the
>>Falklands War, with differing claims as to whether the missile was
>>actually hit or deflected by it. But, that was with a far more modern
>>gun system than the old 5/38 twin mount.
>
> Quite true in that it was newer. I still have my doubts about the
> effectiveness of a deck gun engaging and defeating an SSM. That's
> a damn hard thing to do with a deck gun. Possible certainly..but
> I have a hard time believing it without cites.
The story from the Falklands has, to my knowledge, never been
confirmed. Though, the idea seems to be at the heart of many
navies' choice for the foreard deck gun on many FF/corvette
types, with the Swedish 57 MM mount, including as found on the
Halifax class FFs in the RCN, as a second CIWS capabale mount.
> 5"/38s were *great* for their time, but that time was a long time
> ago now. Bringing such weapons back online would be foolish at best
> if someone were stupid enough to recom an Iowa.
Indeed. Were one to waste resources that way, removing the last
5/38s and replacing them with single 5/62s would be a mental exercise.
Keith Willshaw
>
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:3daeb6f0$1...@news.newsgroups.com...
> >
> > "Jim" <Jeh...@direcpc.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DAEAE4F...@direcpc.com...
> > > Oh one last note for the know it all land lubbers..
> > >
> > > BB don't carry Sea Hawks, but have you ever hear of a UAV?
> > > the BB deployed UAV's in DS ooops, forgot about thoes little gems
hey.
> > > Shall we talk detabilty compaired Vis a via one to another?
> > > a stealthy UAV VRS a sea hawk. guess they are not quite so blind.
> > >
> > > Game, Set, match...
> > >
> >
> > Lots of luck hunting a sub with one of those
> > UAV's or firing hellfires and Penguins at
> > Fast Patrol Boats
> >
> > Keith
>
> Keith,
> You keep trying to add more assests to you side why ?
> As much as you would like to muddy the waters it isn't working.
> For this exercise a Sub wasn't in the game. Never was.
>
I am pointing out the limitations of your air platform of choice
as others have pointed a UAV is totally unsuited to the
maritime search role having a poor field of vision and
no radar. You'd have to basically fly directly over the
Spruance to see it
> Orignailly my coment was simply that a DD vrs A Moderanized BB wasn't as
> one sided as someone said it would be
> Nothing more or nothing less. For this drill it was simple the simple
> question. Just 1 BB vrs 1 DD
> (not 2 DD, CGs, DDGs, FFGs, SSNs, CVBG, F-15s, A10s , B2s, Starship
> Enterprise, Curlry, Larry or Moe) .
> That is all I ever compaired period. A diffrent ship or ships would yeild
a
> diffrent opinion.
>
> Concerning Penguins (I was never really impressed with them,) of all the
> ASCMs in the world they were way down the threat list.
> They have as many weaknesses as stregnths.
>
> To the vernerable Hellfire... It is a nice anti-tank weapon and would be
> cool against T-72's, and BogHammers..
> Vrs warships, give me a break and put down the crack pipe.
The Argentines found out just how disconcering the effects
of even small anti tank missiles can be in the fight at
South Georgia when the marines started putting holes
in their corvette using the Carl Gustav
> You really think your going to get an SH-60 driver to close within 3nm of
a
> Warship, any Warship, we don't ask out polits to
> be sucidial. Next you will be suggesting everyone man the rails and and
> you will everyone a LAWS rocket and call that ASUW.
>
Given that 3nm is nicely outside effective range of the CIWS
and you have got little or no change of hitting it with the
5"/38 I'd say hell yes
> Topic change (for those who can't seem to tell when I am changing
> thoughts).
>
> I also said and I would like to see a Moderan BattleCruiser With a
> significant NGFS capabilty.
> My opinion is 1 or 2 tubes isn't significant, I would want more. I have a
> right to my opinion as you have a right to yours.
>
I note that the naval architects of the world also disagree with you
> I said it could be Guns or Rockets I really didn't care. Be it 5/62 with
a
> workable EX-171 a couple Auto 8", POLAR (LIKE MLRS)
> I really didn't specify or even care. I just want a platform that can
> produce a "battery" like heavy barrage for my friends the Marines... Then
I
> am Happy!
> By the way POLAR Looks to be an intresting Canadate.
>
Then you should be happy with the 5/61
> The ship would share many capabilities to the Ageis CG/DDG for obivious
> reason. Just a bit larger with More Missles and more rockets (or Guns)
for
> NGFS.
>
As is planned for DD-X follow on
> I like the Tico and the Burke and think they are fine ships. I just would
> would like to see ones capability boosted a smig more.
> I indicatedthe role it could fill
> 1. AAW Area Defense/ NGFS/C4I for an ARG.
> 2. C4I/AAW/ASUW For the LHA(D) when used in a sea control role.
> 3. C4I/AAW/ASUW/Strike in A SAG
> 4. C4I/AAW/STRIKE in a CVBG
>
> Could the Tico or Burke do this? Sure, just not as well. My idea was a
ship
> Larger then a Tico Smaller then the Arsenel Ship (concept)
> and with capabilities of each. IE AGIES C4I and significantly larger
> magazines be it TLAMS, POLARS, SM2 whatever...
> That dosn't mean I think they will build one. Just that I "think it would
> be an intresting concept".
>
> With limited CV's we have it is unrealistic to think they can cover
> everything. They can't be every where at once.
> When you outfit a Burke or Tico for strike you give up the AAW... I would
> just want both at the same time that is all
>
>
In fact you do no such thing
A Burke or Tico can carry a mix of TLAM and standards
and has its gun(s)
Given the likley cost of such a ship its a fair bet that a
flotilla of a Tico/Burke and one of the planned new land attack
destroyers will be both cheaper and more flexible
> In closing there seems to be a Boat load of armchair quarterbacks here.
I
> have been asked on what I base my evaluations on
> I sure would like that same curtisy... do folks know tell the diffrance
> between the head and the a scuttlebutt.
> who has been there done that experience not I read tom clancy and Janes.
>
> When did you sail and what ship/boat/plane did you sail on.
>
> Jim
>
I didnt sir but I have been involved in the design of
nuclear submarine systems for the RN
Andre Lieven
Not really. Heres why. At any one time, one low orbit sat can only
image a tiny bit of Earth's surface, and it likely won't be able to see
that same spot for 24 hours. While working on a very easy to predict
schedule of when it will be overhead again.
So, if you want to keep tabs on a ship with one sat, in LEO, you'll
have to re-find it every 24 hours, in which time a CVN or CG can
move some 700 miles. Unlike a fixed airfield, for instance.
Theres a huge gulf between having one sat to take occasional, and
known when to the other side, and having anything like real time
coverage.
Remember that a sat in LEO is zipping along at 8 km per *second*.
Oh, this also doesn't help you with subs...
> Cheers,
Sleepycat
> jim hiett (Jim....@direcpc.com) writes:
>> one on one, yes. But, its not one on one, as, if you can afford to
>> man an Iowa, I can afford to man *six* Burkes...
>>
>> The exercise was 1 vrs 1 as I read it. not budgets...
>
> That wass only coming from the troll who wanted to load it up against
> the non-BB ships. In reality, subs have to be factored in, just as
> logistics and budgets, people and money, have to be.
So in other words, the question is being sidestepped. (mainly to load it
up against the battleship six to one) The original question was ONE modern
destroyer vs. ONE Iowa battleship. The only variation I put on the answer
was to equip the Iowa with the modern refit.
All the rest of this: subs, helicopters, (hellfires.. lol), airstrikes,
seven-ton missiles, six-ship destroyer task forces, etc. is one red herring
after another...
...because there is a factual massive bias against even the *word*
battleship here. Now even people who have practical experience are being
told they are wrong.
>>>> Each ship I rode had unique capabilities and each had vulnerabilities.
>>>> None were all powerful or invincable.
>
> Indeed. No one here, other than the trolls, ever said or intimated
> otherwise. A good read, such as my re-reading of Sandy Woodward's
> book on his command of Operation Corporate, can well show that, too.
>
Oh, the "trolls" said or intimated some ship was invincible? Really?
Funny, I don't remember that statement.
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
>>> First of all, its not a one of each question.
>>
>> Yes, it IS a one of each question. All this "get your six-pack O' DDGs!"
>> discussion is a red herring.
>
> LOL. Just based on Real World facts is all.
Well, it's a real world red herring, that much we know. Ever going to
address the original question?
Guess not.
--
Sleepycat
Jim
news:aomprt$j75$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Brian Allardice (d...@uniserve.com) writes:
> > In article <aomgsb$je7$1...@mayhem.kiva.net>,
theobvio...@theobviouskiva.net
> > says...
> >>
> >>In article <3dadf6f3$1...@news.qgraph.com>, Jim <Jim....@qti.com> wrote:
> >>>Frankly the Captain/TAO and the tactial decisions would at least be as
large
> >>>a factor as the platforms themselves
> >>
> >>Agreed, but those are subjective variables rather than objective
Andre
I am about done here, I fell I am starting to waste my time trying to teach
the unteachable.
The Spurance isn't the only one with Airborn eyes. Moderanized BB carried
UAV's
They have longer aloft time and are harder to detect to boot. and have all
diffrent sensors to.
The whole pont is that it isn't all one sided like some would promote.
And Ships don't work with out Crews at least none I know of. That is always
the intangable.
Here is a example of a paper drill your trying to play.
This past July the Rams were projected to be in the superbowl on paper, not
go W1-L4.
Oh tried emiailing you directly to showI was not a troll however your email
got bounced back.
I am still waiting for what you Naval profession was what ships you were on.
I answered you your turn.
Jim
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> jim hiett (Jim....@direcpc.com) writes:
>
>>> one on one, yes. But, its not one on one, as, if you can afford to
>>> man an Iowa, I can afford to man *six* Burkes...
>>>
>>> The exercise was 1 vrs 1 as I read it. not budgets...
>>
>> the non-BB ships. In reality, subs have to be factored in, just as
>> logistics and budgets, people and money, have to be.
>
> So in other words, the question is being sidestepped.
Translation: " Sidestepped ", n. 1) To bring into the Real World,
as in, " trolls hate when this is done. "
> (mainly to load it
> up against the battleship six to one) The original question was ONE modern
> destroyer vs. ONE Iowa battleship. The only variation I put on the answer
> was to equip the Iowa with the modern refit.
Which " sidestepped " the Real World Iowa's systems...
But, its OK when YOU " sidestep ".... Uh huh.
> All the rest of this: subs, helicopters, (hellfires.. lol), airstrikes,
> seven-ton missiles, six-ship destroyer task forces, etc. is one red herring
> after another...
Translation: " Red Herring ", n. 1) Real World facts and experience.
As in, " Trolls hate it when facts are used as Red Herrings.
> ...because there is a factual massive bias against even the *word*
> battleship here. Now even people who have practical experience are being
> told they are wrong.
When they are wrong, they'll be told such.
We call that Telling The Truth. I don't expect you've heard of it...
>>>>> Each ship I rode had unique capabilities and each had vulnerabilities.
>>>>> None were all powerful or invincable.
>>
>> Indeed. No one here, other than the trolls, ever said or intimated
>> otherwise. A good read, such as my re-reading of Sandy Woodward's
>> book on his command of Operation Corporate, can well show that, too.
>
> Oh, the "trolls" said or intimated some ship was invincible? Really?
> Funny, I don't remember that statement.
Well, your memory has also been showed here as being greatly
flawed.
That is, of course, only your problem...
( And, the radio's playing a song with the lyric " Unsinkable
ships sink... " Timing )
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:aomprt$j75$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Brian Allardice (d...@uniserve.com) writes:
>> > In article <aomgsb$je7$1...@mayhem.kiva.net>,
>> > theobvio...@theobviouskiva.net says...
>> >>
>> >>In article <3dadf6f3$1...@news.qgraph.com>, Jim <Jim....@qti.com> wrote:
>> >>>Frankly the Captain/TAO and the tactial decisions would at least be as
>> >>>large a factor as the platforms themselves
>> >>
>> >>Agreed, but those are subjective variables rather than objective
>
> Andre
>
> I am about done here, I fell I am starting to waste my time trying to teach
> the unteachable.
Translation: " I can't get you guys who know about these things to buy
into my BS, so I'll pick up my marbles and go home. "
Also, " If you can't answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You
can always call them names ! " Oscar Wilde.
> The Spurance isn't the only one with Airborn eyes. Moderanized BB carried
> UAV's
> They have longer aloft time and are harder to detect to boot. and have all
> diffrent sensors to.
And, as has already been pointed out to you, are NOT fleet search
capable assets. Note, for instance, that those UAVs carry NO radar.
Duh !
> The whole pont is that it isn't all one sided like some would promote.
In going SSM between a BB and a opfor, with a DDG and likely more than
one, since we are talking Real World effects of resource allocation,
then it is rather one sided. Which is the point.
You have *yet* to reply with which systems will aBB shoot down the
helo ? Phalanx doesn't range that far, and the BB carries NO SAMs.
> And Ships don't work with out Crews at least none I know of. That is always
> the intangable.
Yet, you postilate the crew of NCC-1701 running the Iowa, and the
Three Stooges on the DDGs...
> Here is a example of a paper drill your trying to play.
> This past July the Rams were projected to be in the superbowl on paper, not
> go W1-L4.
Oh, so you want to use *sports* as your metaphor ? ROTFLMAO !
> Oh tried emiailing you directly to showI was not a troll however your email
> got bounced back.
> I am still waiting for what you Naval profession was what ships you were on.
> I answered you your turn.
Yet, you have *failed* to say what SAMs would down the DDG's helo...
Must be the new Unobtanium missiles...
Sleepycat
> Think the Hellfires are funny? Ok sport, you tell me what system the
> last refit of an Iowa had that could take out the SH-60 tossing Hellfires
> at it? CIWS? Yeah right. 5"/38? <cough>. Suuurreee...Come on sport.
Oh, give me a #%&#$)(*@$ BREAK. Now you've got one helicopter firing 100
lb. anti-tank missiles at a 57,000 ton warship and winning. So determined
are you to discredit the Iowa-class that you are now actually suggesting
that a hellfire-armed helicopter can go toe to toe with it and win??
Maybe with a torpedo and this week's lottery numbers it could, but I think
those British Swordfish pilots have retired.
Just one question: what color is the sky over the ocean where this
"battle" takes place?
So the helicopter pulls to say, 8km to fire their mosquito-sized missiles
and the Iowa opens up with every weapons system it has: SAMs or not, a
battleship can rain down a world of hurt on a hovering target at 8km: at
least 30,000 lbs. a minute.
(And before you start with "that's not the range of the missile" that's as
far as the tables go... and yeah, I LOOKED IT UP)
>
> Keep trolling buddy
Oh, you're suggesting one helicopter can disable a battleship with
anti-tank missiles, and *I'm* trolling? Please.
--
Sleepycat
Mark E. Anderson
<snip>
> So in other words, the question is being sidestepped. (mainly to load it
> up against the battleship six to one) The original question was ONE modern
> destroyer vs. ONE Iowa battleship. The only variation I put on the answer
> was to equip the Iowa with the modern refit.
to jump in late...
this is the old "armor vs wpns" debate of many ages hence, and it comes down
to "if you kill him first, you don't have to parry". the "armor" of any of
the ships can't take a hit from a modern missile - it's all damage control.
it comes down to finding the target and hitting it before it hits you.
questions about whether or not a "modern" BB can do the job are rather silly,
truthfully. any modernization is going to take money, and that's why a question
of if the money can be spent better elsewhere or the allocation of assets
keeps cropping up. if you're not talking money, then all bets are off. not
being grounded in the reality of shipbuilding, and having read lots of sci-fi,
i'd bet i can make a better bogo-ship than you could! ;)
<snip>
> --
> Sleepycat
as for any other aspects of the BB - such as the shore bombardment, i
respectfully put forward that all of the other proposals are inadequate.
it's going to be UAVs, one or more per marine. each grunt gets his own
integral and personal firesupport team. well, maybe not UAVs... i could
imagine a BUFF at 50k loitering around with a bunch of weapons waiting for
that "get that thing for me, will ya?" and then casually cutting loose
a present or two. but the point is that a ship off-shore is a big asset
and as such, it's never going to be where the guy in mud is going to want
it. there is always going to be that layer of command and control that
keeps it distant. of the two, the UAVs are probably the faster - both
in terms of being when/where and production time.
hmmm, addendum: if you could make an "MLRS-like" system shipboard that
could give the grunt his own batch of toys, then it's like the BUFF at
50k, so i guess i can see a similarity there. maybe multiple guns... but
then you get into arguments of "who gets which shot when".
--
mark anderson "I had a little bird. Its name was "Enza".
wombats.near.nmrfam.wisc.edu Opened up the window, in flew Enza."
http://www.nmrfam.wisc.edu childrens' rhyme, 1918
near, at, what's it all among friends?
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
You must have been asleep, because it has been answered, several times
by my count, but most emphatically by Paul A.
You bring an Iowa. He brings a T42. He had no doubt about who comes
away in the best trim, and he's someone who designs weapon systems
for a living. And the T42 ain't precis;ly state of the art.
Keith Willshaw
"Sleepycat" <dev...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uqu4em2...@news.supernews.com...
> Geoff Cashman wrote:
>
> > Think the Hellfires are funny? Ok sport, you tell me what system the
> > last refit of an Iowa had that could take out the SH-60 tossing
Hellfires
> > at it? CIWS? Yeah right. 5"/38? <cough>. Suuurreee...Come on sport.
>
> Oh, give me a #%&#$)(*@$ BREAK. Now you've got one helicopter firing 100
> lb. anti-tank missiles at a 57,000 ton warship and winning. So determined
> are you to discredit the Iowa-class that you are now actually suggesting
> that a hellfire-armed helicopter can go toe to toe with it and win??
> Maybe with a torpedo and this week's lottery numbers it could, but I think
> those British Swordfish pilots have retired.
>
> Just one question: what color is the sky over the ocean where this
> "battle" takes place?
>
> So the helicopter pulls to say, 8km to fire their mosquito-sized missiles
> and the Iowa opens up with every weapons system it has: SAMs or not, a
> battleship can rain down a world of hurt on a hovering target at 8km: at
> least 30,000 lbs. a minute.
>
Which does no good whatever when they miss.
The Japanese tried firing main armament against torpedo
planes which had to apporach far closer with a spectacular
lack of success.
The simple fact is that the main 16" guns have no useful
AAW role and the 5"/38's are going to be almost useless
at that range.
> (And before you start with "that's not the range of the missile" that's
as
> far as the tables go... and yeah, I LOOKED IT UP)
>
> >
> > Keep trolling buddy
>
> Oh, you're suggesting one helicopter can disable a battleship with
> anti-tank missiles, and *I'm* trolling? Please.
>
Actually he didnt , he pointed out that you could mission
kill it by knocking out its sensors for example.
Personally I dont think they bother with the hellfires until
they had emptied the bomb locker of Penguins
AGM-119 which can be carried by the SH-60's is a nasty
piece of work. Its a fire and forget missile with a 265 lb
semi armour piercing warhead. While it wouldnt penetrate the
belt it'd raise merry hell with the upperworks and sensors.
It arrives at mach 1.2 and with a small profile and range of 20+ miles
its far from proven that the Phalanx CIWS could handle the threat
Keith
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Sleepycat <dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Geoff Cashman wrote:
>
>> Think the Hellfires are funny? Ok sport, you tell me what system the
>> last refit of an Iowa had that could take out the SH-60 tossing Hellfires
>> at it? CIWS? Yeah right. 5"/38? <cough>. Suuurreee...Come on sport.
>
>Oh, give me a #%&#$)(*@$ BREAK. Now you've got one helicopter firing 100
>lb. anti-tank missiles at a 57,000 ton warship and winning. So determined
>are you to discredit the Iowa-class that you are now actually suggesting
>that a hellfire-armed helicopter can go toe to toe with it and win??
How well armoured is the rangefinder?
One hit there and the battleship is out of the game. Local control has
been for the desperate ever since Percy Scott preached the gospel
of actually hitting the target.
In principle Norfolk wasn't a match for a battleship. She rendered
two unable to fight effectively.
To lose one rangefinfer might be considered unlucky...
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Sleepycat
> Besides, the Hellfire is *designed* to penetrate armor.
TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period. Don't need a
reference book for that.
> The Iowa doesn't
> have belt armor all over the whole damn ship.
No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
withstand anti-tank missiles.
>
> You don't have to sink a ship to win.
>
>
>>So the helicopter pulls to say, 8km to fire their mosquito-sized missiles
>>and the Iowa opens up with every weapons system it has: SAMs or not, a
>>battleship can rain down a world of hurt on a hovering target at 8km: at
>>least 30,000 lbs. a minute.
>
> ...and not a bit of it has much of chance of hitting.
Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air, and
if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than some
wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to stay up
around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well underwater, and
30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
into an expensive dust cloud.
This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
--
Sleepycat
Keith Willshaw
> Geoff Cashman wrote:
>
>
> > Besides, the Hellfire is *designed* to penetrate armor.
>
> TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period. Don't need
a
> reference book for that.
>
You obviously do
Modern tank armor is FAR more effective than the antideluvian
steel stuff on the battleships
An Iowa has belt armour that maxes out at 12" around 280mm
A Russian T-62 , a rather elderly design has armor of similar
thickness. The US Abrams and British Challenger 2 are far better
protected with armor that resists heat warheads such as those
fitted to ATGM's very much better than a steel plate.
>
> > The Iowa doesn't
> > have belt armor all over the whole damn ship.
>
> No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
> withstand anti-tank missiles.
>
Which turns out to be incorrect
> >
> > You don't have to sink a ship to win.
> >
> >
> >>So the helicopter pulls to say, 8km to fire their mosquito-sized
missiles
> >>and the Iowa opens up with every weapons system it has: SAMs or not, a
> >>battleship can rain down a world of hurt on a hovering target at 8km:
at
> >>least 30,000 lbs. a minute.
> >
> > ...and not a bit of it has much of chance of hitting.
>
> Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air, and
> if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than some
> wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to stay
up
> around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well underwater,
and
> 30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
>
No problemo
> This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
> into an expensive dust cloud.
>
> This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
> suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
>
I'll bet the Admiral aboard Bismarck said that as the
Swordfish rolled in to attack
Keith
Peter Skelton
<dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Geoff Cashman wrote:
>
>
>> Besides, the Hellfire is *designed* to penetrate armor.
>
>TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period. Don't need a
>reference book for that.
I think you do. Tank armour is thicker in some places than any BB
armour. Of course not all AT missles will penatrate all tank
armour. An AT missle is, generally speaking a good bet to get
into a bb anywhere but the citadel (magazines, engineering sapces
and main turrets/barbettes)
>
>> The Iowa doesn't
>> have belt armor all over the whole damn ship.
>
>No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
>withstand anti-tank missiles.
>
see above.
BTW - the reason ships don't worry much about anti-tank missles
is that, althouth they are about certain to get in, the space
they get into is generally large enough to absorb the effects
with relatively minor damage. Armour is not relevant, space is.
>
>> You don't have to sink a ship to win.
>>
>>
>>>So the helicopter pulls to say, 8km to fire their mosquito-sized missiles
>>>and the Iowa opens up with every weapons system it has: SAMs or not, a
>>>battleship can rain down a world of hurt on a hovering target at 8km: at
>>>least 30,000 lbs. a minute.
>>
>> ...and not a bit of it has much of chance of hitting.
>
>Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air, and
>if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than some
>wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to stay up
>around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well underwater, and
>30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
Tha above is even sillier than the bit about anti-tank missles.
>This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
>into an expensive dust cloud.
>
>This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
>suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
>
No, the helicopter is part of the opponent's armament suite.
____
Peter Skelton
Paul J. Adam
<dev...@nospam.com> writes
>Geoff Cashman wrote:
>> 4 SH-60Bs 0 Helicopters
>
>IIRC, Iowas can launch and recover helicopters from an aft flight deck.
Only if you promise not to use the aft turret, and as long as you don't
intend to _use_ the helicopters much: 'facilities' are limited to fuel
blivets in abandoned 40mm gun tubs. No maintenance, no rearmament, no
repair.
--
Paul J. Adam
Paul J. Adam
<dev...@nospam.com> writes
>Geoff Cashman wrote:
>> Besides, the Hellfire is *designed* to penetrate armor.
>
>TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period. Don't need a
>reference book for that.
I keep wondering if this guy is as stupid as he seems. This last
statement is just _priceless_ - either it's a meticulous troll, or
someone who has gone through idiocy and out the other side.
>> The Iowa doesn't
>> have belt armor all over the whole damn ship.
>
>No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
>withstand anti-tank missiles.
Over the radars? Over the EW gear? Over the CIWS? Over the missile
launchers?
(The answers, by the way, are 'no' to all the above)
>> ...and not a bit of it has much of chance of hitting.
>
>Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air, and
>if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over.
The H-60s have demonstrated a remarkable resilience. One took a direct
hit from an RPG-7 and got itself and its crew safely out of the combat
zone (though one of the doorgunners lost a leg and the whole side of the
helicopter was ripped open). Another completed its mission and came home
after fifty or sixty close-range hits from small-arms fire.
I wouldn't assume they're easy to shoot down: the evidence isn't there.
> Better chance than some
>wild shot hitting the rangefinder.
Hellfire can pick its aimpoint against a tank-size target: it can hit
what it wants on a battleship.
>This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
>into an expensive dust cloud.
Hellfire is very small compared to anti-ship missiles, and also comes in
on an arching trajectory that makes life difficult for CIWS (which
presumes an incoming threat on an intercept trajectory)
>This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
>suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
In a lot of circumstances, one helicopter with a payload of, say, eight
Hellfires could mission-kill a battleship and send it retreating for
repairs.
Sad, isn't it?
--
Paul J. Adam
Keith Willshaw
"Geoff Cashman" <theobvio...@theobviouskiva.net> wrote in message
news:aongh4$6fr$1...@mayhem.kiva.net...
> In article <aondlk$asl$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Keith Willshaw <keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Sleepycat" <dev...@nospam.com> wrote in message
need
> >>a reference book for that.
> >
> >You obviously do
>
> missile. It's sad that he won't continue this way and find out the
> capabilities of this missile.
>
>
> >> No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
> >> withstand anti-tank missiles.
> >
> >Which turns out to be incorrect
>
> The Hellfires would absolutely wreck anything the SH-60 wanted
> to wreck on the Iowa that wasn't armored, and anything that
> was armored would definitely suffer, just a matter of degree.
>
>
> >> Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air,
and
> >> if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than
some
> >> wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to
stay
> >> up around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well
underwater,
> >> and 30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
>
> columns of water rising from the ocean!" Next up he'll be deploying
> tunafish!
>
>
>
> >> This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming
missiles
> >> into an expensive dust cloud.
>
> the same time on the same side of the Iowa. Two exposed Mk15 mounts
> to stop them. 18 inbound missiles, and just two mounts. You'll need
> almost a minute assuming 100% effectiveness to take them out. You don't
> get that long. You get less than 25 seconds, if that. 10 of those missiles
> will most likely remain unengaged. Even if *half* of them miss, you've
> still been hit by 5 missiles.
>
> An hour later (or significantly less possibly) the SH-60s are back
> with another 10 missiles to toss at you, and they can keep doing
> it until the Sprucan runs out of reloads.
>
> Meanwhile, there's *nothing* you can do to stop them. You can't
> catch the Spruance because it knows where you are and is faster.
> You can't use your guns because they don't have sufficient range.
> You can't launch your harpoons because you have no place to aim
> them because you don't have targeting data. You can't shoot down
> the SH-60s because nothing has the range/accuracy combination
> to make it happen.
>
> Are you getting it yet?
>
> YOU ARE DEFENSELESS
>
At some point with the directors and radar down the Sprucan
can close to gun range and turn the upperworks into an
inferno. The chances of obtaining a hit with a working
director and central fire control on a Spruance at
12,000 yards were poor enough but under local control
you can forget,. The Sprucan on the other hand should
be able to hit nicely.
She may not sink but the BB would be lucky to
make home port.
>
> >> This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
> >> suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
> >
> >I'll bet the Admiral aboard Bismarck said that as the
> >Swordfish rolled in to attack
>
> Amen :)
>
> -Geoff
>
Keith
Kerryn Offord
Sleepycat wrote:
>
> Geoff Cashman wrote:
>
>
> > Besides, the Hellfire is *designed* to penetrate armor.
>
> TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period. Don't need a
> reference book for that.
WOW! Now that is a bit of a clanger...
Why won't Hellfire penetrate BB armour? I mean, HEAT warheads penetrate
a multiple (3+) of their diameter (actually varies by design and liner
material). Hellfire has a diameter of 7 inches (17.78 centimeters)
meaning penetration ~21"+ (having an actual penetration rating of 900+mm
or ~35" of RHA).
The armour on a BB is approximately RHA and at it's thickest (on the
Iowa) no more than 17-18"....... therefore hellfire can easily penetrate
any point on the BB.
> > The Iowa doesn't
> > have belt armor all over the whole damn ship.
>
> No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
> withstand anti-tank missiles.
It has armour protecting turrets, citadel, turret barbettes, the belt
protects the (IIRC) propulsion system and ammo stores. None of these are
protected by more than 18" of armour... which means that Hellfire (and
many other ATGWs) can penetrate anywhere it can hit.
Also, the thickness of the armour actually benefits the effectiveness of
the Hellfire as it means more white hot metal fragments penetrating the
cavity at ~20,000 fps.....
Of course there are lots of relatively empty spaces on a BB where
penetration won't have much effect.... but taking out the Citadel (fire
control), or penetrating the barbettes having a chance of igniting gun
charges... (remember what happened to Iowa when there was an explosion
in a turret......). Maybe target the aerials fire to kill off the radar
systems......
>
> >
> > You don't have to sink a ship to win.
> >
> >
> >>So the helicopter pulls to say, 8km to fire their mosquito-sized missiles
> >>and the Iowa opens up with every weapons system it has: SAMs or not, a
> >>battleship can rain down a world of hurt on a hovering target at 8km: at
> >>least 30,000 lbs. a minute.
> >
> > ...and not a bit of it has much of chance of hitting.
>
> Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air, and
> if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than some
> wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to stay up
> around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well underwater, and
> 30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
Firstly, the BB has to detect the helicopter.....
Remember Hellfire is Fire-and-forget. The launching helicopter doesn't
have to hover... The missile may only have a 8 km range but a laser
designator has a range of ???
30,000 lbs of shells... this is what guns firing at what rate of fire?
The 16" won't do much and if you come up behind or from the front that
certainly limits the number of 5" that can fire.....
>
> This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
> into an expensive dust cloud.
Iowa upgrade had4 Phalanx, I'm not sure of the arrangement but it is
probable that the vessel could be attacked such that no more than 1,
maybe 2 can engage incoming missiles.
The Phalanx (Block 0) that was fitted to Iowa was only rated as useful
against sub-sonic ASMs. Hellfire is supersonic (950mph). Phalanx has
between 20 and 30 seconds worth of ammo.. an attacking helicoper will
probably have 8 Hellfire (2x4).
>
> This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
> suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
No, just that one helicopter from the DD the BB is engaging can
sufficiently damage the BB that when the DD gets within missile range
the BB is defenceless (won't even know what's coming). Meanwhile, the
simultaneous air strike by the BBs own ASM equipped helicopters can be
engaged and shot down by the air defence systems of the DD.
Paul J. Adam
<dev...@nospam.com> writes
>Andre Lieven wrote:
>> That wass only coming from the troll who wanted to load it up against
>> the non-BB ships. In reality, subs have to be factored in, just as
>> logistics and budgets, people and money, have to be.
>
>So in other words, the question is being sidestepped.
What, you mean the Navy _doesn't_ have to think about money, manpower,
or the whole battlespace?
That'll interest them.
>(mainly to load it
>up against the battleship six to one) The original question was ONE modern
>destroyer vs. ONE Iowa battleship. The only variation I put on the answer
>was to equip the Iowa with the modern refit.
What's interesting is that you end up with five times the money and ten
times the sailors... and no particular increase in anti-ship efficiency.
A modern destroyer leaves the IOWA a burning hulk for a _lot_ less
investment.
>All the rest of this: subs, helicopters, (hellfires.. lol)
Tell you what, sport - _you_ fix the Phalanx that just got hit by a
Hellfire.
See, a modern destroyer comes with modern helicopters. Part of the
standard issue. And those modern helicopters can fire modern missiles.
Sorry you don't like reality.
>...because there is a factual massive bias against even the *word*
>battleship here.
In terms of modern combat, and when applied to "big ships with big guns
relying on thick slabs of armour over small areas", then yes - because
that's been shown to be a great way to get expensive ships sunk and
expensively-trained sailors killed.
--
Paul J. Adam
Jim
stackclimber wrote:
> Totally agree with your view of: SLQ32 is an overpriced but lousy fuzzbuster
> on the passive side. Should have been teamed with a cheap close analysis
> suite.
> WLR-1 had superb sensitivity and selectivity. The MX 9414 was built by Texas
> Instruments as a digital pulse train sorter/analyzer, and we had a similar
> setup in DDG-33. I liked the angle gating unit/IFM interface. The operator
> could slew the NB gear onto the WLR-11 signal strobe so quickly, it made it
> feasible to fight a low intensity air action (although I wouldn't really
> want to!). Remember the goofy alert klaxon on the 11?
Complete Agreement! A real lousy fuzzbuster. I truly think a Dual config
WRL-1G/Wrl 11 and SLQ-32V3 was the way to go! Each made up for the
others shortcomings.
My G ran better the -90dbm and with some loving care the C would go over
-110dbm with all the pads on the Gigatronics I owned. I also Loved the
MX/WLR-11 combo. and yea I liked the klaxon set the Right-11 for band 9
and left to band 10 turn the alarm on band 10 and keep the knob
turning... Never used the auto scan always manual... If you knew what
your looking for wasn't that bad really. much better then beep beep beep...
I had the good luck in 1982 to be sitting on PiRaz for 3 carrier ops off
Petropovlosk (sp?), Midway kept their attention, at the same time
The Coral Sea group and our Group (enterprise) ditched our tattle tails
we all met up about 300 nm due east of petro. Mr bear made his normal
look see and found 3 CVBG not just the midway as expected. Ivan got
alittle worked up for a while.
I found the WLR with its range allowed early ID and intercept (
receptions) of visiting Soviet Bombers (350-400nm was pretty standard)
over a 3 week period saw every heavy Ivan could fly Bear-C/D/F Badgers
C/G and we made the first recorded intercept of a Backfire. Use to have
a nice pick from a grate full Black Lion Pilot.
We found with hard work on the stack and the NDTS operator in constant
comms with the Trac-sup/AIC and TAO we could keep a good picture for
them. I recall one watch where we had like 60 inbounds in like 50-60
minutes, talk about humping. grease pencil notes every where! Not to
mention The 14's and 4s airborne. I was really suprised the density you
could get into and actually do well when everyone was talking back and
forth.
Of course that was the skipper... Our Skipper, Jack Shaw really liked
and believed in us, he knew what the Standby switch was made for and we
spent alot of time in total emcom like a church mouse. It was great no
noise, no interference, just a flat Pan-Trace! Made our work so much
easier! He also worked us hard and expected alot from the shack! We did
lots of TMA and Passive setups for poons, everything. He was a real
sharp cookie! I remember his telling a Junior Zero "they are like EF
Huffen they talk you listen!"
Those were good days! Our Goal was always shoot the platform before it
could shoot us. God I loved that Boat! Never had an environment like
that again either. Sorry for reminiscing, I really miss it...
That was as good as it got in my 15 years. Never again equaled that
Cruse. Best ship best skipper Best CIC team I ever worked with.
Jim
> "Jim" <Jeh...@direcpc.com> wrote in message
> news:3DAE367...@direcpc.com...
>
>>WLR-1 C/G Slq-23
>>had a G/WLR-11 mx-9442(I think that was it) and 23 on the Billy B
>>Had a C on the Belleau wood and Detroit
>>
>>Was re-schooled on the SLQ-32V4 before going to the E
>>and worked the V3 on the pete. but by then did more evaluating then
>>operating...
>>
>>Liked the 32 for active side Didn't care for it passive
>>
>>But I trully loved the WLR-1. (that is just me i guess)
>>Loved to be able to see and hear it and know what it was doing. instead
>>of a dumb symbol, loved the range do you know what I mean...
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>stackclimber wrote:
>>
>>>Say, Jim;
>>>Which major countermeasures systems were you trained on/worked with? I
>>
> ask
>
>>>as a former EW myself with background in all the major systems from
>>
> BLR-1
>
>>>and APR-12 through to WLR-1C,D,E,F,G,H and through to SLQ-34(Ha-Ha),and
>>
> so
>
>>>on to SLQ-32(V)2,3,5. I loved the work.
>>>"Jim" <Jim....@qti.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3dadf6f3$1...@news.qgraph.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>:) You're welcome, I think :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>DD/FF Vrs a Iowa BB and no one seem to account for a moderanized Iowa
>>>>>
>>>who
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>carries twice the harpoons of a moderan strike DD and just slightly
>>>>>
>>>fewer
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>T-LAMS.
>>>>>
>>>>>16 instead of 8 harpoons. Big whoop. If that's the big advantage you're
>>>>>seaking, two Sprucans (we have some in decommission too!) can give you
>>>>>the same outfit as a modernized Iowa.
>>>>>
>>>>>Slightly fewer TLAMs? Er, no. Try 29 less (assuming the Sprucan's Mk41
>>>>>is fully loaded with TLAMs). You'd need two Iowas to *barely* exceed
>>>>>one Sprucan.
>>>>
>>>>Snip
>>>>
>>>>If a ship is taking hits in a high threat environment from .50s
>>>
>>>somewhere,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>it's in the wrong place or is already dead.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Geoff
>>>>
>>>>Geoff
>>>>You have some points and some errors. My turn.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't make the rules or senerio someone else did. The senerio was 1
>>>
>>>DD/FF
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vrs 1 BB not 2 DD vrs 1BB. But ok.
>>>>In this face off It will be a missle battle agrreeded. Guns will
>>>
>>>unlikly
>>>
>>>
>>>>play a role period.
>>>>
>>>>Frankly the Captain/TAO and the tactial decisions would at least be as
>>>
>>>large
>>>
>>>
>>>>a factor as the platforms themselves
>>>>Each has pluses and minuses.. Frankly what it is likly going to come
>>>
> down
>
>>>>to is aquisition.
>>>>In naval warefare whoever shots first generally wins.
>>>>
>>>>I think we could each provide ample senerios where eather side could
>>>
>>>loose.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The BB has more missles, and higher antennas the give a longer RLOS
>>>>That effects aquisition Both Active and Passive.
>>>>
>>>>Emcon would be important to prevent passave detection. This goes both
>>>
>>>ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some DDs have Spooks and the BB had spooks also.
>>>>Helos are great and can do localization but you need that first sniff
>>>
> too.
>
>>>>Helos don't operate in open ocen without moma near by and they
>>>>don't stray far with out comms or radar or tacan or a datalink and they
>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>>all subject to intercept. The helo radar will give a blip but a skunk
>>>
> is
>
>>>>just a skunk with out an id. and if the BB isn't helping the helo would
>>>
>>>need
>>>
>>>
>>>>a visual and if at night the helo might get into 5" 38 range.
>>>>
>>>>Stay to the shipping lanes and use deception/emcon and eather ship could
>>>
>>>get
>>>
>>>
>>>>with-in visual range at night, if that happens the DD would be mauled
>>>>period.
>>>>bettween missles and guns say dead meat! Dont say never happen!
>>>>
>>>>In 1982 fleet-ex I was on the Billy B (CGN-25) playing Orange we did
>>>>exactly that. We successfully prentrated the Big E's screen off
>>>
>>>Cataliona
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is. as we were passing the Big E at 6k yards to starboard we lit
>>>
>>>everything
>>>
>>>
>>>>up (went active radar /fire control/ ECM etc etc ) and rang up a flank
>>>
> max
>
>>>>speed bell to shoot and scoot . I would have loved to see the faces on
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>Big E that night!
>>>>
>>>>Per the Umpires Blue lost a CVN, CG and DD. 8 poons into the E and and
>>>
> a
>
>>>>double ender firing SM2-ER (real nasty at that range!) FWD at the CG
>>>
> and
>
>>>>Aft at the DD Was a fun suprise and we got Ice Cream to boot!
>>>>
>>>>As I said it is really Tactics and luck as much as platforms. Neather
>>>
> has
>
>>>>squat for AAW and each can be overwelmed.
>>>>I know for a fact the BB with take more damage before sinking! It is
>>>>larger and more tonage and more water tight compartments.
>>>>1 poon will pretty much blow a tin can in hafe or at least to the
>>>
>>>waterline
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have seen poon hits on cans it isn't pretty!
>>>>
>>>>As for AAW the SPS40 stinks for low flyers. The SPS55 is better as is
>>>
> the
>
>>>>Spq-9 but they scream DD shot me
>>>>without aquasition Nssms is useless. An in this case turning on a
>>>
> unique
>
>>>>emmitted would get you TMA'ed
>>>>and shot long before you aquire.
>>>>
>>>>If missles fly the BB SPS 49 is worlds better at low flyers then the 40b
>>>
>>>is
>>>
>>>
>>>>but who cares they have no AAW eather
>>>>the only benifit is early release of chaff decoys and battening down
>>>
> the
>
>>>>hatches.
>>>>
>>>>NSSMS is pretty much a last ditch shot same as CIWS. Not good at low
>>>
>>>flyers
>>>
>>>
>>>>based on my experience.
>>>>I havs seen lots of failed NSSMS shoots. We used to figure we need to
>>>>soft-kill a Missle or pray R2 would take it.
>>>>I wouldn't bet my life on NSSMS!
>>>>
>>>>I estamate 6 poons to take out a DD, between multi-axis and skimmers
>>>
> and
>
>>>>pop-ups I could overwhelm a DD .
>>>>No problem. Pretty much the same for the BB. so bach to detection.
>>>>
>>>>A note in the Navy on severial units CIWS replaced NSSMS. between the
>>>
> two
>
>>>I
>>>
>>>
>>>>wouldn't can say the isn't a distint advantage Vrs cruse missles..
>>>>CIWS works pretty well.
>>>>
>>>>The MK41 is useless. Now if they have ENSSMS Maybe However last I knew
>>>>ENSSMS wasn't deployed.
>>>> The TASM isn't in current Inventory or currently loaded. TLAMs are
>>>
> no
>
>>>>good in ASUW.
>>>> SO Frankly I don't care how many TLAMS you have, can't use them.
>>>>
>>>>2 Same for ASW torps VLS ASROC etc etc etc.
>>>>
>>>>3 So it is Harpoons Vrs Harpoons
>>>>
>>>>In short whom ever detects and launches and hits first wins..
>>>>
>>>>And that is the way it goes.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>Oh When I was on the Pete we didn't have RAM sorry. I checked and it
>>>
>>>still
>>>
>>>
>>>>dosn't...
>>>>and Tasm Are not in the invantory anymore Goodday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Jack Love
<keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>At some point with the directors and radar down the Sprucan
>can close to gun range and turn the upperworks into an
>inferno. The chances of obtaining a hit with a working
>director and central fire control on a Spruance at
>12,000 yards were poor enough but under local control
>you can forget,. The Sprucan on the other hand should
>be able to hit nicely.
>
>She may not sink but the BB would be lucky to
>make home port.
Interesting: this was exaclty my technique vs KIROV in one of the
naval wargames. I noticed that I outranged their (whatever it was)
100mm gun, and had enough AAA missiles to defeat their incoming.
Focussed completely on air defense closed to my gun range and blew
them unpleasantly apart worked like a charm. Absolutely no reason it
shouldn't work vs a BB.
Jim
Andre
No hard feelings here :).
I get a bit worked up being called a troll.
I think the point I was making is If The refitted BB had to fight a dd
It wouldn't be cut and Dry as some said. The DDG stuff predated me and
was off my screen. Personally I feel their are to many variables to make
anything assured. Weather, skippers, crews, places etc.
I also don't think the BB would have a cake walk.
I agree bring back the BB is a waste.
Coral Sea and America, right ?
Yes and someone came from IO side to relieve CS don't recall who however.
>
snip
>>1992-1995 USS CVN-65 Enterprise Shipyard and Shakedown, local ops,
>>car-qauls Bomb-cat eval (f-14 in strike role).
>
>
> Interesting timing. I may have met you then CO and XO, who attended a
> convention I was at in the summer of '93 or '94, can't quite recall
> right now. Got a signed copy of the Big E's cruise book " Power In
> Motion ", signed by Capts Roper and Richardson.
>
> I think that was the same summer in which my then g/f and I visited
> two Russian warships in Boston, and I got to speak with some of their
> crews about their systems, speaking in Russian.
>
I remember several tours right after we got out of the yards, they had a
star trek convention in town and we were swamped and we also toured some
Europeans but don't recall who the visitors were
> I'm not convinced that a Kirov could acquire, on her own, a DDG that
> far out.
They had helos or would need a fwd observer to target same as anyone
else with long range SSMs.
I don't build ships I just operated them and played war for a long time.
My part was EW, Finding the other guy and if needed making his life as
miserable as possible. as i said Command and crew are always the
deciding factor when it is close.
Jim
Jim
Mark E. Anderson wrote:
> Sleepycat <dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>So in other words, the question is being sidestepped. (mainly to load it
>>up against the battleship six to one) The original question was ONE modern
>>destroyer vs. ONE Iowa battleship. The only variation I put on the answer
>>was to equip the Iowa with the modern refit.
>
>
> to jump in late...
> this is the old "armor vs wpns" debate of many ages hence, and it comes down
> to "if you kill him first, you don't have to parry". the "armor" of any of
> the ships can't take a hit from a modern missile - it's all damage control.
> it comes down to finding the target and hitting it before it hits you.
> questions about whether or not a "modern" BB can do the job are rather silly,
> truthfully. any modernization is going to take money, and that's why a question
> of if the money can be spent better elsewhere or the allocation of assets
> keeps cropping up. if you're not talking money, then all bets are off. not
> being grounded in the reality of shipbuilding, and having read lots of sci-fi,
> i'd bet i can make a better bogo-ship than you could! ;)
Thank you Mark ...
>
> <snip>
>
>>--
>>Sleepycat
>
>
>
> as for any other aspects of the BB - such as the shore bombardment, i
> respectfully put forward that all of the other proposals are inadequate.
> it's going to be UAVs, one or more per marine. each grunt gets his own
> integral and personal firesupport team. well, maybe not UAVs... i could
> imagine a BUFF at 50k loitering around with a bunch of weapons waiting for
> that "get that thing for me, will ya?" and then casually cutting loose
> a present or two. but the point is that a ship off-shore is a big asset
> and as such, it's never going to be where the guy in mud is going to want
> it. there is always going to be that layer of command and control that
> keeps it distant. of the two, the UAVs are probably the faster - both
> in terms of being when/where and production time.
>
> hmmm, addendum: if you could make an "MLRS-like" system shipboard that
> could give the grunt his own batch of toys, then it's like the BUFF at
> 50k, so i guess i can see a similarity there. maybe multiple guns... but
> then you get into arguments of "who gets which shot when".
>
Mark look up the POLAR system by lockheed I think it is
is a modified MLRS fired from a VLS tube.
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Equipment/POLAR_Bombardment_Missile.htm
what you think.
Jim
Andre Lieven
And, no hangar, so no weatherproof facilities.
Jason Larke
S> TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period.
S> Don't need a reference book for that.
Oh, I think you do. A quick search on Google for "Hellfire
penetration" shows a bunch of pages that all claim penetration is
"classified" but here's a page on the Russian AT-6 Spiral that
might be interesting. It says the Spiral can penetrate up to
700mm of armor. I don't know how Hellfire stacks up, but given
that it's a heavier missile (100lbs vs ~66lbs) with a similar
role, I think it's reasonable to assume it would penetrate about
as well.
Friedman gives the turret faces of an Iowa 18" of armor, which
would be 457.2mm. 700 being healthily greater than 457.2, I have
to assume that the Hellfire is going to leave one hell of a
mark. What do you think would happen if that hit went down while
the crew was trying to work the gun?
--
Jason Larke- jla...@uu.net- http://www.nnaf.net/~jlarke Send mail for PGP key
I don't speak for UUNET or Worldcom. I speak for Odin. And he's *pissed*.
Any sufficiently advanced weapon is indistinguishable from a practical joke.
"People change, and smile: but the agony abides."-T.S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages
Andre Lieven
Here, neither. With all that I've had in life, this stuff isn't anywhere
near close to getting me really riled.
Its just that I objected to "Sleepycat's" studied stupidity.
> I get a bit worked up being called a troll.
> I think the point I was making is If The refitted BB had to fight a dd
> It wouldn't be cut and Dry as some said. The DDG stuff predated me and
> was off my screen. Personally I feel their are to many variables to make
> anything assured. Weather, skippers, crews, places etc.
> I also don't think the BB would have a cake walk.
In general, I really don't see a way that a lone 1980s Iowa doesn't
get at least mission killed. Even without subs.
After all, the uses that the USN put them to 1982-1991, were all in
low threats.
> I agree bring back the BB is a waste.
Yep.
>> Coral Sea and America, right ?
>
> Yes and someone came from IO side to relieve CS don't recall who however.
Yeah, that sounds right.
> snip
>
>>>1992-1995 USS CVN-65 Enterprise Shipyard and Shakedown, local ops,
>>>car-qauls Bomb-cat eval (f-14 in strike role).
>>
>> Interesting timing. I may have met you then CO and XO, who attended a
>> convention I was at in the summer of '93 or '94, can't quite recall
>> right now. Got a signed copy of the Big E's cruise book " Power In
>> Motion ", signed by Capts Roper and Richardson.
>>
>> I think that was the same summer in which my then g/f and I visited
>> two Russian warships in Boston, and I got to speak with some of their
>> crews about their systems, speaking in Russian.
>>
> I remember several tours right after we got out of the yards, they had a
> star trek convention in town and we were swamped and we also toured some
> Europeans but don't recall who the visitors were
That was likely the same convention. A bunch of us, including my g/f, me,
and others, hung out with a batch of the enlisted Big E sailors there.
>> I'm not convinced that a Kirov could acquire, on her own, a DDG that
>> far out.
>
> They had helos or would need a fwd observer to target same as anyone
> else with long range SSMs.
Though, the Kirov helo would likely eat a SAM, briskly.
> I don't build ships I just operated them and played war for a long time.
> My part was EW, Finding the other guy and if needed making his life as
> miserable as possible. as i said Command and crew are always the
> deciding factor when it is close.
Its a big factor, for sure, but some things are still in the metal.
And, with the stuff we've learned about the former USSR Navy, they
now look even less formidable. Then again, I recall the flap that
was on, when the Krivak class FFGs first came out. All sorts of
" super destroyer " articles, how their 4 ( presumed to be ) SSMs
were better than anything the west had at sea. That turned out to
be *way off*, too. They weren't even as good as a Knox.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> > /previous posters' comments snipped/
>
> How well armoured is the rangefinder?
>
> One hit there and the battleship is out of the game. Local control has
> been for the desperate ever since Percy Scott preached the gospel
> of actually hitting the target.
When I finish my PhD here I shall make an effort to make it to the UK
- no point in relishing your fiendishly humurous remarks and not being
able to devise my own!
> In principle Norfolk wasn't a match for a battleship. She rendered
> two unable to fight effectively.
Hullo? What did I miss? What are you referring to here? This is the
County class cruiser of WW2 is it? IIRC she shadowed the Bismarck
(taking some shelling and beating a hasty retreat each time the
weather opened a little), and in the action against the
Scharnhorst. In that latter action, I thought DoY's first
(radar-guided) salvo destroyed the Scharnhorst's rangefinder. So what
do you mean here? I was of the opinion that on a ship for ship basis,
a battleship and a cruiser of the same era could not be matched - this
despite the Norfolk's better radar suite by 1943.
Of course you may be referring to something quite different?
> To lose one rangefinfer might be considered unlucky...
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
> Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
> money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
--
Gernot Hassenpflug MSc.(Eng.) Kyoto University
Radio Science Centre for Space and Atmospheres
The popular media: a modern art designed
to create greater gullibility in people
Jim
I think I will choose to agree to disagree. and leave it at that.
You have stated your opinion and your entitled to it. I will give you that.
I guess if someone here had some sea time or employed tactics real
life... I would give it more weight but seeing most are just wogs, have
never been to sea and don't appear to know a scupper from a ballard oh
well I give it the credit it deserves ;)
Sleepycat The BB days are past that is a fact much of what your being
told is correct about being better choices.
There has been some good info some fair info amd some pure stupidity
tossed out here.
To be fair I checked into the 60 bit just for S&G... just finished a
nice chat with the father in law... I trust him more then folks here.
(Honestly I normally trust people who have been there and done that over
want-a-bees) He is a Retired CWO4 and has them pretty wings on his
blouse with the star above them (senior or master avaitor) something
like that never got into army badges. He has been flying helos for a
long time both slicks and gunships and was an IP.
So I asked about engaging a Battleship with Hellfires from a BlackHawk
explaining the phalanx and it range no big deal there... but least you
laugh the 5/38 has a range of 17k yards and 37k feet elev.
and prox fused air burst shells. ANd choppers arn't exactly high speed
aircrart...
He gave me a pretty dumb look and said "No cover closing to 5km. That
is around 11-12k yards inside AAA range, and crusing at 160-170 kts that
means taking flak for a 2 full minutes, Flairing to launch, and 2
minutes out, No thank you sir they are "F-in nuts".
Thought I would pass that on. He further explained he had enough
exicitment already when he put a cobra down in a rice patty and
something about getting chased by charlie past 2 LZs. and cept for
Jolley Green he would have been dead meat.
For those who care untill the late 70's the 5/38 was still in use, with
an engagement AAA envolope of 17K yards and 37k feet elev.
The bb used the MK37 Radar gun director and at least one BB had the
SPQ-9 TWS radar so we re not talking the Mk 1 eyeball here.
To those who questioned the UAV idea, it isn't unconventional it is
current... I invite you to review some of the unclassified reviews of
some of the current UAV's... you should quickly see I was crazy like a
fox. It trully isn't as bleak as you may think. Micro-electronics
wounderfull stuff simple cameras were the last war.... now you can get
FLIR, EW, commo! hot dog
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/uavtab.htm
As you may see the UAV have grown up small hard to see and packed with
sensors and that is what thir are telling you...
As I said this is where I end on this topic. As I had said eariler could
be very intresting and not so one sided.
Jim
Jim
Andre Lieven wrote:
> Jim (Jeh...@direcpc.com) writes:
>
>>Big Snip
>>
>>Andre
>>
>>No hard feelings here :).
>
>
> Here, neither. With all that I've had in life, this stuff isn't anywhere
> near close to getting me really riled.
>
> Its just that I objected to "Sleepycat's" studied stupidity.
>
>
>>I get a bit worked up being called a troll.
>>I think the point I was making is If The refitted BB had to fight a dd
>>It wouldn't be cut and Dry as some said. The DDG stuff predated me and
>>was off my screen. Personally I feel their are to many variables to make
>>anything assured. Weather, skippers, crews, places etc.
>>I also don't think the BB would have a cake walk.
>
>
> In general, I really don't see a way that a lone 1980s Iowa doesn't
> get at least mission killed. Even without subs.
as i said first shot wins and UAV have come a long way
>
>
>
> That was likely the same convention. A bunch of us, including my g/f, me,
> and others, hung out with a batch of the enlisted Big E sailors there.
>
Could be I was doing dog and Ponny in combat...
>
>>>I'm not convinced that a Kirov could acquire, on her own, a DDG that
>>>far out.
>>
>>They had helos or would need a fwd observer to target same as anyone
>>else with long range SSMs.
>
>
> Though, the Kirov helo would likely eat a SAM, briskly.
Naw 2 Helo types 1 ASW 1 Early warning that one had a decent radar could
hang out outside sm2 range... Might take a Aim-9 however. But it relly
only need to get close and pop up to get a few paints... if used wisly
could make it intresting.
>>I don't build ships I just operated them and played war for a long time.
>>My part was EW, Finding the other guy and if needed making his life as
>>miserable as possible. as i said Command and crew are always the
>>deciding factor when it is close.
>
>
> Its a big factor, for sure, but some things are still in the metal.
>
> And, with the stuff we've learned about the former USSR Navy, they
> now look even less formidable. Then again, I recall the flap that
> was on, when the Krivak class FFGs first came out. All sorts of
> " super destroyer " articles, how their 4 ( presumed to be ) SSMs
> were better than anything the west had at sea. That turned out to
> be *way off*, too. They weren't even as good as a Knox.
Closer to a perry that would be a pretty fair compairson.
Jim
GLof815619
<aon3bq$1m0$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Sleepycat <dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> So in other words, the question is being sidestepped. (mainly to load it
>> up against the battleship six to one) The original question was ONE modern
>
>> destroyer vs. ONE Iowa battleship. The only variation I put on the answer
>> was to equip the Iowa with the modern refit.
>
>to jump in late...
>this is the old "armor vs wpns" debate of many ages hence, and it comes down
>to "if you kill him first, you don't have to parry". the "armor" of any of
>the ships can't take a hit from a modern missile - it's all damage control.
>it comes down to finding the target and hitting it before it hits you.
>questions about whether or not a "modern" BB can do the job are rather silly,
>truthfully. any modernization is going to take money, and that's why a
>question
>of if the money can be spent better elsewhere or the allocation of assets
>keeps cropping up. if you're not talking money, then all bets are off. not
>being grounded in the reality of shipbuilding, and having read lots of
>sci-fi,
>i'd bet i can make a better bogo-ship than you could! ;)
>
><snip>
>> --
>> Sleepycat
This mean Sleepycat that who would win a one on one between a BB and a other
ship depend on the amount of firepower each ship brings to the fight, not how
well thise ship are protected. The armor plate of the BB has little value
against waepon that are designed to destroy the BB superstructure. While I have
no doubles that the BB would survive such a fight, mostly due to its size, It
will mostly be mission killed, therefore useless until repaired.
>
>as for any other aspects of the BB - such as the shore bombardment, i
>respectfully put forward that all of the other proposals are inadequate.
>it's going to be UAVs, one or more per marine. each grunt gets his own
>integral and personal firesupport team. well, maybe not UAVs... i could
>imagine a BUFF at 50k loitering around with a bunch of weapons waiting for
>that "get that thing for me, will ya?" and then casually cutting loose
>a present or two. but the point is that a ship off-shore is a big asset
>and as such, it's never going to be where the guy in mud is going to want
>it. there is always going to be that layer of command and control that
>keeps it distant. of the two, the UAVs are probably the faster - both
>in terms of being when/where and production time.
Well, here we are, a follower of the LWM. in theory, this sound good, but it
has several problems. Frist of all the UAVs, like all aircraft are depended on
the weather, it is impossible for the to maintain cover 24/7. Second, the UAV
carry a limit number of weapons, once they are gone the marine is cut off from
firesupport until the need one arrives, Third UAVs can and do get shot down.
Ship and ground based firesupport is a absolute must to have, and are available
today if the "experts" will deploy them.
>
>hmmm, addendum: if you could make an "MLRS-like" system shipboard that
>could give the grunt his own batch of toys, then it's like the BUFF at
>50k, so i guess i can see a similarity there. maybe multiple guns... but
>then you get into arguments of "who gets which shot when".
>
One ship is worth dozens of aircraft, Especially if it is equipped with modern
land attack weapons.
G Lof
Engineer
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
>a...@aber.ac.uk (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
>> In principle Norfolk wasn't a match for a battleship. She rendered
>> two unable to fight effectively.
>
>Hullo? What did I miss? What are you referring to here? This is the
>County class cruiser of WW2 is it? IIRC she shadowed the Bismarck
>(taking some shelling and beating a hasty retreat each time the
>weather opened a little), and in the action against the
In the final action Norfolk put a 8" brick into Bismarck's forward
rangefinder. Up until then Bismarck had been shooting pretty well,
allowing for manoevering problems, fatigue and the known probs
with stereo rangefinders when the crews are tired. After the
rangefinder was nobbled then accuracy fell away sharply - the
aft rangefinder was masked at that stage and didn't get unmasked
until most of the main armament had been attended to (mainly
by Rodney).
>Scharnhorst. In that latter action, I thought DoY's first
>(radar-guided) salvo destroyed the Scharnhorst's rangefinder. So what
>do you mean here? I was of the opinion that on a ship for ship basis,
>a battleship and a cruiser of the same era could not be matched - this
>despite the Norfolk's better radar suite by 1943.
In the earlier stages of the North Cape battle (between Scharnhorst
and the cruiser force) a hit by Norfolk wrecked Scharnhorst's radar.
In arctic winter conditions this was serious, and really did represent
a mission-kill. Bey wasn't smart enough to realise this, which is
why the arrival, post paid, of 14" AP later in the battle came as
such a nasty suprise.
No way was Norfolk (a good, though elderly, cruiser) a match for
either of these two ships, but she really did have indecent luck
in crippling the fighting capacity of both.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Andy Spark
<a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
> You bring an Iowa. He brings a T42. He had no doubt about who comes
> away in the best trim, and he's someone who designs weapon systems
> for a living. And the T42 ain't precis;ly state of the art.
I doubt very much that he knows what a T42 is..... -Probably imagines
it to be some kind of road
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
theobvio...@theobviouskiva.net (Geoff Cashman) wrote:
> Yeah right. 5"/38? <cough>.
Just for information. The maximum range of a 5/38 was 18,200 yds. In
the BB mounting max training speed was 25 degrees a second and max
elevation speed was 15 degrees/sec. Minimum firing cycle was 3 seconds
but as the guns were hand loaded I doubt that could be kept up for
long. The first 5/54 the Mk 16 had a maximum range of 25,909 yds. This
was not the same gun as the post war Mk 18. I do not have access to
the post war figures.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Sleepycat) wrote:
> Yep. Then we've got people who have actually been there who are
> told they are WRONG over and over again.
Been where? You certainly have never served on an Iowa. A bit of
reading and you would have found that the Iowa had only a limited
immune zone against her own guns when using the light AP shell, and no
immune zone against the 2700lb shell. You would also have found that
the average pattern size for a full salvo was about 900 yard diameter.
In fact there has been a discussion on pattern sizes for various ships
recently. You might also have found that while AP shells had 2.5% on
average explosive content AP bombs had about 15%.
Sleepycat
> In message <uqtrhuk...@news.supernews.com>, Sleepycat
> <dev...@nospam.com> writes
>>Andre Lieven wrote:
>>> That wass only coming from the troll who wanted to load it up against
>>> the non-BB ships. In reality, subs have to be factored in, just as
>>> logistics and budgets, people and money, have to be.
>>
>>So in other words, the question is being sidestepped.
>
> What, you mean the Navy _doesn't_ have to think about money, manpower,
> or the whole battlespace?
For the purposes of this unrealistic, hypothetical discussion? No.
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:56:19 -0700, Sleepycat
>>>>>> <dev...@nospam.com> said:
> Friedman gives the turret faces of an Iowa 18" of armor, which
> would be 457.2mm. 700 being healthily greater than 457.2, I have
> to assume that the Hellfire is going to leave one hell of a
> mark. What do you think would happen if that hit went down while
> the crew was trying to work the gun?
I think those figures are optimistic, probably the result of tests under
ideal if not near-perfect conditions. Also, putting a 100 lb. missile at
a specific point on an 800' warship from eight kilometers away while under
fire is also highly optimistic.
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
>
> Of course there are lots of relatively empty spaces on a BB where
> penetration won't have much effect.... but taking out the Citadel (fire
> control), or penetrating the barbettes having a chance of igniting gun
> charges... (remember what happened to Iowa when there was an explosion
> in a turret......). Maybe target the aerials fire to kill off the radar
> systems......
Three reasons this won't work:
1) Can't target using IR because of the huge fireballs on that side of the
ship every 30 seconds.
2) Can't use radar very well because a battleship can put out enough ECM to
light up Chicago.
3) Can't use visual targeting because there is a wall of smoke between the
helicopter and the ship the size of the Superdome.
Hitting a specific target on an 800' hull with limited visual abilities
would be the wildest stroke of luck in naval history.
And if they hit something important, the battleship crew simply replaces
it. They have a complete machine shop on board.
> Firstly, the BB has to detect the helicopter.....
At eight kilometers? They can stand on the deck with binoculars and read
the pilot's name off the side.
>
> Remember Hellfire is Fire-and-forget. The launching helicopter doesn't
> have to hover... The missile may only have a 8 km range but a laser
> designator has a range of ???
>
> 30,000 lbs of shells... this is what guns firing at what rate of fire?
Actually this is a case where the helicopter pilot would rather have the
new Iowa refit instead of the old, because the old ship is lethal to
aircraft at that range:
You've got nine 16" guns firing twice a minute, ten 5" guns firing 15 times
a minute and FORTY 40mm anti-aircraft guns firing 160 times a minute. Put
it this way:
With only one aircraft to target, an Iowa can fire a wall of steel with a
shell every 12" in a circle 100 yards in diameter. Over SIX THOUSAND
ROUNDS A MINUTE. It is physically impossible for a helicopter to manuever
through that. The heavy fire also starts OUTSIDE hellfire range.
> The 16" won't do much and if you come up behind or from the front that
> certainly limits the number of 5" that can fire.....
The battleship skipper will certainly turn the ship to present the optimum
number of guns.
>> This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
>> into an expensive dust cloud.
>
> Iowa upgrade had4 Phalanx, I'm not sure of the arrangement but it is
> probable that the vessel could be attacked such that no more than 1,
> maybe 2 can engage incoming missiles.
> The Phalanx (Block 0) that was fitted to Iowa was only rated as useful
> against sub-sonic ASMs. Hellfire is supersonic (950mph). Phalanx has
> between 20 and 30 seconds worth of ammo.. an attacking helicoper will
> probably have 8 Hellfire (2x4).
More than enough to at least mitigate the approach of the wonder-missiles.
>
>>
>> This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
>> suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
>
> No, just that one helicopter from the DD the BB is engaging can
> sufficiently damage the BB that when the DD gets within missile range
> the BB is defenceless (won't even know what's coming). Meanwhile, the
> simultaneous air strike by the BBs own ASM equipped helicopters can be
> engaged and shot down by the air defence systems of the DD.
Well, now we're back to adding a destroyer. Can't stay with one engagement
very long, apparently.
--
Sleepycat
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Sleepycat <dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
>And if they hit something important, the battleship crew simply replaces
>it. They have a complete machine shop on board.
And the number of rangefinders repaired at sea is? Hint: since
rangefinders grew to being non-portable, the answer is an integer
less than one.
The helicopter is as much part of the destroyer's weapons system
as the gun. Using the helicopter to harrass or to feed back
targetting information is part of what destroyers are and do.
And we're still awaiting your answer to the battleship vs. T42
with interest.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Sleepycat
>>TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period. Don't need
>>a reference book for that.
>
> I keep wondering if this guy is as stupid as he seems. This last
> statement is just _priceless_ - either it's a meticulous troll, or
> someone who has gone through idiocy and out the other side.
Oh, like the super-missile that weighs about as much as a large bag of dog
food and can bore through three feet of steel? In one side of a battleship
and out the other, eh?
>
>>> The Iowa doesn't
>>> have belt armor all over the whole damn ship.
>>
>>No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
>>withstand anti-tank missiles.
>
> Over the radars? Over the EW gear? Over the CIWS? Over the missile
> launchers?
So what? The helicopter pilot can't target with 100% effectiveness through
all the smoke, fire, AA explosions, water, whistling shells and ECM. With
all that going on they'd be lucky to fire the missiles at all much less hit
anything.
>
> (The answers, by the way, are 'no' to all the above)
>
>>> ...and not a bit of it has much of chance of hitting.
>>
>>Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air, and
>>if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over.
>
> The H-60s have demonstrated a remarkable resilience.
Not to six thousand rounds a minute they haven't.
> One took a direct
> hit from an RPG-7 and got itself and its crew safely out of the combat
> zone (though one of the doorgunners lost a leg and the whole side of the
> helicopter was ripped open). Another completed its mission and came home
> after fifty or sixty close-range hits from small-arms fire.
Anti-aircraft guns are not small arms fire.
>
> I wouldn't assume they're easy to shoot down: the evidence isn't there.
They are for a ship with 40 anti-aircraft emplacements. But let's use the
modern ship: over 100 rounds a minute are going to be fired at this
helicopter. If *one* hits, it will tear it in half.
>
>> Better chance than some
>>wild shot hitting the rangefinder.
>
> Hellfire can pick its aimpoint against a tank-size target: it can hit
> what it wants on a battleship.
Yeah, if the battleship is just sitting there.
>
>>This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
>>into an expensive dust cloud.
>
> Hellfire is very small compared to anti-ship missiles, and also comes in
> on an arching trajectory that makes life difficult for CIWS (which
> presumes an incoming threat on an intercept trajectory)
>
>>This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
>>suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
>
> In a lot of circumstances,
A wildly lucky *series* of hits...
> one helicopter with a payload of, say, eight
> Hellfires could mission-kill a battleship and send it retreating for
> repairs.
Battleships don't have to retreat for repairs in a lot of circumstances,
but you already knew that, right?
Then again, in a lot of circumstances, the battleship could put a 5" shell
right through the helicopter at 12 miles, which would wrap things up before
the missiles could even be targeted.
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:56:19 -0700, Sleepycat
> <dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Geoff Cashman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Besides, the Hellfire is *designed* to penetrate armor.
>>
>>TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period. Don't need
>>a reference book for that.
>
> I think you do. Tank armour is thicker in some places than any BB
> armour. Of course not all AT missles will penatrate all tank
> armour.
They will according to this! Three feet! Goes through steel like paper!
>>> You don't have to sink a ship to win.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So the helicopter pulls to say, 8km to fire their mosquito-sized
>>>>missiles
>>>>and the Iowa opens up with every weapons system it has: SAMs or not, a
>>>>battleship can rain down a world of hurt on a hovering target at 8km:
>>>>at least 30,000 lbs. a minute.
>>>
>>> ...and not a bit of it has much of chance of hitting.
>>
>>Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air, and
>>if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than some
>>wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to stay
>>up around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well underwater,
>>and 30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
>
> Tha above is even sillier than the bit about anti-tank missles.
Water weighs eight pounds a gallon. Stormy sea can knock down a helicopter
at a low enough altitude, and this one is going to be right on the water to
avoid radar as long as it can.
>
>>This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
>>into an expensive dust cloud.
>>
>>This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
>>suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
>>
>
> No, the helicopter is part of the opponent's armament suite.
The assertion was ONE HELICOPTER, not an armament suite. (Funny how we
change quarterbacks every five yards)
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
>> Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air,
>> and
>> if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than some
>> wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to stay
> up
>> around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well underwater,
> and
>> 30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
>>
>
> No problemo
So they'll just waltz in at 1000 feet and light up every radar on the
battleship at extreme range. Great idea.
>
>
>> This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
>> into an expensive dust cloud.
>>
>> This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
>> suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
>>
>
> I'll bet the Admiral aboard Bismarck said that as the
> Swordfish rolled in to attack
I already mentioned the Swordfish. Too late.
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
>
>>> No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
>>> withstand anti-tank missiles.
>>
>>Which turns out to be incorrect
>
> Yep. Knock out the sensors onboard the Iowa, and it's blind.
Yep. Rip the rotor off the helicopter, and it's a tugboat.
> The Hellfires would absolutely wreck anything the SH-60 wanted
> to wreck on the Iowa that wasn't armored, and anything that
> was armored would definitely suffer, just a matter of degree.
Why is that? The missiles can go through three feet of steel. Sounds to
me like they can ignore the armor completely. </sarcasm>
I'll repeat: Three reasons this won't work:
1) Can't target using IR because of the huge fireballs on that side of the
ship every 30 seconds.
2) Can't use radar very well because a battleship can put out enough ECM to
light up Chicago.
3) Can't use visual targeting because there is a wall of smoke between the
helicopter and the ship the size of the Superdome.
Hitting a specific target on an 800' hull with limited visual abilities
would be the wildest stroke of luck in naval history.
And if they hit something important, the battleship crew simply replaces
it. They have a complete machine shop on board.
>>> Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air,
>>> and
>>> if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than some
>>> wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to stay
>>> up around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well
>>> underwater, and 30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
>
> *laugh* I can't believe he's suggesting this. "I'll shoot you down with
> columns of water rising from the ocean!" Next up he'll be deploying
> tunafish!
Water weighs eight pounds a gallon. Most helicopters don't do real well
after being hit in the side with a railroad car, and if the helicopter
pilot is smart (and they will be), they'll be right at the water to avoid
radar as long as possible.
>>> This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
>>> into an expensive dust cloud.
>
> 8 Hellfires. 2 Penguins. 8 Harpoons. All arriving at approximately
> the same time on the same side of the Iowa.
Whoops, seems like we just added something OTHER than the helicopter.
Guess the ol' SH60 gots to run home to momma, right?
But it was a nice troll. Well done.
--
Sleepycat
Sleepycat
> Gentleman,
>
> I think I will choose to agree to disagree. and leave it at that.
> You have stated your opinion and your entitled to it. I will give you
> that.
>
> I guess if someone here had some sea time or employed tactics real
> life... I would give it more weight but seeing most are just wogs, have
> never been to sea and don't appear to know a scupper from a ballard oh
> well I give it the credit it deserves ;)
>
> Sleepycat The BB days are past that is a fact much of what your being
> told is correct about being better choices.
I agree to a point. I just wish our learned colleagues could explain their
points of view and/or their higher level of knowledge without the bias and
disparaging sarcasm.
> So I asked about engaging a Battleship with Hellfires from a BlackHawk
> explaining the phalanx and it range no big deal there... but least you
> laugh the 5/38 has a range of 17k yards and 37k feet elev.
> and prox fused air burst shells. ANd choppers arn't exactly high speed
> aircrart...
>
> He gave me a pretty dumb look and said "No cover closing to 5km. That
> is around 11-12k yards inside AAA range, and crusing at 160-170 kts that
> means taking flak for a 2 full minutes, Flairing to launch, and 2
> minutes out, No thank you sir they are "F-in nuts".
Thank you.
>
> As I said this is where I end on this topic. As I had said eariler could
> be very intresting and not so one sided.
Actually, I think a discussion of theoretical upgrades to a battleship
would be interesting, but these discussions certainly aren't.
--
Sleepycat
Andrew McCruden
"Sleepycat" <dev...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ur04uot...@news.supernews.com...
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> Then again, in a lot of circumstances, the battleship could put a 5" shell
> right through the helicopter at 12 miles, which would wrap things up
before
> the missiles could even be targeted.
18,200 yards is the anti surface range, Effective AA range on DP guns is
much shorter than that, in comprison the Modern Mk75 3"/62 has a Anti
surface range of about 17,500 yards, but only about 5000 yrds in the AA role
Gernot Hassenpflug
> In article <vc9lm4w...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
> Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> >a...@aber.ac.uk (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
> >> In principle Norfolk wasn't a match for a battleship. She rendered
> >> two unable to fight effectively.
> >
> In the final action Norfolk put a 8" brick into Bismarck's forward
> rangefinder. Up until then Bismarck had been shooting pretty well,
>
> and the cruiser force) a hit by Norfolk wrecked Scharnhorst's radar.
> In arctic winter conditions this was serious, and really did represent
> a mission-kill. Bey wasn't smart enough to realise this, which is
> why the arrival, post paid, of 14" AP later in the battle came as
> such a nasty suprise.
Very interesting details indeed. Are there any other examples of such
fortiutous gunnery on the part of Allied or Axis ships. As there were
many surface actions in the Pacific, perhaps one of our
lurkers/posters would care to throw some steel into the thread?
--
Gernot Hassenpflug MSc.(Eng.) Kyoto University
Radio Science Centre for Space and Atmospheres
mailto:ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp
http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/members/gernot
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> >>TANK armor. It WILL NOT penetrate battleship armor. Period. Don't
need
> >>a reference book for that.
> >
> > I keep wondering if this guy is as stupid as he seems. This last
> > statement is just _priceless_ - either it's a meticulous troll, or
> > someone who has gone through idiocy and out the other side.
>
> Oh, like the super-missile that weighs about as much as a large bag of dog
> food and can bore through three feet of steel? In one side of a
battleship
> and out the other, eh?
>
No it explodes on contact with the armor and what emerges on the
other side is an energetic jet of molten steel
Not nice
>
> >
> >>> The Iowa doesn't
> >>> have belt armor all over the whole damn ship.
> >>
> >>No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
> >>withstand anti-tank missiles.
> >
> > Over the radars? Over the EW gear? Over the CIWS? Over the missile
> > launchers?
>
> So what? The helicopter pilot can't target with 100% effectiveness
through
> all the smoke, fire, AA explosions, water, whistling shells and ECM. With
> all that going on they'd be lucky to fire the missiles at all much less
hit
> anything.
>
Battlefield experience shows that to be an inaccurate statement
>
> >
> > (The answers, by the way, are 'no' to all the above)
> >
> >>> ...and not a bit of it has much of chance of hitting.
> >>
> >>Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air,
and
> >>if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over.
> >
> > The H-60s have demonstrated a remarkable resilience.
>
> Not to six thousand rounds a minute they haven't.
>
Well since they arent going to be remotely in phalanx
range that point is moot
>
> > One took a direct
> > hit from an RPG-7 and got itself and its crew safely out of the combat
> > zone (though one of the doorgunners lost a leg and the whole side of the
> > helicopter was ripped open). Another completed its mission and came home
> > after fifty or sixty close-range hits from small-arms fire.
>
> Anti-aircraft guns are not small arms fire.
>
>
> >
> > I wouldn't assume they're easy to shoot down: the evidence isn't there.
>
> They are for a ship with 40 anti-aircraft emplacements. But let's use the
> modern ship: over 100 rounds a minute are going to be fired at this
> helicopter. If *one* hits, it will tear it in half.
>
But one wont hit
> >
> >> Better chance than some
> >>wild shot hitting the rangefinder.
> >
> > Hellfire can pick its aimpoint against a tank-size target: it can hit
> > what it wants on a battleship.
>
> Yeah, if the battleship is just sitting there.
>
Since it cant fly away ....
> >
> >>This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming missiles
> >>into an expensive dust cloud.
> >
> > Hellfire is very small compared to anti-ship missiles, and also comes in
> > on an arching trajectory that makes life difficult for CIWS (which
> > presumes an incoming threat on an intercept trajectory)
> >
> >>This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
> >>suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
> >
> > In a lot of circumstances,
>
> A wildly lucky *series* of hits...
>
> > one helicopter with a payload of, say, eight
> > Hellfires could mission-kill a battleship and send it retreating for
> > repairs.
>
> Battleships don't have to retreat for repairs in a lot of circumstances,
> but you already knew that, right?
>
> Then again, in a lot of circumstances, the battleship could put a 5" shell
> right through the helicopter at 12 miles, which would wrap things up
before
> the missiles could even be targeted.
>
erm no
The max effective range for a 5"/38 against a target at or near sea level
is surprisingly low
Keith
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air,
> >> and
> >> if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than
some
> >> wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to
stay
> > up
> >> around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well underwater,
> > and
> >> 30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
> >>
> >
> > No problemo
>
> So they'll just waltz in at 1000 feet and light up every radar on the
> battleship at extreme range. Great idea.
>
Yep since the BB cant do jack shit about it
> >
> >
> >> This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming
missiles
> >> into an expensive dust cloud.
> >>
> >> This is trolling at it's finest, by the way. Nobody can be seriously
> >> suggesting engaging a battleship with one helicopter.
> >>
> >
> > I'll bet the Admiral aboard Bismarck said that as the
> > Swordfish rolled in to attack
>
>
> I already mentioned the Swordfish. Too late.
>
You seem to have forgotten how that one ended though
Gernot Hassenpflug
> In article <ur04brn...@news.supernews.com>,
> Sleepycat <dev...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >And if they hit something important, the battleship crew simply replaces
> >it. They have a complete machine shop on board.
And in answer to the 'wall of steel', this is called a barrage, and is
the resort of those who do not have either the speed or tracking or
the accuracy of gunlaying to actually shoot the target down. The
gunnery systems of the Iowas were not even designed to shoot down fast
targets, much less blow them up before impact. AA has always been a
deterrent, the only sure way to destroy the enemy is by fighters in
the air. Reread some books on the war against Japan, from October 1944
onwards. This is why the 40mm was replaced by the automatic 3 inch,
which still could not do the job as it was far slower than the targets
that were entering service. The word I am leading up to:
Saturation attack.
As people in this thread have pointed out, saturation attack on a
battleship is laughably easy. The point defence is nothing more than
desperate AA, hence point-defence. As stated before, incapable of more
than one target at a time. The 5 inchers, useless against
missiles. The real protection against saturation attack is of course
the C3 and C4 systems built into ships to try and prevent the
situation from getting to that point. And the Iowas have outdated
equipment, and upgrades, considering the ship is not optimal for any
modern equipment, is just cost-prohibitive.
If you could put all the modern stuff into a BB at economical cost,
you might have a point with your discussion, but the old heavy guns
need to go the way of all steel.
Cheers, Gernot
Keith Willshaw
Not when its designed to hit a tank from similar
range and does so by homing on refelected laser
energy. The Iraqis found out about Hellfire accuracy
during Desert storm
Keith Willshaw
> Geoff Cashman wrote:
>
>
> >
> >>> No, but it's got armor where it's necessary, and certainly enough to
> >>> withstand anti-tank missiles.
> >>
> >>Which turns out to be incorrect
> >
> > Yep. Knock out the sensors onboard the Iowa, and it's blind.
>
>
> Yep. Rip the rotor off the helicopter, and it's a tugboat.
>
>
> > The Hellfires would absolutely wreck anything the SH-60 wanted
> > to wreck on the Iowa that wasn't armored, and anything that
> > was armored would definitely suffer, just a matter of degree.
>
> Why is that? The missiles can go through three feet of steel. Sounds to
> me like they can ignore the armor completely. </sarcasm>
>
>
> I'll repeat: Three reasons this won't work:
>
> 1) Can't target using IR because of the huge fireballs on that side of the
> ship every 30 seconds.
>
Which gives a great IR signal but is irrelevant since
locking on to the stack is easy
> 2) Can't use radar very well because a battleship can put out enough ECM
to
> light up Chicago.
>
Which statement betrays a deep lack of understanding of radar guidance
systems and of the ECM systems available to an Iowa
> 3) Can't use visual targeting because there is a wall of smoke between the
> helicopter and the ship the size of the Superdome.
>
Helicopters are rather more mobile than BB's
and smoke only drifts downwind
This plant wont work
>
> Hitting a specific target on an 800' hull with limited visual abilities
> would be the wildest stroke of luck in naval history.
>
Have you heard of laser target designation ?
> And if they hit something important, the battleship crew simply replaces
> it. They have a complete machine shop on board.
>
<Start of list of ships that replaced directors at Sea>
<End of list of ships that replaced directors at Sea>
>
> >>> Yeah, well, there's going to be a lot of fast moving metal in the air,
> >>> and
> >>> if one shell barely nicks that SH60, it's over. Better chance than
some
> >>> wild shot hitting the rangefinder. It would also be a good idea to
stay
> >>> up around 100-200 feet too, because helicopters don't fly well
> >>> underwater, and 30,000 lbs. of shells can lift a lot of ocean.
> >
> > *laugh* I can't believe he's suggesting this. "I'll shoot you down with
> > columns of water rising from the ocean!" Next up he'll be deploying
> > tunafish!
>
> Water weighs eight pounds a gallon. Most helicopters don't do real well
> after being hit in the side with a railroad car, and if the helicopter
> pilot is smart (and they will be), they'll be right at the water to avoid
> radar as long as possible.
>
In which case the BB wonk know where to shoot
>
> >>> This is also all assuming the Phalanxes don't turn the incoming
missiles
> >>> into an expensive dust cloud.
> >
> > 8 Hellfires. 2 Penguins. 8 Harpoons. All arriving at approximately
> > the same time on the same side of the Iowa.
>
> Whoops, seems like we just added something OTHER than the helicopter.
> Guess the ol' SH60 gots to run home to momma, right?
>
No the Sprucan can carry 2 SH60's and they can be armed with
Hellfire and Penguin
A good game plan is for the Penguin shooter to hover 10 miles
or so out designating the BB while the Hellfire shooter
scoots in under the radar. Note a similar combination
of RN Lynx Sea Skua shooters and SH60's worked very
well in the gulf war against Iraqi fast patrol boats
> But it was a nice troll. Well done.
>
Keith
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
>a...@aber.ac.uk (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
>
/nothing that followed../
>And in answer to the 'wall of steel', this is called a barrage, and is
>the resort of those who do not have either the speed or tracking or
>the accuracy of gunlaying to actually shoot the target down. The
AKA box barrage. Fire into a volume of space as fast as can. Pretty
much what my father's old ship (Egret) did. It was very very
rare to hit anything, but the number of bursting shells tended to
put people off. ISTR she got two Stukas out of 20 that had a go
at her off the Thames (and retired hurt to be stuck together with
cement) and later one of two Condors which were stupid enough
to try low-level strafing - but it was the quad 0.5" what did the
damage there. Box barrage was mainly to put people off, which
it was quite good at. The trouble is that if you don't put them
off then you shoot your magazines dry in very short order. Egret,
with (IIRC, but may be well out) 100 rounds/barrel maximum had
5 minutes shooting in box-barrage mode. If you're relying on box
to keep the helicopters away then you'd better hope that they
do leave, otherwise they'll be back when you're out of 5"
and you're then in the happy position of the RN cruisers off Crete,
in deep trouble.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Jim
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aop0ff$bht$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
Thanks Ken
Info I had was 17k and change, we are agreeing withing a few hundred yards
which is "close enough for govermant work"
I beleive the point is the same.
To other folks, I think the point is which my Rotorhead Father in law
instantly grasped is this isn't land combat where hills and vallys and
trees can block the LOS and limit exposure. Here even at MAX Speed your
taking fire for 2 min inbound and 2 Min outbound not including jinking,
flairing targeting, shooting etc.
2 min is a long time to be consistantly shot at by AAA and hoping your luck
holds. Helos don't take damage well... Countless Helos have been downed by
smallarms fire. you may recall not so long ago 2 blackhawks were shot down
to RPGs fired by Ragheads.. I am willing to bet the average squid is at
least as well trained as you average Raghead...
Jim