military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (04/21/89)
From: chipcom.com!eli i'm sure i won't be the first to do so... but i question the reason that Ronnie commissioned those ancient battleships. gunboat diplomacy is one thing -- but there are problems when the guns have to be used, especially if they aren't accurate or safe. is the Iowa of the same class as the New Jersey, the ship which shelled Beirut? are the 16 inch guns the same type which shelled Beirut? i believe that these guns are *very* inaccurate, and that many houses and people were destroyed in Beirut arbitrarily. aren't there modern battleship guns which are more accurate and perhaps safer to operate than the old style 16 inchers? when it is necessary to shell real targets, shouldn't the most accurate guns be used? -- Steve Elias -- (eli@spdcc.com) or (eli@chipcom.com) -- voice mail: 617 239 9406 [ be sure to compose my mail address by hand. ] -- work phone: 617 890 6844 [ the header on this message is surely hosed. ]
military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (04/21/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) >i'm sure i won't be the first to do so... but i question the reason >that Ronnie commissioned those ancient battleships. gunboat diplomacy >is one thing -- but there are problems when the guns have to be used, >especially if they aren't accurate or safe. I can say that these are far and away the best 16" guns in service in the world; that, because they're (to my knowledge) the *only* 16" guns... hence, reason one: added capability. In support of, say a Marine beachead, these weapons can be devastating; ask the Japanese. Further, you must understand that, shortly after WWII, they stopped putting armor on ships, for a variety of reasons. In response, modern antiship weapons (such as Exocet) aren't designed to defeat armored targets. Thus, the Iowa is extremely survivable in the modern battlefield; its only real concerns are submarines and nuclear warheads exploded in close proximity. The guns are, in fact, rather accurate; consider that they can hit a moving ship at ranges approaching 25 miles (*). No, you're not going to be able to drop each shell within 10 feet of desired point of impact, but war can get messy that way. Suffice that they are sufficiently accurate for their intended use. (*) Understand that, at sea, that's the *horizon* As for safety; consider that four Iowa-class battleships (Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Missouri) were built; between them, they accumulated (by my rough calculations) some 51 ship-years of service time, not counting time decommissioned, up to and including the Vietnam War. Add to that the time accumulated since their reactivation by Reagan (I'm estimating another 8 or nine ship-years); and in all that time, this is the first such accident (to my knowledge). Similar accidents have occured in other ships; for example, a turret explosion in a US Heavy Cruiser post WWII; a massive fire aboard a US carrier (discussed here recently; Forrestal, wasn't it ?)... accidents happen. If you want to consider the good design of these ships, consider that the main powder magazines, sited directly under the turret which exploded (but protected by complicated systems for just such an occurence) did *not* ignite; if they had, the ship would have likely sunk. >is the Iowa of the same class as the New Jersey, the ship which >shelled Beirut? are the 16 inch guns the same type which shelled >Beirut? i believe that these guns are *very* inaccurate, and >that many houses and people were destroyed in Beirut arbitrarily. Yes, they are sister ships, practically identical. As I said, you can't drop the shells on a dime; further, you have to realize the innacuracy introduced by the spotter who's calling in the target. Accurate spotting requires skill and experience (spotters are used when the ship cannot see the target because of intervening terrain. Finally, don't forget that the shells weigh 2700 pounds, a large portion of which is explosive filling; the blast radius is quite large. >aren't there modern battleship guns which are more accurate and >perhaps safer to operate than the old style 16 inchers? when it >is necessary to shell real targets, shouldn't the most accurate guns >be used? 8-) The only battleship completed after the Iowas was HMS Vanguard, long since scrapped. There *are* no modern battleships. There are projects under way to make the 16"/50's more accurate weapons; this is done by using reduced caliber rounds (I've heard of 13" shells, with sabots to make them fit the 16" tube) which use modern terminal guidance, such as laser homing. An additional benefit is increased range (I've heard 35 miles, but that's very unofficial). Of course, you sacrifice explosive filling with the smaller shells. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu
cander@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Charles Anderson) (04/22/89)
From: unisoft!cander@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Charles Anderson) >From article <5788@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker): > From: chipcom.com!eli > > is the Iowa of the same class as the New Jersey, the ship which > shelled Beirut? are the 16 inch guns the same type which shelled > Beirut? i believe that these guns are *very* inaccurate, and > that many houses and people were destroyed in Beirut arbitrarily. The inaccuracies that were observed in Beruit were directly linked to faulty ammunition. When the funds were approved to recomission the Iowa class ship, no funds were allocated immediately for the purchase of new ammunition. Much of the ammunition in service dates back to WWII. Although the ammunition was "reworked" at Concord NWS, it seems that there is no substitute for fresh ammunition. It seems to me that the Navy was scheduled to start receiving new ammunition in 1988 or 1989, but I haven't seen anything confirming this or whether new ammunition has imporved accuracy. -- Charles. {sun, amdahl, ucbvax, pyramid, uunet}!unisoft!cander
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (04/22/89)
From: enzyme.berkeley.edu!allen Regarding the accuracy of the battleship guns in the Beirut shelling, a press account here discussing the battleship revival in light of the current accident pointed out that the shells used in Beirut were very old ones used as an economy measure. They reported that the low accuracy at Beirut made the Navy upgrade with fresher ammunition for the sixteen inch guns. That alone will improve accuracy a lot. They didn't say exactly how old the ammunition was, but my guess is 50's or 60's vintage. Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) (04/22/89)
From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) I was under the impression that most of the shelling in Beirut was done with the 5" secondaries. They have less of a damage radius, and may or may not be more accurate. I cannot remember that the 16" were ever used there, but of course I may very well be mistaken. The 16" cannons are generally radar controlled. The first round is a spotting round. The radar fire control "watches" the flight path of the 16" round, and predicts (from what I have heard) very accurately the fall of shot for the round well before it arrives. Subsequent corretions are made, and the barrage is fired often before the first shot lands. I read about this in International Combat Arms about 2 years ago, but do not have the Magazine for reference. This is all form memory. ANY and all corrections can be made now. Greg Hooten. GAHOOTEN@ames.arc.nasa.gov
rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) (04/24/89)
From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) --- No doubt skeptics will have a field day complaing about these "Aging battleships", but I still think the four Iowa class ships are a bargain, and for the following reasons: 1. They are very, very, heavily armored, which is *extremely* important in these days of cheap missiles that can disable a very expensive, but unarmored, moderm warship. 2. They are very big, and hence have a wide operational radius. Also, being very large, there is a lot of area in which to make modifications, such as mounting various types of up-to-date missile launchers, which is just what has been done. 3. They make very effective vehicles of force projection. Which would you rather see steaming over the horizon toward your homeport, a destroyer with 5" guns, or a battleship with 16" guns? From every standpoint, the BB's make a stronger political/miliatary statement. 4. They are fast, capable of something in the 33 knot range at flank speed. 5. They already existed, meaing their conversion was a relative bargain. 6. Despite their age, the Iowa's are low mileage vessels. Considering the long time they were in mothballs, I would bet that at most they have 10-15 years operational use. Look at some of our attack carriers; they have been steaming for 15-30 years! Of course, there are counter arguments. If we were going to build something analogous to battleships today they would not mount 16" guns. Unfortunately, 5" guns in the best the Navy has today in terms of conventional surface gun power. I recall several years ago that a 155 mm VLG (vertical load gun), which was considered far superior to the old 5 inchers had been cut from the budget. Too bad; it sounded like a very prudent modernization of naval surface gun armament. On the other hand, if either party in the Falklands War had had an Iowa class battle ship, it would probably have proved decisive. Surely it would have made the RN's carrier operations impossible (I am allowing for air attacks by the Brits, too, which I think would not have been effective). We have already discussed the fate of the Glorious in 1940 at the hands of two Germain battle cruisers mounting 11" guns. Finally, with respect to the safety angle, one has to recall the terrible aircraft carrier and submarine accidents that have taken many brave lives. We continue to use carriers and subs, however. Bill ----------------------------------------------------------- Just my opinion, which is all I need say for the remaining week of my current tenure..... -----------------------------------------------------------
marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) (04/25/89)
From: marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) In article <5789@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes: > > >From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) >Further, you must understand that, shortly after WWII, they stopped >putting armor on ships, for a variety of reasons. In response, >modern antiship weapons (such as Exocet) aren't designed to defeat >armored targets. Thus, the Iowa is extremely survivable in the modern >battlefield; its only real concerns are submarines and nuclear warheads >exploded in close proximity. > While none of this comes as news to me, I've never understood *why* they've stopped putting armor on ships. I can understand that it probably isn't as useful as the extra speed/space on certain classes of ships, but something like a cruiser which is designed to slug it out with other heavily armed ships or ground weapons could certainly benefit from it. Does anybody know when this decision was made, what prompted it, and why, in an era where most weapons are missiles with limited warheads, we are sticking with it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Marshall (marsh@mbunix.mitre.org) Disclaimer: Often wrong but never in doubt... All of these opinions are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/25/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Unfortunately, 5" guns in the best the Navy has today in terms of >conventional surface gun power. I recall several years ago that a >155 mm VLG (vertical load gun), which was considered far superior to the >old 5 inchers had been cut from the budget. Too bad... Friedman's book on US naval armament has drawings of a still more useful project that was killed a decade or so ago: an 8-inch gun turret designed to drop into the same space as the current 5-inch turrets. The intent was to retrofit existing ships. The Marines, who like the idea of heavy shore bombardment, were quite unhappy to see it go. It takes yet another prize for procurement decision-making stupidity, too: it was killed partly because of accuracy problems, after a laser-guided shell for it (which was meant all along as the solution to said problems) was killed to save money! Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) (04/25/89)
From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) In article <5853@cbnews.ATT.COM> rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) writes: >On the other hand, if either party in the Falklands War had had an Iowa >class battle ship, it would probably have proved decisive. Surely it >would have made the RN's carrier operations impossible (I am allowing >for air attacks by the Brits, too, which I think would not have been >effective). We have already discussed the fate of the Glorious in 1940 >at the hands of two Germain battle cruisers mounting 11" guns. > >Bill >----------------------------------------------------------- The Argentines had a close approximate in Gen Belgrano. It didn't even make it to within 200 miles of RN Task Force. The Brits accomplished the air support mission using aircraft which are a lot more accurate. There never was a desire or need to blast any major Arg naval concentrations. Assuming the Args had a ship like the Iowa class making it to the British fleet would be the hazardous part. While Exocets are sea skimmers missiles like the Harpoon have a terminal dive phase and I think so does the Sea Eagle. In this phase the missile climbs and then dives terminally hitting the UPPER unarmoured deck/superstruct. knocking out command facilities and possibly driving through the thin upper armor into the innards of the ship. Now I'm not familiar with the deck armor of the Iowas but that is the threat. Now for those who think that great air defense missiles are the answere let me point out the Arg success in BOMBING Royal Navy ships which are believed to have on par if not better air defense than a-thing in USN except for the Tico class. In the USN the big ships including the upgraded Iowas have less missile defense than their smaller dedicated air defense platforms. The Arg AF penetrated almost total Brit air superiority and snuck under radar with planes flying 5ft above waves to bomb RN ships at such low altitudes that sometimes the bomb didn't fall long enough to arm! Iowa maybe a great ship for showing the flag but it is not invincible by a long margin. The ground support mission is covered by aircraft really well. For those who point to Vietnam for the great job the Iowas did, keep in mind that the ships themselves were NEVER under any threat of any retaliation. Air control was already achieved completely. Hard to cover the Marines when your own ship is under attack. However I will grant that they are flexible, cheap and very hard to ignore. Obsolete or not the opposition cannot risk to ignore s-thing that big and monstrous. Ameer Z. Sulaiman. >Just my opinion, which is all I need say for the remaining >week of my current tenure..... >-----------------------------------------------------------
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (04/25/89)
From: dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) In article <5838@cbnews.ATT.COM> gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) writes: > >The 16" cannons are generally radar controlled. The first >round is a spotting round. The radar fire control "watches" >the flight path of the 16" round, and predicts (from what I >have heard) very accurately the fall of shot for the round >well before it arrives. Subsequent corretions are made, and >the barrage is fired often before the first shot lands. This is fine accept that the WWII vintage powder was found to not burn consistently. I'm sure that the radar told them just how far each round was going to miss by, but it doesn't help much once the rounds are out of the tube. -- Paranoia is just good thinking if | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- everybody IS out to get you. | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave
jmberkley@watnext.waterloo.edu (J. Michael Berkley) (04/26/89)
From: jmberkley@watnext.waterloo.edu (J. Michael Berkley) In article <5883@cbnews.ATT.COM> marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) writes: >From: marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) >In article <5789@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes: >>From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) >>Further, you must understand that, shortly after WWII, they stopped >>putting armor on ships, for a variety of reasons. >> > While none of this comes as news to me, I've never understood >*why* they've stopped putting armor on ships. I believe there is a theory that with heavy armour, a big explosion may not breach the armour, but the vibrations destroy equipment throughout the entire ship. If you have light armour, then a big explosion makes a big hole, but it only affects one part of the ship. ****************************************** * Mike Berkley, University of Waterloo * * jmberkley@watnext.waterloo.edu * * {utai,uunet}!watmath!watnext!jmberkley * ******************************************
rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) (04/26/89)
From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) --- >The Argentines had a close approximate in Gen Belgrano. It didn't even make it >to within 200 miles of RN Task Force. The Brits accomplished the air support >mission using aircraft which are a lot more accurate. There never was a desire >or need to blast any major Arg naval concentrations. Assuming the Args had a >ship like the Iowa class making it to the British fleet would be the hazardous >part. While Exocets are sea skimmers missiles like the Harpoon have a >terminal dive phase and I think so does the Sea Eagle. In this phase the missile I have no doubt that the Brits would have thrown everything they had at a hypothetical Argie BB. They might very well have sunk or disabled the BB and therefore eliminated it as an Argie (by the way, is that considered a derogatory term?) naval asset. Then again, maybe not. My point was that in that particular war, a battleship would have represented a very major asset of potentially decisive proportions. Remember that the balance of forces was reasonably close; certainly a lot closer than the Allies vs. Germany in June, 1944. My scenario also assumed, though perhaps I did not make this clear, that the Argie BB was already patrolling Falkland waters. Argentina did very poorly in the war, but nowhere more poorly than in their strategic planning. Obviously, they did not think they were going to have to fight a full scale British invasion. But if they had planned well, and immediately stationed jet aircraft at Stanley, *and* had a battleship, or perhaps even the Belgrano, as a shield, things might have turned out differently. For that matter, can we say for sure that the Belgrano was used energetically, or was she just idling around waiting for an RN torpedo? The Veinticinco de Mayo apparently stayed out of harms way. If that carrier and the Belgrano had sortied in a do-or-die manner, they might have succeeded. Clearly, if you are intimidated so that you do not even *try* to use the assets you have, your assets are going to appear to some observers to be pretty weak. In close fights, decisive weapons can be, well, decisive. ONE SINGLE 16" HIT ON THE INVICIBLE, IF DELIVERED EARLY ENOUGH (i.e., before the invasion) COULD WELL HAVE FORCED THE BRITISH TO BACK DOWN. Politically, it might have been untenable to continue after losing such a naval asset, especailly if the ship were actually sunk, with high casualties. Remember what a field day the media had (still?) with the Tet Offensive, which we *defeated*! (I shudder to think what a Walter Cronkite would have said about Bataan or the Battle of the Bulge if they had been covered by T.V. as was Viet Nam. "Today more American boys lost their lives in this senseless defense of a far away island, etc., etc.") I maintain that there may be situations in which a big-gun ship, a Belgrano or an Iowa, might be the deciding factor. To say that such and such a weapon can counter a surface ship is not the same as saying that the surface ship is valueless. Bill ------------------------ Three more days to go ------------------------
mchamp@wpi.wpi.edu (Marc J. Champagne) (04/26/89)
From: mchamp@wpi.wpi.edu (Marc J. Champagne)
1) Yes, New Jersey is an Iowa class battleship, along with Missouri
and Wisconsin
2) When the New Jersey shelled Moslem militia positions in Lebanon, it
was using 16"/45 caliber shells produced for the South Dakota class
battleships instead of the 16"/50 caliber shells intended for the
Iowa class battleships. At the time, the New Jersey was still
using an old analog gunnery computer with cams ground for the
16"/50 shells. This lent an inaccuracy of about 250 yards on the
average, but the rate of fire was still sufficient to shut down the
rate of Moslem 125mm and 76mm artillery fire coming from the hills
around Beirut to a trickle (was something like over 1500 rounds/day
prior to 16" bombardment).
Please note also that the claims of hits on civilian targets were
made by the people who were being shelled.....the Moslem
militiamen. I've seen pictures of PLO troops firing 40mm AA guns
at Israeli warplanes from within the heart of the refugee camps to
the south of Beirut.......they raised a stink when the AA guns were
strafed or bombed to. Unfortunately, it is rather common in that
stretch of the woods to station military units within a "shield" of
innocent civilians.......it's cowardly, but what can you do. The
guns had to be silenced.......
3) To put the accuracy issue to rest, the Iowas have been refitted
with state of the art digital gunfire computers since the
deployment off Beirut. These computers can make high-accuracy
predictions for either the /45 or /50 shells. Even before this was
done, the Navy stated that it would be more willing to use its
shorter supply of /50 shells for missions demanding only moderate
accuracy....like shore bombardment. The /50s were being saved for
anti-ship use or for bombardment of hardened targets.
But with the new digital computers, that decision is now
superfluous. We can get equal accuracy from both the /45 and /50.
4) Is it a good weapons platform. The answer is yes. But I don't
have time for a debate on it at the moment. Suffice it to say that
I supported the Navy's idea of bringing out the 3 Des Moines class
armored cruisers we have in mothballs and giving them the same
weapons fit. More of the secondary armorment would have had to
have been lost than on the Iowas to solve the topweight problems.
But they would have made excellant fire support ships and task
group leaders with their 16 Harpoons and 32 Tomahawks.
Unfortunately, the budget crunch kicked in.....
Anyhow, I hope this helps clarify things for you a little.
Marc J. Champagneanderer@vax1.acs.udel.edu (David G Anderer) (04/26/89)
From: David G Anderer <anderer@vax1.acs.udel.edu> In article <5890@cbnews.ATT.COM> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >This is fine accept that the WWII vintage powder was found to not >burn consistently. I'm sure that the radar told them just how far >each round was going to miss by, but it doesn't help much once the >rounds are out of the tube. > I came across some more information on this over the weekend. Source is "Iowa Class Battleships, Their Design, Weapons and Equipment" (Robert Sumrall, 1988): Smokeless powder is basically unstable because it contains nitrocellulose and three volatiles, ether, alcohol, and water (water is considered a volatile because it promotes deterioration of the propellant). Even though it is stored under special conditions it deteriorates in time and some of the volatiles are lost. This is especially true of the grains stored near the top of the storage tanks or stacked near the outside surfaces of the bags. The deterioration affects the muzzle velocity of the projectile producing erratic range and dispersion of the shot. For example, when the D839 propellant was first produced in the 1940s, the original acceptance standards were +/- 10 ft/sec in initial velocity. The actual variation was less than +/- 5 ft/sec with the 2,700 pound projectile. During the Korean War is was about +/- 14 ft/sec with the 1,900 pound projectile. The New Jersey's Vietnam deployment recorded about +/- 23 ft/sec with the 1,900 pound shell and on station off Lebanon during 1984 it was about +/- 32 ft/sec using the 1,900 pound shell. ----- However, remixing the powder does help. Later in the book he cites a 1987 firing test by the Iowa: at 34,000 yards a pattern size of 219 yards. 14 of 15 rounds landed within 250 yds of the target; 8 of 15 landed within 150 yds. -- Dave Anderer Academic Computing and Instructional Technology University of Delaware
anderer@vax1.acs.udel.edu (David G Anderer) (04/26/89)
From: David G Anderer <anderer@vax1.acs.udel.edu> In article <5889@cbnews.ATT.COM> asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) writes: > While Exocets are sea skimmers missiles like the Harpoon have a >terminal dive phase and I think so does the Sea Eagle. In this phase the missile >climbs and then dives terminally hitting the UPPER unarmoured deck/superstruct. >knocking out command facilities and possibly driving through the thin upper >armor into the innards of the ship. Now I'm not familiar with the deck armor >of the Iowas but that is the threat. The deck armor of an Iowa is a 1.5" STS (special treatment steel) bomb deck, followed by the main armor consisting of 4.75" of class B armor and 1.25" of STS followed by a splinter deck of .625" STS. While the Soviets have some large missles that could get through this, I'm not aware of any hostile sea skimmers that could. A "soft kill" - destroying command and communications capabilites in the superstructure - is a more likely concern. >BOMBING Royal Navy ships which are believed to have on par if not better >air defense than a-thing in USN except for the Tico class. I'd like to see some references for this. Sea Wolf is good, but I know of no evidence that the Standard family is inferior to the Sea Dart. >The ground support mission is covered by aircraft really well. Please define your terms. Perhaps in some ways your right, but in at least as many ways you're wrong. Here's an example from "Iowa Class Battleships" (1988): A Nimitz strike can deliver 75 long tons of ordance. Assume 3 strikes a day and you get 225 tons/day. An Iowa can deliver 229 tons in 30 minutes. Now that doesn't prove the Iowas are better in this role than TacAir, but.. >For those who point to Vietnam for the great job the Iowas did, keep in mind >that the ships themselves were NEVER under any threat of any retaliation. >Air control was already achieved completely. Hard to cover the Marines when >your own ship is under attack. Seems we've been in environments of air superiority for the last few wars, police actions, invasions, etc. Not to say it will always be that way, but there's a good likelyhood that if the Iowas are used in anger it will be in a situation where there is no significant air threat. -- Dave Anderer Academic Computing and Instructional Technology University of Delaware
haynes@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Haynes) (04/26/89)
From: haynes@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Haynes)
This morning's paper says the Navy may not be able to repair the Iowa
turret because it was built 50 years ago and the technology and
knowhow no longer exist. I guess at that rate in another 100 years
we won't even have the technology to make bicycles.
haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ...ucbvax!ucscc!haynes
"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chroniclesilber@p.cs.uiuc.edu (04/27/89)
From: silber@p.cs.uiuc.edu Another benefit to the battleship, no need to risk aviators. (This is especially important when dealing with undeclared semi-hostilities ala Beiruit where downed flyers may become hostages.)
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (04/27/89)
From: nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) In article <5853@cbnews.ATT.COM>, rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) writes: > very prudent modernization of naval surface gun armament. > > On the other hand, if either party in the Falklands War had had an Iowa > class battle ship, it would probably have proved decisive. Surely it > would have made the RN's carrier operations impossible (I am allowing > for air attacks by the Brits, too, which I think would not have been > effective). We have already discussed the fate of the Glorious in 1940 > at the hands of two Germain battle cruisers mounting 11" guns. I would have thought that an Iowa class battle ship would have survived only a few more hours longer than the Belgrano. Capital ships without their protecting screen of destroyers and frigates are sitting ducks. As for HMS Glorious, it might have been interesting if it had been possible to launch the aircraft in defence. Strikes me that an aircraft carrier which can't launch it's planes is pretty much equivalent to an unarmed merchant man and a sight bigger to boot. (Makes it easier to hit!) Let's temper the glamourisation of this class of ship with a little reality. They have their place but that is not the same as it was 30 years ago. neil
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (04/28/89)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <5979@cbnews.ATT.COM> nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) writes: >I would have thought that an Iowa class battle ship would have survived >only a few more hours longer than the Belgrano. Capital ships without >their protecting screen of destroyers and frigates are sitting >ducks. The Iowas, at least, carry ASW helicopters that can be used to help screen the BB from submarines; the Belgrano had nothing -- a situation where they might as well have painted "SINK ME" on the sides of the hull. Sean Malloy | "The proton absorbs a photon Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | and emits two morons, a San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | lepton, a boson, and a malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | boson's mate. Why did I ever | take high-energy physics?"
willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) (05/02/89)
From: willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, one of the
major objections to the battleship in a modern navy is it's lack of ability
to defend itself from air attack. Also, with the accident on the Iowa, a
replacement 16" gun is needed and none exist.
Would it be feasible to remove turret #2 from the Iowa and replace it
with a verticle launch system for SM-2 missiles to give the battleship
protection from aircraft. Not only would this add to the defense of the ship,
but it would also give the Navy two 16" gun replacements.
If this is feasible:
1 : How many SM-2's could be accomodated? (ready to fire and reloads)
2 : Could an anti-submarine defense be fit into this re-fit?
3 : Would the re-fit be worth the time and money?
Thanks in advance.
(willey@unsvax.uucp)steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) (05/05/89)
From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) In article <6159@cbnews.ATT.COM> willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) writes: > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, one of the >major objections to the battleship in a modern navy is it's lack of ability >to defend itself from air attack. Also, with the accident on the Iowa, a That is the reason for the battlegroup doctrine. A carrier can't protect itself from submarines (continuously, anyway) either, and in the nuclear battlefield our strategists insist on planning for you want your air pickets rather far out from the assets they protect anyway. >replacement 16" gun is needed and none exist. > Would it be feasible to remove turret #2 from the Iowa and replace it >with a verticle launch system for SM-2 missiles to give the battleship >protection from aircraft. Not only would this add to the defense of the ship, >but it would also give the Navy two 16" gun replacements. Not only is it practicle, I expect that is what will happen. The verticle-launch missle battery is what, 64 tubes? The deck area allocated to the turret, including barrel clearance would take at least two and probably four launcher pads. That would not only free up the salvagable parts of the turret, it would also leave a whole bunch of below-deck space for new uses. Like maybe a missle magazine and/of fuel storage to make the battle group less dependent on auxilliaries. > 1 : How many SM-2's could be accomodated? (ready to fire and reloads) > 2 : Could an anti-submarine defense be fit into this re-fit? Sure, can the VLS handle ASROCs? If not just stick a few ASROC launchers on some of the extra deck space. And don't the BBs have helos? Not a bad way to defend against subs, but like the carriers they are more expensive ($/unit benefit) to operate than a picket. Does she have a sonar? You have to aim ASROCs... And the new systems would be much less well armored than the guns, so chances are they would poop out rather early in a fight. Developing versions of the new systems that would be well balanced with the survivability of the rest of the platform would be very expensive. > 3 : Would the re-fit be worth the time and money? There's the rub. You would have to "edit" the armor around the new weapons extensively, particularly the horizontal components. Given that we no longer have the technology to build armored ships, how well will we be able to do on such a major refit? Then you have to ask if the money might be better spent developing a replacement gun. After all, the BBs are superb offensive weapons -- why turn 1/3 of their weight into defensive weapons when we already know how to defend them with pickets? -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services uunet!nuchat!steve POB 890952 Houston, Texas 77289 (713) 964 2462 Consultation & Systems, Support for PD Software.
maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) (05/05/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) In article <6159@cbnews.ATT.COM> willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) writes: > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, one of the >major objections to the battleship in a modern navy is it's lack of ability >to defend itself from air attack. Also, with the accident on the Iowa, a >replacement 16" gun is needed and none exist Not true: First of all, from the description of the accident, I doubt the gun got destroyed. Second of all, there are about four (3?) battleships in various museums with fill equipment, plus the navy does have more spares. > Would it be feasible to remove turret #2 from the Iowa and replace it >with a verticle launch system for SM-2 missiles to give the battleship >protection from aircraft. Not only would this add to the defense of the ship, >but it would also give the Navy two 16" gun replacements. > If this is feasible: > 1 : How many SM-2's could be accomodated? (ready to fire and reloads) > 2 : Could an anti-submarine defense be fit into this re-fit? > 3 : Would the re-fit be worth the time and money? Ahh, engineering time (break out handy-dandy hp-15c and blueprints...:) Feasible, yes. How much do you want to modify? If we pull the barbette down to the old powder magazine, we have space for a pair of 61-cell VLS (Mk-41, see Janes wpn systems.) The resulting combo would weigh less, and be more or less compatable structurally with the rest of the ship. The result would be space for ~100 SM-2's assumin some other missiles in use. Plus guideance gear, will be lighter than existing turret. But might run about $100m for guideance and electronics. (maybe that's too high. $50m?) Vertical Launch Asroc could be fitted, providing lots'o ASW. Would it be worth it? mmm. Why not spend the money on a DDG-51? well, refit might be cheaper. I dunnow. Comments?
djm@etive.edinburgh.ac.uk (D Murphy) (05/05/89)
From: D Murphy <djm@etive.edinburgh.ac.uk> In article <6159@cbnews.ATT.COM> willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) writes: >From: willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, one of the >major objections to the battleship in a modern navy is it's lack of ability >to defend itself from air attack. Also, with the accident on the Iowa, a >replacement 16" gun is needed and none exist. > Would it be feasible to remove turret #2 from the Iowa and replace it >with a verticle launch system for SM-2 missiles to give the battleship >protection from aircraft. Not only would this add to the defense of the ship, >but it would also give the Navy two 16" gun replacements. > If this is feasible: > 1 : How many SM-2's could be accomodated? (ready to fire and reloads) > 2 : Could an anti-submarine defense be fit into this re-fit? > 3 : Would the re-fit be worth the time and money? > >Thanks in advance. > (willey@unsvax.uucp) Someone pointed out a while ago that one of the problems with the turret assemblies is that they are so heavy that the cranes to lift them out just don't exist. I think this would mitigate against such an action, though it does seem to make sense. Murff.... JANET: djm@uk.ac.ed.etive Internet: djm%ed.etive@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Murff@uk.ac.ed.emas-a Murff%ed.emas-a@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk trinity@uk.ac.ed.cs.tardis trinity%ed.cs.tardis@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk D.J. Murphy Chemistry Dept. Univ. of Edinburgh "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying." Woody Allen
livesey@apple.com (John Livesey) (05/06/89)
From: goofy!Apple.COM!livesey@apple.com (John Livesey) In article <6159@cbnews.ATT.COM> willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) writes: >From: willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) > > Would it be feasible to remove turret #2 from the Iowa and replace it >with a verticle launch system for SM-2 missiles to give the battleship >protection from aircraft. Not only would this add to the defense of the ship, >but it would also give the Navy two 16" gun replacements. > If this is feasible: > 1 : How many SM-2's could be accomodated? (ready to fire and reloads) > 2 : Could an anti-submarine defense be fit into this re-fit? > 3 : Would the re-fit be worth the time and money? I am sure that it would be technically feasible; between the wars the Italian Navy gutted some battleships, not only changing the gun calibre, but also the number of turrets. However, you also want to know what you want battleships *for*. How many hundred million dollars do you want to spend to finish up with a good shore bombardmaent system? It cost four hundred million dollars a piece just to bring them back into service, so how much would it cost to make significant changes? Can a battleship add to the effectiveness of a carrier group, or would you be better off with more escort vessels? jon.
duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) (05/06/89)
From: rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) In article <6272@cbnews.ATT.COM> maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) writes: [ reply to someone else deleted] > Feasible, yes. How much do you want to modify? If we pull the barbette > down to the old powder magazine, we have space for a pair of 61-cell > VLS (Mk-41, see Janes wpn systems.) The resulting combo would weigh > less, and be more or less compatable structurally with the rest of the > ship. The result would be space for ~100 SM-2's assumin some other > missiles in use. Plus guideance gear, will be lighter than existing > turret. But might run about $100m for guideance and electronics. > (maybe that's too high. $50m?) Vertical Launch Asroc could be fitted, > providing lots'o ASW. Would it be worth it? mmm. Why not spend the > money on a DDG-51? well, refit might be cheaper. I dunnow. Comments? An alternative to electronic refit would be data links with the rest of the battlegroup. I think that this has been considered with the VLS that has been installed on Spruance class destroyers. The 31-cell VLS would have Asrocs and Tomahawks under its direct control. Any Standards, though, would be controlled by an accompanying Aegis ship. In the case of the Iowa, this could be extended further, to have both Asroc and Standard missiles be controlled remotely. The former by an accompanying Spruance, and the latter by an Arleigh Burke (mini-Aegis). To replace the bombardment capabilities, the 203mm upgrade to the 127/54s could be resurrected, replacing the twin 127/35s currently left. At 20 rounds per minute, 3 of these could approximate the 3 406mm lost. With the Army's 203mm rocket assisted projectile, its range would also approximate the bigger guns. A second alternative is to use the 225mm MRL of the Army. These fire cluster munitions out to about 30,000 yards. About 10,000 yards less than the 406s. [mod.note: Beat me to it ! The MRL is my pet suggestion for a potential refit; seems to me it would have excellent magazine capacity belowdecks (#2 turret, being a deck higher, should have the largest magazines on the ship), and this adds extra capability for the support of a landing, the battleships' primary mission. - Bill ] On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs? I would think that replacing them with newer guns, such as the twin 40/70s in the DARDO ciws, would be in line, but wouldn't any extra firepower help against incoming missiles? Steve Duncan mcnc!rti!duncan
eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (05/09/89)
From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya)
>On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs?
For the same reasons the Sgt. York was canceled: too short of a range,
too old, optically sighted, etc. etc. 3 inch guns were popular for
a while, but they have gone as well.
Longish signature follows "Type 'n' now"
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
Live free or die.henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/11/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs? > >For the same reasons the Sgt. York was canceled: too short of a range, >too old, optically sighted, etc. etc. 3 inch guns were popular for >a while, but they have gone as well. One should note, of course, that these are the *arguments* that lead to removal of the guns. Arguments != facts. Each new war tends to forcibly remind people involved that the arguments in favor of missiles and against those old, short-range, optically-sighted guns weren't quite as solid as they seemed in peacetime. The 4.5 inch guns of the British warships in the Falklands were completely ineffective against aircraft, despite theoretically superior range and sighting. Older, smaller, shorter-ranged, optically-sighted weapons, on the other hand, did some good at times. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) (05/11/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) In article <6322@cbnews.ATT.COM> rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes: >To replace the bombardment capabilities, the 203mm upgrade to the 127/54s >could be resurrected, replacing the twin 127/35s currently left. At >20 rounds per minute, 3 of these could approximate the 3 406mm lost. With >the Army's 203mm rocket assisted projectile, its range would also Yeah, but they scrapped the project. It would be difficult to bring it back now, and expensive. I do like the MLRS idea below, but it has a problem... >approximate the bigger guns. A second alternative is to use the 225mm >MRL of the Army. These fire cluster munitions out to about 30,000 yards. >About 10,000 yards less than the 406s. This would, of course, require a whole new loading and launching system to be designed. It might be easier not to, and put any improvements into somethin like MLRS on small yachts, a cheaper and easier to deal with idea than working it into a battleship. >On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs? >I would think that replacing them with newer guns, such as the twin >40/70s in the DARDO ciws, would be in line, but wouldn't any extra >firepower help against incoming missiles? No reason to. They won't stop reliably anything that the armour won't and they require lots of crew, something the navy is running low on. If they were going to do it, they's add more Phalanx, but they allready have 4 and don't need any more.
pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) (05/11/89)
From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu>
I was looking through Jane's to see some Iowa stuff.
According to Jane's there are 34 spare mk 7 gun barrels left. Are these
not the ones needed. If so where is all of the hou-ha about no replacements
coming from. This was an 85/86 book. Were the 16's upgraded from mk 7's?
If I missed someone mentioning this stuff, sorry...
[mod.note: The Iowas use Mk7's, yes. I wonder if they meant barrel
*liners*, though, instead of complete barrels. I don't know... - Bill ]
ARPA : Philip.Verdieck@andrew.cmu.edu | Carnegie-Mellon University
PV04+@andrew.cmu.edu | Do not attend this college
BITNET: r746pv04@CMCCVB - KALKIN@DRYCAS |-----------------------------
UUCP : ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pv04bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) (05/12/89)
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) In article <6322@cbnews.ATT.COM>, rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes: > > On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs? > I would think that replacing them with newer guns, such as the twin > 40/70s in the DARDO ciws, would be in line, but wouldn't any extra > firepower help against incoming missiles? > > Steve Duncan > mcnc!rti!duncan The problem with the WW2 40mm was the combination of lack of range and large manpower requirement. Even in 1945 they were being replaced by twin 76mm (3") mounts. Actually the Iowas in their WW2 configuration would have pretty formidable anti missle capabilities. A lot of research went into anti kamikaze planning in the late stages of the war. barrage type AA would put a very dense wall of fire up that the missile would have to fly thru the problem is that the navy cannot support the very large manpower requirements that a full AA suite would require. As I understood the anti kamikaze program the idea was to put up a wall of shells and fragments that the attacker would have to fly thru. "If a shell doesn't hit a the plane the plane will hit a shell" was one quote I remember seeing. Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com)
welty@algol.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (05/12/89)
From: welty@algol.crd.ge.com (richard welty) From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu> >I was looking through Jane's to see some Iowa stuff. the recent Jane's editions are not entirely reliable sources of information about the Iowas; in particular at least one recent edition contains misstatements about the armor (Jane's claims that the Iowas are armored against 18" shells, but in point of fact they are only armored against 16"/45 -- it was not possible to armor them against the 16"/50 mk 7) > According to Jane's there are 34 spare mk 7 gun barrels left. Are these >not the ones needed. If so where is all of the hou-ha about no replacements >coming from. This was an 85/86 book. Were the 16's upgraded from mk 7's? >If I missed someone mentioning this stuff, sorry... >[mod.note: The Iowas use Mk7's, yes. I wonder if they meant barrel >*liners*, though, instead of complete barrels. I don't know... - Bill ] there are certainly spare barrel liners in existence. it is quite possible that there are spare barrels; remember that two more Iowas were ordered but not completed. besides, the big gun shop at the Watervliet Arsenal is still intact. there's even a 16" barrel on display outside, visible from I-787 (it may not be a mk7, though) [mod.note: _Warship International_, 1976, No.4 shows a picture taken outside the Naval Weapons Lab, Dahlgren, Va. In it is a complete 16"/50 Mk7, alongside the 18"/47 Mk A. I wonder if they're still there. - Bill ] i'd be more concerned about repair/replacement to the mechanical fire control computers; although they may be able to use the units from Alabama, Massachusetts, or North Carolina, since these ships will almost certainly not ever be returned to service. richard -- -- richard welty welty@algol.crd.ge.com 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York ``Every time I see an Alfa Romeo pass by, I raise my hat'' -- Henry Ford
welty@algol.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (05/12/89)
From: welty@algol.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
From: rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan)
*In article <6272@cbnews.ATT.COM> maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) writes:
*[ reply to someone else deleted]
*> Feasible, yes. How much do you want to modify? If we pull the barbette
*> down to the old powder magazine, we have space for a pair of 61-cell
*> VLS (Mk-41, see Janes wpn systems.)
*>...The result would be space for ~100 SM-2's assumin some other
*> missiles in use.
*> (maybe that's too high. $50m?) Vertical Launch Asroc could be fitted,
*> providing lots'o ASW. Would it be worth it? mmm. Why not spend the
*> money on a DDG-51? well, refit might be cheaper. I dunnow. Comments?
ok, but why do you want to turn your shore-bombardment system
into an AA or AS system? that's what escorts are for, after all.
*To replace the bombardment capabilities, the 203mm upgrade to the 127/54s
*could be resurrected, replacing the twin 127/35s currently left. At
*20 rounds per minute, 3 of these could approximate the 3 406mm lost.
i shouldn't think so -- rate of fire is not a substitute for the
heavy caliber shells in this case. remember, the Iowas were
ressurected because in both Korea and Vietnam, the 16" guns
showed a clear ability to handle targets that were beyond the
capabilities of both land-based artillery and tactical air.
Earthen field fortifications that withstood weeks of tac
air strikes couldn't hold up under a couple of 16" HE shells.
*[mod.note: Beat me to it ! The MRL is my pet suggestion for a potential
*refit; seems to me it would have excellent magazine capacity belowdecks
*(#2 turret, being a deck higher, should have the largest magazines on
*the ship), and this adds extra capability for the support of a landing,
*the battleships' primary mission. - Bill ]
some magazine & projectile stowage trivia on the Iowas:
Turret I
120 projectiles may be stowed on the outer (stationary) ring
of the upper projectile flat
126 on the outer (stationary) ring of the lower projectile flat
72 on both the upper and lower inner rings (these rings
rotate with the gun house)
other nooks and crannies lead to a total of 390
Turret II
70 on upper/outer
125 on lower/outer
72 on both inner rings
121 fixed stowage on the third level
other nooks and crannies lead to a total of 460
Turret III
100 upper/outer
126 lower/outer
72 each inner
other nooks and crannies lead to a total of 370
the powder is stored in the magazines outside of the
turret structure; there not enough magazine space
to match the number of shells that the turrets
can handle (during construction, some magazine
space was diverted to usages such as the new CICs)
richard
--
--
richard welty welty@algol.crd.ge.com
518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
``Every time I see an Alfa Romeo pass by,
I raise my hat'' -- Henry Ford