One Mark 48 torpedo would break her spine and send her to the bottom'
The torpedo explodes under the ship creating a void which causes the ship to break in two of its own weight.
Posted on 09/18/2006 7:41:46 PM PDT by neverdem
A couple of battleship groups in the strait of Hormuz would settle the argument about its being "closed" by the Iranians. An ounce of prevention by putting the fear of allah into the savages on shore and afloat in their little boats with rpg's at the ready. The onshore guys at the silkworm launchers would be busy throwing away what used to be clean underwear.
Some things are so obvious it takes an "expert" to miss them.
"An antiship missile or 2 or three could disable any on these. "
That isn't likely in my opinion. The battleships had real armor, they were designed to go broadside with other battleships. That doesn't mean they are cost efficient now, but don't underestimate the amount of steel in these monsters.
"he General Belgrano was not a battleship,"
I believe the Belgrano was aluminum, or was that the British ship?
the Navy needs some new thinking.
navy ships are lavishly overmanned
why can the electronics be operated from shore?
perhaps some old timers could be found who would
work for cheap, as the gun crew
you don't have to sail the ship home
just to change the crew.
tow it with a carrier, to save fuel
lots of ways to save money
One Mark 48 torpedo would break her spine and send her to the bottom'
The torpedo explodes under the ship creating a void which causes the ship to break in two of its own weight.
The next generation of Navy ships will have tiny crews relative to the ones of today.
Is there anyone who has hard data on survival of a battleship hit by conventional anti-ship missiles?
I would think all that steel might be an effective barrier, but that's just a guess.
Some hard data would be appreciated.
The british one
"The next generation of Navy ships will have tiny crews relative to the ones of today."
They prefer "little people"
The British ships lost in the Falklands were mostly made of aluminum, as I remember.
Cost of course. Mostly the cost of the crew. Not just the cost of a couple thousand sailors, but also the cost of training people to run them. It's not like there are a whole lot of people left in the Navy who ever served on a BB. With only so much money to go around, choices have to be made.
Belgrano was steel, was the USS Phoenix, a World War II- era light cruiser.
A number of the British ships including HMS Sheffield had Aluminum superstructures.
More British ships were sunk by dumb bombs in the Falklands War than by Exocets, something that gets forgotten. And if all the Argentinian dumb bombs had exploded the British would quite possibly have lost so many ships they would have lost the war - they were dropped at incredibly low altitudes and didn't arm.
Eww, I'll have to get in on this one later.
Which is what it would have done to the carriers as well. I am simply talking about the quality of the construction of these old ships. They can take a lot, and they are an excellent platform. The chief problem is the number of men required to man them. Given that they were designed around the gun platforms, changes are difficult.
The other thing is there's such an emotional attachment to the 16" shell people don't realize it's actually a much smaller explosion than a routine sort of bomb dropped by pretty much any Air Force or Naval aircraft.
And GPS bombs are much, much more accurate than 16" fire - and, wonder of wonders, you can actually drop them more than 15 miles inland.
How much do they need to keep these ships operational each year?
There are no similiar vessels. No other USN ship has any gun larger than 5 inches. the IOWA class has 9 16 inch guns that have a range of 25+ miles.
1) They can throw a can 16 miles.
2) Their sheer size intimidates the enemy and makes our guys feel proud.
3) They are the Navy's mascot.
Some things you can't always put a price tag on.
GM loses money on the Vette, but it's a Chevy icon.IMOHO
My own preference would be to keep two of the things, nuclear power, maximal defensive weaponry, phalanx guns, THEL, and whatever it would take to defeat torpedos including the shkval, keep the two 16" forward mounts, and replace the rear 16" turret with Gerald Bull's 40" super gun. Other weaponry would include missiles including tomahawks and anti-ship missils.
My guess would be that many of the crew of the things during WW-II were manning 5" and smaller guns. You just wouldn't need as many people today. the phalanx and THEL systems would be automated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.