Skip to comments.
Why Doesn't the Navy Have Battle Cruisers?
Naval Sea Systems Command ^
| May 16, 2018
| Kelley Stirling
Posted on 05/20/2018 11:16:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
To: Seruzawa
Im not saying that we should. But we could. One BB could support Marine amphibious operations at a fraction of the cost of a Carrier. Even with massive, modern, upgrades the design of older ships of almost any kind requires a much larger number of sailors to operate than newer ships. The Navy does not have the manpower to bring back and refurbish/modernize old BBs or other types.
61
posted on
05/20/2018 3:32:17 PM PDT
by
OldMissileer
(Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
To: philman_36
A 20,000 ton heavy cruiser with nine 8 inch guns, armor and missile batteries, Sam and ciws could be built for a fraction of a carrier or battleship. You get heavy guns, tlam, and reasonable armored protect. Think a souped up Baltimore class or New Port News type ship.
62
posted on
05/20/2018 3:43:32 PM PDT
by
sarge83
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson decided on a defense strategy that basically eliminated the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps
Whoa!
To: ealgeone; Phlyer
During the battle of the Philippine Sea, Willis Lee’s fast battleships and heavy cruisers provided a primary anti-aircraft screen for the carriers operating behind him. There was certainly a whole lot of American aircraft involved but their role was to hunt the Japanese rather than to protect Lee’s ships.
And in that resulting air battle, the Mariana’s Turkey Shoot, Navy planes basically eliminated Japan’s carrier air power for the rest of the war.
64
posted on
05/20/2018 3:48:41 PM PDT
by
Pelham
(California, a subsidiary of Mexico, Inc.)
To: Robert A Cook PE
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Both the Lexington and Saratoga took damage (and survived) that would have sunk other carriers that did NOT have armored hulls.
To: Robert A Cook PE
But who is winning the war if a $50,000.00 missile is fired from a 150 million dollar jet at a 500.00 dollar pickup truck carrying a machine gun? False premise. You send out a Cobra/Viper and blast it with the Gatling.
Armament: 1 x 20 mm M197 3-barreled Gatling cannon
Missiles are for hardened targets/armor/ships.
Here's New Viper Attack Helicopters Pack a Huge Hellfire Punch10:18
16 Hellfire missiles.
HELLFIRE® Rocket Motor
The HELLFIRE is a multi-mode weapon system used by the U.S. Army as an anti-tank and anti-bunker missile, by the U.S. Navy as an anti-ship missile and by the U.S. Air Force on unmanned aircraft.
Don't go wasting my missiles, boys, use yer guns. Close support means
close.
/General impression
67
posted on
05/20/2018 3:59:20 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Rebelbase
In a real fight that Swedish sub would have never made it out of harbor.
And even if it did, it’s full load of torpedoes would not sink a carrier.
68
posted on
05/20/2018 3:59:28 PM PDT
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: sarge83
Do the same thing as with the Warthog...build the aircraft around the weapon.
For shore battery powder guns are going bye bye, IMO.
Railguns as the weapon system and build the ship around that.
Forward and aft battery, close support (Vulcan, BPDMS or similar)
It could be done smaller than 20,000 ton and be more effective/destructive.
69
posted on
05/20/2018 4:16:30 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Keep firing them HellFires boys, every single one of ‘em ever fired has a Crosdaddy part in there, PaveWays too. Let ‘ em rip
To: Sarge
The Navy's Railgun Is About to Get Faster and More PowerfulThe railgun works by using extremely high electrical currents to generate magnetic fields capable of accelerating a projectile to speeds of up to Mach 6, more than twice as fast as existing projectiles. The railgun has a range of more than 100 miles. It fires projectiles that destroy targets not with high explosive, but by smashing into them at hypersonic speeds.
71
posted on
05/20/2018 4:20:53 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: crosdaddy
A vested interest, I see.
72
posted on
05/20/2018 4:26:17 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Rebelbase
Propeller planes sank the largest warship ever built.
Yes. But those planes were equipped with weapons no longer in any nation's inventory. When navies moved away from armored ships, nations quit stocking armor-piercing weapons. That's the point, as I mentioned several times.
It's not the delivery system (propeller or jet or warp drive), it's the weapon. There are, for example, no air-delivered heavy torpedoes any more and it's a lot easier to sink ships by letting water in the bottom than by letting air out the top.
In point of fact, the Musashi sank after receiving 13 heavy torpedo hits. The Mk46 (or newer Mk 50) weighs less than a third of what the standard US WWII torpedo weighed, and the warhead is even smaller in proportion.
So, to answer your question directly: If well handled, with reasonable US-standard damage control, then no, an Exocet or Harpoon would not sink an alert US WWII-era battleship. In fact, two Exocets hit the Stark (a frigate with 1/20 of the displacement of a WWII US BB, and no armor) and didn't sink it.
Armored warships, when they were still state-of-the-art, used a 'citadel' design where all the vitals were protected by heavy armor. So Exocets or Harpoons or standard light-case bombs (e.g. Mk 82) or air-launched torpedoes (e.g Mk 50) could damage the ship, but not penetrate enough to cause mortal damage. The most significant risk would be for multiple torpedoes each to take out a shaft and propeller (of which there are four, and separated well enough that one torpedo won't take out more than one). Even then the BB wouldn't sink, but it would be unable to move.
The greatest danger - aside from developing new armor-piercing weapons - would be from submarine launched heavy torpedoes (e.g. Mk 48) . . . and then it would take a lot (Musashi took 13). With reasonable escorts, there aren't many submarines who could stay close to a BB for long enough to get a dozen or more hits.
Any ship can be sunk. The question is whether it would be easier to sink an Iowa-class BB with current inventory weapons than an equivalent cost in other surface ships. I don't advocate building more battleships because new ones would be very expensive, but when they are inventory, it would be much more expensive for adversary nations to develop the weapons to counter them.
73
posted on
05/20/2018 4:26:31 PM PDT
by
Phlyer
To: Snickering Hound
Oh, it is many more than just the British ships at Falklands - although every destroyer-style ship hit there was put out of action (or sunk) even if only hit by a dud. Some 36 other ships all around the world have been knocked out as well.
74
posted on
05/20/2018 4:29:18 PM PDT
by
Robert A Cook PE
(The democrats' national goal: One world social-communism under one world religion: Atheistic Islam.)
To: philman_36
Well, yes of course. But very proud also, almost 35 years, as the sole supplier for this part.
To: crosdaddy
Sprockets and widgets. LOL
76
posted on
05/20/2018 4:32:23 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: SeeSharp
What kind of ship would they want to call a battle cruiser?'Sounds too much like an "assault cruiser".
77
posted on
05/20/2018 4:40:59 PM PDT
by
Does so
(Let's make the word Mohammedism--adding it to other ISMs...)
To: Phlyer
the Japanese Navy had bigger ships and more of them, plus the world's best (at that time) torpedoes. We should have entered WWII with WWI's torpedoes. They were more reliable!
78
posted on
05/20/2018 4:42:51 PM PDT
by
Does so
(Let's make the word Mohammedism--adding it to other ISMs...)
To: ealgeone
I would agree the destroyers and destroyer escorts were on picket duty....but not the battleships.
There is a difference between 'picket duty', which was indeed comprised primarily of destroyers, and the 'Gun Line' which was comprised of heavier ships with extensive anti-aircraft capabilities. After the attacking planes overflew the pickets, they had to pass the gauntlet of battleships and cruisers to get to the carriers. And yes, there were combat air patrols overhead, but some Japanese planes still got through to attack, and the bottom line was that no alert, maneuvering US battleships were sunk.
The key point I made - again and again - was not about the ability of aircraft to attack a battleship. They could. The key point is that with no armor-piercing bombs or heavy air-launched torpedoes, they couldn't sink the battleships. I guess an analogy would be that you could shoot at one thousands of times with a .50BMG and break a lot of glass, knock out some secondary items (e.g. fire directors for smaller weapons, ships boats), but you wouldn't sink the ship. In terms of ability to penetrate the armor on an Iowa-class BB and deliver mortal damage, a Mk82 light-case bomb, or an Exocet, or a Harpoon is closer to a .50BMG than to a 2700-lb 16-in armor-piercing shell.
To assume that just because an attacker could get a hit means that the target ship would sink just begs the question - it presumes no value for the armor. If aircraft were still launching 2500-lb torpedoes (instead of 900 lb), and if BLU-109s were in widespread inventory, then the BBs would be at significant risk (which is why no one built any after WWII), but with a few exceptions (not in widespread inventory) or anti-tank shells, armor-piercing weapons went away as soon as ships stopped using a lot of armor. (Note: BB armor is heavier than tanks, so you can't just mount a tank gun on an aircraft and declare success.)
That's what makes it so hard to take out an armored ship today.
79
posted on
05/20/2018 4:45:58 PM PDT
by
Phlyer
To: philman_36
Ha, in another 8 days, it will be our 123rd Anniversary of proud “sprockets & widgets” :-)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson