In 1969 when Richard M. Nixon took the oath of office he started negotiations with North Vietnam. The North Vietnam government refused to even talk about peace negotiations until the Iowa class BB, USS New Jersey was removed from the Tonkin Gulf. North Vietnam wasn't concerned with the daily B-52 bombings over North Vietnam but it was the USS New Jersey they had a problem with. In December of 69 the USS New Jersey was decommissioned and put in the naval reserve fleet until Reagan became POTUS. When Reagan recommissioned the four Iowa's BB's, the Soviet Union went bananas over the Iowa's. The Soviet Union figured out how to sink American super carriers but was never able to produce a weapons platform that could sink an Iowas class BB. The Iowa's are able to take numerous direct hits by 2,750 pound armor piercing 16" projectiles and keep on fighting. The Soviet's/Russia Sandbox SS-N-12, Sunburn SS-N- 22, Shipwreck SS-N-19, etc. anti-ship cruise missiles are semi armor piercing, they can sink super carriers but not Iowa class BB's. But the topic of this thread isn't about recommissioning the Iowa's, the Clinton administration already broke the law and turned all of the Iowa's into museums and for the coup de grâce, Clinton ordered that all of the Iowa's 16" spare barrels be cut up for scrap. The Iowas will never fight again and U.S.Marines will bleed and die in the future. The topic is building a battle cruiser (aka pocket battleship) who's main mission would be providing naval shore fire support for U.S. Marines. That the ships would be armored comparable to the battle cruisers USS Guam and USS Alaska and a main armament of 10" guns and a secondary armament of 5" guns for providing NSFS. There are two ways to fight a war, the smart way or the stupid way. A 16" projectile cost the tax payers $500. One 16" HC round can kill an entire enemy rifle company in the open. (At the time of the Iowa's decommissioning there were enough 16" shells and spare gun barrels in storage for all four Iowa's BB's to refight WW ll.) Then there's the stupid way to fight a war. A $25,000 railgun round or a million dollar cruise missile to knock out one plywood tank decoy like what happened in Kosovo or a $65,000 Hellfire missile to kill one Taliban or ISIS fighter.
During the 1980's the Iowa's were also armed with 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles that were nuclear capable. But the dirty little secret was the "Katie" shells. These shells were born from the concept of nuclear deterrence that had begun to shape the United States armed forces during the Cold War. To compete with the Air Force and the Army, which had developed nuclear bombs and nuclear shells for use on the battlefield, the US Navy began a top-secret program to develop Mk. 23 nuclear naval shells with an estimated yield of 15 to 20 kilotons. W23 The W19 nuclear system was adapted into a nuclear artillery shell for the US Navy 16 inch (406 mm) battleship guns. The W23 was 16 inches (406 mm) diameter and 64 inches long (160 cm), with a weight given variously as 1,500 or 1,900 pounds in reference sources. As with the W19, yield was 15-20 kilotons.
First you have to find the target. How to Hide a Task Force >" The main question is: How do you hide a task force at sea? The answer in very general terms is; by not telling the other guy where you are. This is not as dumb as it sounds..."< continue -> http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm There's more !!! The U.S. Navy’s Secret Counter-Stealth Weapon Could Be Hiding in Plain Sight >" The Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye maybe the U.S. Navy’s secret weapon against the emerging threat of enemy fifth-generation stealth fighters and cruise missiles. The key to that capability is the aircraft’s powerful UHF-band hybrid mechanical/electronically-scanned AN/APY-9 radar built by Lockheed Martin. Both friend and foe alike have touted UHF radars as an effective countermeasure to stealth technology..."< continue -> http://news.usni.org/2014/06/09/u-s-navys-secret-counter-stealth-weapon-hiding-plain-sight
Obviously. Also check this http://arstechnica.com/information-...r-answer-to-under-armed-littoral-combat-ship/
Those Sandinavian navies like Norway and Sweden have developed some very capable corvettes. The U.S. Navy's "Crappy Little Ship" (CLS) is to heavy to be classified as a corvette but those Norwegian and Swedish corvette's are more powerful / lethal than the CLS. Just a couple of weeks ago the civilians with in the DoD and Dept. of the Navy have decided to remake the "crappy little ship" into a frigate. But it's main gun armament will still be the Bofor 57 MM pop gun. >" On Monday the Pentagon capped the Littoral Combat Ship program at 32 ships and the Navy has been tasked with finding a more lethal surface combatant to follow on to the two LCS hulls that have been mired in controversy for the better part of a decade. Announced Monday by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, the Pentagon is directing the service to, “submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate,” he said in remarks to reporters at the Pentagon..."< >" Criticisms from internal Pentagon reports from the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) have called into question the survivability of the Freedom and Independence class hulls, “because its design requirements do not require the inclusion of survivability features necessary to conduct sustained combat operations in a major conflict as expected for the Navy’s other surface combatants,” according to DOT&E’s most recent 2013 annual report..."< http://news.usni.org/2014/02/25/whats-next-lcs http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/01/15/lcs-navy-frigate/21801559/
You are referring to the Visby class corvette ? The Visby Class of stealth corvettes were built for the Swedish Navy by the Swedish company Kockums (a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems of Germany). Excerpts: Design >" The design of the Visby aims to minimise the optical and infrared signature, above water acoustic and hydroacoustic signature, underwater electrical potential and magnetic signature, pressure signature, radar cross section and actively emitted signals. A stealth corvette of the YS 2000 design has a detection range of 13km in rough seas and 22km in calm sea without jamming. In a jammed environment, the Visby would be detected at a range of 8km in rough sea and 11km in calm sea. The hull material is a sandwich construction comprising a PVC core with a carbon fibre and vinyl laminate. The material provides high strength and rigidity, low weight, good shock resistance, low radar and magnetic signature..."< Missiles >"Visby vessels were not initially fitted with an air defence missile system, but could later be equipped with one. It has been reported that the Swedish government has selected the Umkhonto surface-to-air missile system, produced by Denel of South Africa. Umkhonto has infrared guidance, range of 12km and ceiling of 10,000m. The system is capable of engaging up to eight targets. The corvettes are equipped with eight Saab Bofors Dynamics RBS 15 mk2 anti-ship missiles. The RBS 15 mk2 uses active Ku-band radar homing and has a range of more than 200km. The missile has a high subsonic speed, Mach 0.9, and is armed with a 200kg warhead. The missiles will be installed below deck and be fired through special hatches to maintain the vessel's stealth. The missiles' exhaust plumes will be managed in separate canals."< Anti-submarine warfare >" The Visby is equipped with a suite of ASW 127mm rocket-powered grenade launchers, depth charges and torpedoes. There are three fixed 400mm torpedo tubes for Saab Underwater Systems Tp 45 anti-submarine homing torpedoes. Gun >" The Visby is equipped with a Bofors 57mm 70 SAK mkIII general purpose gun. The gun has a fully automatic loading system containing 120 rounds of ready-to-fire ammunition. The gun fires up to 220 rounds a minute to a maximum range of 17,000m."< Mine countermeasures (MCM) >" The Visby carries Saab Bofors Underwater system ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) for mine hunting and the Atlas Elektronik Seafox ROV for mine disposal. The minehunting ROVs are a development of the Double Eagle mkIII..."< http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/
Yeah, the Skjold, it's fiberglass !!! What I find interesting that the Visby class corvette hull is a sandwich construction comprising of a PVC core with a carbon fibre and vinyl laminate. Why didn't I think about that ? A hull using PVC (poly vinyl chloride) instead of fiberglass. I wonder how many years the hull will last before it starts cracking ? But Norways Skjold at 247 tons doesn't meet the definition of a corvette but should be classified as a patrol boat. The Visby at 640 tons does meet the definition as a corvette. Surface combatants between 500 tons to 1,000 tons are corvettes. Frigates are between 1,000 to 4,000 tons. The U.S. Navy's Freedom class "Crappy Little Ship" (LCS) weighs in at 3,000 tons so it's technically a frigate, a frigate that can't fight and only good for taking out ski boats with it's Bofor 57 MM pop gun.
Tell you what, do some research on the Battle of San Carlos, then get back to me, ok? You seem to forget that I have been considering and discussing this with others for years, and have quite a few such examples I can pull out of my head. San Carlos is a perfect example of where such countermeasures would not have made much of a difference at all. The Argentines made excellent use of terrain and conditions and put a serious pounding into the Royal Navy. All the advanced technology in the world make no difference if the attacking aircraft is obscured by mountains until seconds before they drop the bombs. As for the rest, I do not care who proposed the idea of cubes, it is a silly concept and nobody is seriously looking into it. Primarily because it is dangerously close to a flechette, a class of weapon generally considered to be illegal. As far as shooting down a cruise missile, I do not think I ever mentioned them being shot down by manpads, but they can be shot down. They have been shot down many times since WWII. Now can one be shot down with a MANPAD? Sure, not a problem. The Tomahawk only has a top speed of 550 MPH, and is a subsonic missile. MANPADs range in speed from 580-900 MPH. The shooter only has to get enough advance warning to be in position when it flies close by. A cruise missile is really no different then any other jet aircraft when it comes to shooting one down by any type of missile. And administratively an AVENGER unit (5-52) took out at least 2 simulated cruise missiles in the 2008 Yuma air defense exercise (the cruise missiles were simulated by FLS microjets).
What battleships were involved in the Malvinas conflict? Well, I know that Argentina sometimes called their main ship the "Battleship General Belgrano", but that was always a joke. It was nothing but a pre-WWII era Brooklyn class Light Cruiser. And other then adding a help deck and 2 1960's era anti-aircraft missiles it was pretty much unchanged from when it was launched in 1938. In fact, her sole "modern weapon" was the addition of 2 British Sea Cat launchers in the mid 1960's (3 missiles each, total of 6 missiles). And the Sea Cat was never a very good system, it's one use in combat was a horrible failure. In the Falklands the Brits fired over 80 of the Sea Cats, only only brought down a single A-4 Skyhawk. The system performed so horribly that they were scrapped as quickly as possible, replacing them with a CIWS system. The biggest failure for the General Belgrano was that she was operating alone, absolutely no escorts or screening vessels of any kind, steaming right towards the British fleet. That was extreme stupidity on the part of Argentina. In that conflict, both sides pretty much made really stupid decisions, it is just that Argentina made more stupid decisions then the Brits did.
I looked around on the 'Net, but I don't see that the Argentine fleet had any experience with conventional warfare @ sea - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Navy#19th_century In fact, it looks like most of their ships & personnel (historically) were foreign-built & -recruited. The Argentine Navy was enthusiastic about the Dirty War, but that was more of a national police action, than ship-to-ship combat. & the last ruling junta was dominated by the Army - & so wasn't versed in marine ops. Looking through the articles I found, I don't think Argentina actually expected to fight a naval engagement with UK over the Falklands - they seemed to think that their capture of the Falklands would give them an advantage in subsequent negotiations for the political future of the islands.
The Falklands War was really over 2 issues. First was over the islands themselves, something Argentina had been trying to get the UK to negotiate with them for a century (and the UK veto in the UN prevented it from ever being brought up there). Most people are not aware that the UK actually attacked Argentina twice in the 1800's (including occupying Buenos Aires for over a month), and they have never been happy with the British being there. It was a formal part of Argentina for over 35 years until the British took it over and expelled the Argentines living there. The Brits took it over as part of their invasion of Argentina and maintained control ever since. But also it was a way to try and gain public support for the then failing junta. The Junta was indeed very popular when it first took over, but by 1982 was barely able to hold onto control. It was hoped that a war against their "traditional enemy" would help unify the country behind them. But the blunders (including the sinking of the "pride of the fleet) ultimately doomed the junta.
Yah, that's the problem when you start to believe your own press clippings - pretty soon you've got a chest full of medals, decorations, ribbons for this that & the other - with no corresponding doctrine nor drill nor experience to back them up with. The Argentine economy looks like it's been kicked to the curb ever since Peron. Their political/economic setup may be blamed on Spain - but it's a tough way to manage a country.
Actually, the economy has been up and down for decades. And Peron was no savior either, no matter what many would have you believe. The rapid decline of the economy (from 4 pesos per US$ to 30 per US$ in 6 months) and his basically declaring war against the Catholic Church is what led to the first coup against him and his exile in 1955. After almost 20 years in exile he was allowed to return so long as he did not get involved in politics again. That did not last long though, within a year he was President again, and within a year the economy was in a tailspin yet again. International corporations were bailing from the country in droves, IBM, Ford, Chevy, and others rapidly pulled up and left the country, never to return. And after his death, his widow became President. Just over a year later she "declared war" against "Right Wing Obstructionists", and ordered the military to seize and arrest any opponents of her government. Unrest had been growing since she took office, especially driven by far-left radicals (primarily Trotskyist revolutionaries) but she ordered her military to go after any right-wing opposition and to conduct arrests and even executions as she ordered. The military refused, she tried to order the leaders imprisoned for refusing her orders. Finally after less then 2 years in office and over 1,300 deaths the military had enough, and held a coup. Like in 1955 they threw her out of office and exiled her and tried to re-establish the government on the former Constitution. But continued agitation from far-left organizations caused them to hold off on returning the government to civilian control as it had before, and eventually they simply held power for the sake of power itself, and became worse then the terror they overthrew. When the 1976 coup started most of Argentina celebrated. The country was in chaos, and most remembered how in 1955 the military coup restored order to the nation. That joy did not last long however this time.
Well, Argentina (like most smaller nations) rarely conducted "fleet operations". They were more likely to send out a ship or two, primarily more as "Coast Guard" then as an actual "offensive fleet" as nations like the US do. And they have built their own ships. However, after WWII the use of foreign ships became huge in third world nations. For one, they were battle proven and cheap. The US and UK in particular had huge numbers of Cruisers and Destroyers they were willing to let go for a song. And it is always cheaper to buy a ship already completed as opposed to building your own from the keel up. Plus it made good political sense. The US and USSR both used the sales of their surplus military equipment as a way to gain allies or potential allies. After all, said equipment will eventually need replacement parts, upgrades, and the like. And who better to go to then the country that built it in the first place and has lots of replacements already on hand?
Mmmh I tend to disagree. I don't think we need battleships for shore bombardment, but simply floating platforms with guns. We don't need armor and we don't need speed for shore shelling. Monitors were dedicated to that task, but cruisers and even destroyers of the epoch can fulfill it (and often did), exchanging overkill-levels of power with a faster rate of fire. The Germans never used the term "Pocket Battleship", which was coined by the Brits. They were Panzerschiff, or "armored ships", and that was equally a mis-nommer since they had thin armor, that of a cruiser. I think the best way to describe them would be "Pocket Battlecruisers". The ship you describe is closer to the "euro" -type of battlecruiser, one favored by Germany and France, and to which the Alaska ressemble: A lighter, faster "2nd class ship-of-the-line". In comparison, the Brit ones and the "Lexingtons" were often larger than bona fide BBs, exchanging armor (which was near cruiser-level) for speed (equally cruiser-level). Once again I am not sure: I think it is better to shoot out missiles out of the sky, in any case: Armor really slows down a ship, and if it can be made to resist missile damage, I don't think the crew ever will: In addition to structural damage that might compromise the ship, HE charges can kill a lot of servicemen. I would propose ablative/reactive armor for those few missiles which would evade interception in the worst of cases. That's nice: let me have a try: So we need an old-fashion artillery platform for ground support, one that will operate as part of a larger fleet that will cover up some aspects? I propose a rather large 20 000t ship, Zumwalt-like stealthy (as should all future US ships), with a speed around 32knts and a main armement of low-velocity, super-heavy, high-trajectory guns, almost howitzers. Not made for ship-to-ship combat. Let's say quick-firing 10/45", 6 of them in two fore turrets, non-superfiring (for more stability). Give them a standard modern missile load for self-defense, adding to that a railgun (yes!) just in case one of these hypersonic missiles or fast drone is detected. As armor, this ship will feature ablative, reactive armor that counters the shot before it hits. Additionally, the ship should have a drone-launching platform for spotting purposes. Should be costly, thought.
Actually any ships with large guns in particular the 16"/50 guns of the Iowa's have to be armored to protect the ship from the guns over pressure that's caused when you fire the guns. The Iowa's are able to withstand 10 psi overpressure. Your Nimitz class carriers, Burkes and Ticonderoga are only able to withstand 5 psi overpressure. If you were to put a 16"/50 gun on the deck of a Nimitz class carrier and fire the gun the overpressure would damage the superstructure. When you are looking at any film or videos of a Iowa class BB firing a nine gun salvo what you're actually seeing is each gun is firing at a different time, just fractions of a second when the other guns are firing since each 16" gun with full powder charge is producing a 10 psi overpressure. During the Vietnam war a sailor who served on a 8" gun cruiser went above on the weather deck to watch the ship fire it's guns at North Vietnam. The blast blew him off the deck into the ocean. He ended up in the Hanoi Hilton along with John McCain as a POW.
Yes - the weight of the armement is relatively insignificant (when compared to armor), but when it fires a lot of physics happen. However, small ship can do with big guns, as long as they compromise. Ships like the Roberts-class monitors were the same tonnage as a light cruiser, and were sporting a twin 15" turret. Coastal defense ships like the Sverige or Vainamoinen also were quite small for the battery they carried. Oh, and I'll give you the ugliest ship in the History of the World, Italian monitor Faa di Bruno, with her twin 15" turret. She was a little heavier than a WWII destroyer. Now of course, these ships were extremely slow, and about as armored as cruisers, but they sufficed to the task.
10 psi overpressure more than destroys eardrums. I found this video the other day, a Russian conscript standing behind artillery in Grozny. At 1:18 you can see him grasp his ear, Im thinking it was ruptured. [video=youtube;_Tf4p2zIg_4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tf4p2zIg_4[/video]
Well the Roberts class monitor had armor protection. Turret: 13 inch Barbette: 8 inch Belt: 4-5 inches I believe the Robert's class monitor's main gun was the 15"/54. \ Excerpt: Re: All-steel construction as against wired type. Piano wire. Cut an American or German naval gun barrel in half and noticed how it was constructed. Large American naval guns used piano wire. Now the British always claimed that American and German naval guns drooped ? I really don't know if they did or not.
