On 17-Aug-2009, cavelamb wrote:

wrote:
That was the accuracy back in WWII. In Beirut they were hitting
houses.
But the main thing is it is very hard to sink a battleship. Most
antiship
missiles today will not penetrate there thick hide.


They don't have to penetrate the hull to disable the ship.

And can you explain how that might work?

The superstructure is still vulnerable.

That's where all the sensors, antenna, and weapons are located.

Take out the electronics and the ship is combat ineffective.

Dead wrong:
1. The superstructure is not vulnerable, it is 12 inches thick.
2. They carry spar and emergency antennas.
3. All they need is GPS and a data link with an AWACS to take out ANYTHING
in range.

wrote:
On 17-Aug-2009, cavelamb wrote:

wrote:
That was the accuracy back in WWII. In Beirut they were hitting
houses.
But the main thing is it is very hard to sink a battleship. Most
antiship
missiles today will not penetrate there thick hide.

They don't have to penetrate the hull to disable the ship.
And can you explain how that might work?
The superstructure is still vulnerable.

That's where all the sensors, antenna, and weapons are located.

Take out the electronics and the ship is combat ineffective.

Dead wrong:
1. The superstructure is not vulnerable, it is 12 inches thick.
2. They carry spar and emergency antennas.
3. All they need is GPS and a data link with an AWACS to take out ANYTHING
in range.


Hi Joe,

It is true that armor would keep bullets out, but an Exocette with go
through that like so much cardboard.

It's the main thing that Admirals (and Navies!) have nightmares about.

Shaped charges "cut" through armor rather than trying to penetrate by force.
Battle tanks use "reactive armor", high explosive panels to "repel" such
attacks. The counter to that is to simply fire two rounds. The first one
pops the reactive armor, the second kills the tank.

Ships are too lightly built and too weight dependent for such devices.
And they only work once, so the second mouse does indeed get the cheese.

To defend itself a modern surface vessel needs to control the airspace for
100 miles around it. (Most of these kind of air launched missiles have a 40 to
60 mile range)

A battle ship, with great big guns, is still just another sitting duck target.

It depends entirely on the air group coverage provided by the aircraft carrier
for it's survival.



(quote)

The Exocet missile is a French-built anti-ship missile that has been in service
since 1979. The Exocet missile can deliver a 165 kg explosive warhead to a range
of 70-180 km. A sea-skimming missile, the Exocet stays close enough to the water
that it can be difficult to pick up on radar. There are several versions of the
Exocet missile that can be launched from submarines, surface vessels, or
airplanes. Several hundred of these missiles were launched by Iran during the
Iran-Iraq war, and a few were launched by Argentina against United Kingdom ships
during the Falklands War.

Tuned for doing the greatest possible damage to ships, an Exocet missile can
travel at 315 m/s (1134 km/h), meaning it hits most targets within a few minutes
from launch at most. This speed is slightly under the speed of sound, which
prevents the Exocet missile from creating an easily detectable sonic boom.
Beginning its flight solely based on inertia, in mid-flight the missile turns on
an internal radar navigational system that helps it hone in on its target.

In 1982, during the Falklands War, between Argentina and the UK over the
Falkland Islands off the southeast coast of Argentina, several Exocets were used
to devastating effect on the UK Navy. Super Entendard warplanes equipped with
Exocet missiles managed to sink the HMS Sheffield, a destroyer, on 4 May, and
the 15,000 tonne merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May. This made Exocet
missiles world-famous. In the UK, the term "Exocet" became shorthand for a
devastating attack.

Recently declassified documents make it clear that at the time of the Falklands
War, UK military intelligence was very intimidated by the Exocet missiles,
worrying about a "nightmare scenario" where one or both of the Navy's aircraft
carriers in the area might have been sunk, making recapturing the Falklands much
harder. The cost difference between an Exocet and an aircraft carrier is huge --
several million dollars compared to dozens of billions of dollars. The
vulnerability of capital ships to anti-ship missile attacks has caused some
military strategists to question the value of these ships. Such questions play a
role in strategic planning in the United States, especially in context of a
possible war with China over Taiwan. Without an effective anti-missile system,
nuclear-tipped or conventional Exocets could likely sink much of the US Navy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark...4/slide27.html

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:25:22 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:



Hi Joe,

It is true that armor would keep bullets out, but an Exocette with go
through that like so much cardboard.

The ships taken out by Exocets weren't battleships. Destroyers are
unarmored and often have aluminum superstructures.
But I agree that *all* surface ships are vulnerable during all out war
with a major power in this air/electronics age.
I think Billy Mitchell proved air supremacy in the 1920's
Battleships were and are excellent bombardment delivery systems.
I seem to recall each 16" shell is about 2000 pounds - I looked at
Wiki and they say 1900-2700 pounds.
Big problem is the manpower required to deliver the explosives.
This gives some perspective,
"When firing two broadsides per minute, a single Iowa-class battleship
can put 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ordnance on a designated target
every minute, a figure that can only be matched by a single B-52
Stratofortress of the United States Air Force.[47] A B-52 can carry up
to 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) of bombs, missiles, and mines, or any
combination thereof."
Putting aside all the other delivery issues like shell capacity before
re-arming and how many B-52's that can equal, the 3 turrets require
300 men total to operate. That's just the gun crews.
A B-52 has a 5 man crew.
A battleship is hugely expensive to build and operate for what you
get.
Anyway, there's all kinds of ways of looking at it. I kind of see it
as 3-D aircraft and subs versus 2-D ships.
The 3rd dimension element is a big advantage.
Bottom line is the BB's are all gone.
Even in WWII their role was limited to mostly Pacific island
bombardment. Though their presence affected strategies of fleet
movement, the carrier task groups were where the real action was.
They were magnificent machines of destruction though. Not just the
guns, but the other engineering that went into them.
BTW, sci.military.naval used to have some pretty good discussions on
this kind of thing.
But as has happened in many other groups, the political bull****ters
have made it a chore to read.

--Vic

On 18-Aug-2009, Vic Smith wrote:

Hi Joe,

It is true that armor would keep bullets out, but an Exocette with go
through that like so much cardboard.

The ships taken out by Excepts weren't battleships. Destroyers are
unarmored and often have aluminum superstructures.
But I agree that *all* surface ships are vulnerable during all out war
with a major power in this air/electronics age.

This is closest to being correct. The Exocets will not penetrate an Iowa
class battleship according to several people that were on them.
I am not saying that they can not be sunk by missiles, I just said that the
antiship missiles wont do it. They are designed to take out the newer less
armored ships.
Now could a major power quickly repurpose a missile to kill a battleship?
Might take a few hours but necessity is the mother of invention.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:56:26 GMT, wrote:


On 18-Aug-2009, Vic Smith wrote:

Hi Joe,

It is true that armor would keep bullets out, but an Exocette with go
through that like so much cardboard.

The ships taken out by Excepts weren't battleships. Destroyers are
unarmored and often have aluminum superstructures.
But I agree that *all* surface ships are vulnerable during all out war
with a major power in this air/electronics age.

This is closest to being correct. The Exocets will not penetrate an Iowa
class battleship according to several people that were on them.
I am not saying that they can not be sunk by missiles, I just said that the
antiship missiles wont do it. They are designed to take out the newer less
armored ships.
Now could a major power quickly repurpose a missile to kill a battleship?
Might take a few hours but necessity is the mother of invention.

Hey, how come your spell-checker changed my Exocet but left yours
alone? (-:
I spent 3 1/2 years on a can and always felt like a sitting duck.
Most of that time was in a boiler room 12 feet below the waterline.
Battleships had exterior tankage and other means to thwart torpedoes.
I had maybe half an inch of steel. More than once I would look at the
hull and wonder if a Russian torpedo could punch through and land in
my lap before it exploded. Not that I worried about it, but the
thought did come now and then.
Luckily, at that age I was usually just thinking about pussy.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:56:26 GMT, wrote:

On 18-Aug-2009, Vic Smith wrote:

Hi Joe,

It is true that armor would keep bullets out, but an Exocette with go
through that like so much cardboard.

The ships taken out by Excepts weren't battleships. Destroyers are
unarmored and often have aluminum superstructures.
But I agree that *all* surface ships are vulnerable during all out war
with a major power in this air/electronics age.
This is closest to being correct. The Exocets will not penetrate an Iowa
class battleship according to several people that were on them.
I am not saying that they can not be sunk by missiles, I just said that the
antiship missiles wont do it. They are designed to take out the newer less
armored ships.
Now could a major power quickly repurpose a missile to kill a battleship?
Might take a few hours but necessity is the mother of invention.

Hey, how come your spell-checker changed my Exocet but left yours
alone? (-:
I spent 3 1/2 years on a can and always felt like a sitting duck.
Most of that time was in a boiler room 12 feet below the waterline.
Battleships had exterior tankage and other means to thwart torpedoes.
I had maybe half an inch of steel. More than once I would look at the
hull and wonder if a Russian torpedo could punch through and land in
my lap before it exploded. Not that I worried about it, but the
thought did come now and then.
Luckily, at that age I was usually just thinking about pussy.

--Vic

We had our bottom sandblasted in dry dock. It took three tries to get
afloat. Sandblasted right through that thin old bottom!
Another time at sea, we had to stop and put a diver over the side to
plug a hole.
I don't think we could have stopped a 22!
Gordon

On 18-Aug-2009, Vic Smith wrote:

Hi Joe,

It is true that armor would keep bullets out, but an Exocette with go
through that like so much cardboard.

The ships taken out by Excepts weren't battleships. Destroyers are
unarmored and often have aluminum superstructures.
But I agree that *all* surface ships are vulnerable during all out war
with a major power in this air/electronics age.

This is closest to being correct. The Exocets will not penetrate an Iowa
class battleship according to several people that were on them.
I am not saying that they can not be sunk by missiles, I just said that
the
antiship missiles wont do it. They are designed to take out the newer
less
armored ships.
Now could a major power quickly repurpose a missile to kill a battleship?
Might take a few hours but necessity is the mother of invention.

Hey, how come your spell-checker changed my Exocet but left yours
alone? (-:
I spent 3 1/2 years on a can and always felt like a sitting duck.
Most of that time was in a boiler room 12 feet below the waterline.
Battleships had exterior tankage and other means to thwart torpedoes.
I had maybe half an inch of steel. More than once I would look at the
hull and wonder if a Russian torpedo could punch through and land in
my lap before it exploded. Not that I worried about it, but the
thought did come now and then.
Luckily, at that age I was usually just thinking about pussy.

--Vic

First let me say thank you for serving!
Being born in 59 I missed that obligation. My cousin (4 years older) served
on the New Jersey from the time Reagan took it out of mothballs until it
went back in. He is the source of most of my information on battleships. I
chose to go to collage, he went in the navy. He has a pension from the navy
and is about 5 years from retiring from 3M with another pension. Meanwhile I
am looking for a job, AGAIN.
I have come to hate aviation. When the economy takes a downturn aviation
does a nosedive.

As to my spell-checker changing your Exocet but leaving mine alone is
simple. I hit the wrong button.

In article ,
Vic Smith wrote:

Battleships are dodo's of the Navy, for the same reason that Aircraft
Carriers will become dodo's in the near future. You need Air and
Undersea Superiority around the ships to keep them safe and if you lose
that, your not going to have the ships left floating. Yes they were a
great Gun Platform, but if you don't have Air and Undersea Superiority
in the seas within the Gun Range of the Targets, the enemy will sink
your ship, PERIOD. Carriers have, and maintain that Air and Undersea
Superiority, via a moving envelop out 300-400 miles, with their combined
Fleet, and THEY NEVER get closer than that to the Targets... with
Battleships you need to be within 20 miles of the Target, and one
Harpoon Missile can ruin your whole week. The Argentineans & the Brits
found this out in the Falklands War. No Air and Undersea Superiority,
and you have lot of dead ships, and one Nuke Sub, blew the Argentine
Cruiser away, with one torpedo.

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:41:22 -0800, Bruce in alaska
wrote:

one Nuke Sub, blew the Argentine
Cruiser away, with one torpedo.

Four fired, two hits.

Casady

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:41:22 -0800, Bruce in alaska
wrote:

In article ,
Vic Smith wrote:

Battleships are dodo's of the Navy, for the same reason that Aircraft
Carriers will become dodo's in the near future. You need Air and
Undersea Superiority around the ships to keep them safe and if you lose
that, your not going to have the ships left floating. Yes they were a
great Gun Platform, but if you don't have Air and Undersea Superiority
in the seas within the Gun Range of the Targets, the enemy will sink
your ship, PERIOD. Carriers have, and maintain that Air and Undersea
Superiority, via a moving envelop out 300-400 miles, with their combined
Fleet, and THEY NEVER get closer than that to the Targets... with
Battleships you need to be within 20 miles of the Target, and one
Harpoon Missile can ruin your whole week. The Argentineans & the Brits
found this out in the Falklands War. No Air and Undersea Superiority,
and you have lot of dead ships, and one Nuke Sub, blew the Argentine
Cruiser away, with one torpedo.

As I said before, BB's can't be compared to destroyers, nor can they
be compared to cruisers. Not disagreeing with your main point, as
I've said I felt like a sitting duck on my surface ship, so-called
air/undersea "superiority" notwithstanding.
But what ships a Navy uses gets into geo-politics and the world at
large. That's why carriers have been useful in recent wars, and why
the BB Iowa(?) was used in the Gulf War.
Not much worry about the Iraqi and Taliban air forces and submarine
fleets, though I'm sure the normal Soviet era defenses are still being
kept by our fleets.
Battleships are gone because they are just too expensive for
delivering explosives compared to what you get via airmail.
NOTHING is defensible against nuke ICBM's, with MIRVS and all the
other flavors, and that's why MAD worked so well.
I'm no expert on this, but if you want to really get involved go to
sci.military.naval. I'm sure you will find proponents of keeping BB's
in the fleet even now, and they'll have lucid tactical and strategic
arguments for it.
But my understanding is they are gone mainly because of dollars per
pound of explosive delivery.
Interestingly, as recently as 2005, it looks like Ted Kennedy and John
McCain were both advocating for battleships.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/2635-foreign-policy-us

--Vic