I’m unsure of how the engineering works, but I wonder how evasive you could make to electronic sensors? It would probably take some study of the best targeting systems, of course, and I admit I have no expertise there. Doing so might require completely overhauling the superstructure, however, so that could go beyond the bounds of the OP.
Yes, not useful for indirect fire (artillery), but would be very formidable for direct fires - anti-surface, anti-aircraft, anti-missile, etc.
My rough guess would be a couple billion in design costs and about $8-10 billion for the lead ship, assuming a 45,000 ton displacement.
What do you mean, “evasive sensors?”
Scenario I: nut for nut and bolt for bolt. I have no idea what tool rigging would have to be redesigned, or crazy difficulty in chasing down obsolete or no longer-used parts. Or simply impossible.
Can even steel metallurgy and formation process techniques be so different as to be unrecoverable?
I’m not saying every manufacturing technique from 1938-1943 must be observed. (I’m thinking of the musical instrument makers who create instruments as close as possible to the original models: which means that sometimes, in order to get a certain material property, they have to recreate the obsolete manufacturing ways, forego power tools, etc.)
Scenario II: build a modern copy, with has the same general capabilities and limitations of the original. Same look and feel (like a Twilight-Zone episode where Something May Seem Off But Can’t Put Your Finger On It). Is churning out steel plate and guns and other Iowa-type parts now a piece of cake, relatively speaking, so it could be brought in much faster and cheaper than the original?
Here is the USNavy ship catalogue listing for the Iowa: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/battleships/iowa/bb61-ia.html
If anyone has links to more tech specs, please post.
ETA: not a dupe of another current thread, because OP is not about “an updated Iowa” which may touch similar points but would be a hijack there.
They are for shooting down incoming missiles.
I don’t quite understand. In scenario 1, are you suggesting a refurbishment of the actual ship so each rivet gets replaced, and in scenario 2, you’re suggesting building a new one using modern engineering and manufacturing?
What you’re basically asking is the current replacement cost of the Iowa. First consider whether or not manufacturing facilities are still around to build things like 16-inch guns, main armor belts, and turret barbettes. Those are basically what sets it apart from a big ship today. If there aren’t, then you’ll have to build those first, maybe train a whole load of professionals just for that
Really just a numbers exercise.
It’s close enough so I don’t think two threads are necessary. I’ve merged the threads.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Yup. And since modern torpedoes don’t even hit the warship but detonate below it and let its own weight saw it in half, “moar armour !!1!” would not only not help but make it easier to crush it like a beer can by blowing a big air bubble under it.
[QUOTE=Flyer]
Here’s one anti-torpedo system.
[/QUOTE]
I have no idea how these systems are supposed to disrupt wire guided torps which, by definition, have humans behind the wheel so to speak. A big bubble generator appearing 500 feet (or whatevs) from the target - which is what most of these systems are - won’t fool a human. Granted, few sub skippers are going to just sit and stare at 10 knots without doing any sharp, wire-cutting turns for their big loud-ass torpedo to reach its target 20 minutes down the line :o.
But much like chaff/flares, it’s not exactly un-doable to update an automated seeking algorithm to make up for decoys. Even easier that, unlike missiles, torpedoes don’t have a mere 20 seconds or so of active propulsion and steering them ever so slightly off course for a moment is enough to trump them as they can’t make up for the lost energy. A torpedo can and will do a 180 to kill your ass if it didn’t find it the first time around.
ETA : and then you have those Russian supercavitating torpedoes that aren’t guided at all but are fast enough that the target just doesn’t have the time to do fuck all, like underwater bullets.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Or, if we’re out in fantasyland, just make it a big gunned submersible. That’d be fun.
[/QUOTE]
It’s been done. And, the military being what it is, taken to ludicrous extremes :).
Ultimately the concept is doomed to failure : submarine duty dictates hull shapes that simply aren’t stable enough for gunnery. That was already true in WW2 back when “submarines” were really surface boats that could submerge for a bit but still needed to be very low on the water ; it’s even more true today when submarines are designed to spend 99% of their time submerged and they all have that iconic cylindrical teardrop shape. Ask any bubblehead : surface means bigtime rolling and losing one’s lunch.
Hence the Tomahawk missile.
I meant submersible, as in a semi-submersible, as opposed to a submarine.
The whole concept of a submarine is a stealth combatant that is an inferior warship except for the fact it’s hard to find.
This is why a submarine!battleship is not a good idea - the bigger you make the vehicle, with ever faster propulsion and more guns, the noisier it is. Essentially you have 2 conflicting design goals - a good battleship isn’t stealthy, and a stealthy submarine isn’t a good battleship. It’s impossible to have both - if you throw enough money at the problem, you might cook up something that “works” but it will not be a cost effective weapon.
A semi-submersible battleship is basically just a really crummy submarine (very poor stealth if you can’t even fully submerge) and a really crummy battleship (much harder to do anything on the ship if your crew are forced to stay inside the hull and can’t do any maintenance or watch standing. All your systems will be far more complex and hard to maintain). Oh, and the whole concept of a battleship is really 2 things. It’s a warship that uses guns as the primary weapon, and it’s able to tank direct hits from enemy weapons. Well, you can’t use your guns while semi-submerged, and it’s hard to stay afloat if you take a hit if you’re already almost sunk… Worst of both worlds.
Previous threads that may be of interest:
Slight hijack: Could a modern CIWS disable an incoming battleship shell?
Well if it can’t hit a target moving ballistically at between 2500 fps (muzzle) to 1632 fps (speed at 25,000 yds—which is roughly as far as battleships have ever hit other ships) then it’s screwed against something like a Sunburn or Oniks/Yakhont, which are some of the SSM threats the CIWS faces. My understanding is that peer-SSM close in defense is supposed to be handled by RAM, not CIWS. But really, anybody who’d know, probably couldn’t say here.
It’s a tough problem. Phalanx tries to engage targets within 1500 m. With something moving at 500 m/s (the 16 inch shell at long range), to 750 m/s (intercept speed of those peer SSMs, assuming Mach 2.2—AIUI, later missiles are looking at silly intercept velocities like Mach 4+), the target’s in the engagement zone only 2-3 seconds. Phalanx can only fire at 3000-4500 rounds per minute, depending on the model. That’s 50-75 rounds a second, so only 100-225 shots. And most of those are going to miss.
A land-based variant, C-RAM Centurion, does well eating mortar shells, but those only have an MV around 700 fps.
Now, what will a single 20 mm impact do to a battleship shell? My WAG is not much unless the fuze is triggered. A bursting 20mm should do even less. From a momentum analysis, the Mk 244APDS ammo the Phalanx fires has a .33 lb penetrator, with a MV of 3610 FPS. At `.15 kg and 1100 m/s, I get a momentum of 165 kgm/s. For the battleship shell, at 2700 lbs (~1225 kg) and 1652 fps (500 m/s), I get 612,500 kgm/s.
All told, the battleship shell has about 3700 times the momentum of the Phalanx. Does the Phalanx have enough umph to nudge the battleship shell off target? I’m not sure but I don’t think so.
Aside from fun, would there be any advantages to a big-gunned semi-submersible or even just a semi-submersible with modern capabilities?
Aside from police actions and being swarmed by small boats in places like the strait of Hormuz, in what situations would a 8000 ton+ warship use direct fire for anti-surface warfare rather than missiles?
While I understand that a double hull in the traditional sense wouldn’t make much difference, what about using something along the lines of the slat armor used on tanks?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=slat+armor&num=20&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI9oTVodDuyAIVSJseCh0qOQlW&biw=1458&bih=714
Are anti-surface warheads nearly always vanilla HE?
Could 270 meters be wide enough for an over-the-horizon radar array?
In what ways, if any, would it be useful to have large antennae spaced apart over the length of the 270 meter-long ship?
It’s the torpedoes that are the real problem. The explosion creates shockwaves of incompressible water, and then there’s the ship’s own weight. Good luck with that.
As for slat armor, sure. The problem is that if these warships became common, the enemy would either update their missiles or resort to fission bombs.
Torpedoes do seem to generally have more effect on the target than anti-ship missiles. Whether or not they’re more of a problem than ASM is debatable. ASM missiles have much greater range and speed.
They can also be launched from anywhere on land.
In addition, air-launched ASM are common whereas air-launched torpedoes “have largely been reduced to use in anti-submarine warfare.” (Aerial torpedo - Wikipedia) for reasons of range and speed, I presume. Air launching gives them even greater range and speed of deployment. It also makes it possible to swarm a target with many planes which cost tens of millions each and can exploit height advantage instead of a few ships that cost 1 billion+ each.
None of this should be taken to mean that torpedoes are useless, though. Only that protection against ASM is likely more generally useful than against torpedoes.
Slat armor is common enough on US stuff. How have RPG-7s been updated? What would an update look like?
Resorting to nukes is impossible or unpalatable for most countries.
Tandem-charge warheads have two shaped charges designed to defeat slatted armor, explosive reactive armor, and composite armor. The first charge is smaller and just big enough to punch a hole in the first armor layers designed to defeat HEAT weapons. The subsequent larger charge then can correctly focus its blast on the main armor of its target. The Javelin, TOW, and RPG-29 all have tandem-charge warheads, and are capable of defeating modern main battle tank armor. Apparently there are even large ASMs with tandem charges designed to penetrate fortifications.
My main point is that we’re dealing with fantasyland where we’re trying to make a battleship relevant. Making it much harder to detect on radar would be… a different idea. Who cares about noise in that scenario, where the ship would simply try to be harder to attack with missiles from 200-1,500 miles? Vulnerability to a 40 mile torpedo is unchanged in any design.
Probably not, but one has to do something radical to make battleships worth building. This isn’t a particularly good idea, but I’d say it’s closer to being a good idea than is piling another 10,000 tons of armor onto the ship.
That’s probably it, along with anti-aircraft fires.
I don’t know why that would make a difference. Blowing up a 600lb warhead and having a whole lot of water moving very quickly doesn’t seem like something that a sturdy chain link fence would do much about.
The slat armor is only worth bothering with because insurgents in Iraq cannot get the newer RPGs very cheaply. The old stuff is supposed to cost like 10 bucks a shot, while the new stuff would have to be smuggled all the way from Russia, and Russia may have at least minimal export controls to prevent you from just ordering a whole pallet of RPG-32s. (I know nothing about how difficult it is to obtain modern weapons from Russia, except to say the old stuff must be vastly easier to get)
I converted my equipment from RPG-22 to RPG-134.