The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:43 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post a reply
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters. 

Options:
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF
Do not automatically parse URLs
Question
What is the name in the logo in the top left? (hint it's something dot com):
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   

Topic review - USS Alaska - why?
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
The heavy, anti-ship missiles I referred to were much larger than Harpoon. I think the missiles the author hand in mind were like the Strella or Styx.

A "pattern" of heavy shell hits to hit a mobile battery could cause considerable collateral damage, especially if the mobile battery was firing from a populated area. If the enemy were concerned with this possibility, it should not locate weapons in such an area. This appears to me to be a political, not a military problem.

At the present time, I don't think it is realistic to assume that naval engagements will typically be fought using nuclear weapons.
The big nuclear-armed powers are reasonable stable and committed to maintaining the status quo. The other, unstable nuclear powers are much more likely to use their few nuclear weapons in strategic attacks rather than use them as tactical weapons against ships. It would be imperative that such powers use what nukes they have to maximum effect.

Also, I feel a war between big nuclear powers would likely be fought with conventional weapons as long as possible to avoid massive worldwide destruction. Short of a response to a massive, strategic nuclear attack, the progression would be from conventional weapons to limited nuclear tactical weapons, to strategic nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons.

Also, such a war would likely be fought using surrogate countries rather than the instigators as much as possible. The exceptions would be nuclear-armed, unstable small countries that may not fear bringing destruction upon themselves rather than lose control domestically.

Les
Post Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:13 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:55 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Great point, Bob. That's why UAVs would really close the gap. The question is then, would or could we have a or multiple UAVs in order to designate the targets? I think it's more likely we would be able to have them over the target area rather than not. :big_grin:
Post Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:59 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:25 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Lesforan wrote:
Based on an estimate I read in "Conway's History of the Ship", a heavy conventional anti-ship missile has about the same effect on a ship as a 14" shell.
What does he consider a "heavy conventional anti-ship missile"? When the USN was pleading for the procurement of the Harpoon ASM, they compared its effectiveness to 8" HE rounds against modern warships. Modern warships back then, the Virginia, Belknap, and Leahey-class CGs were tougher built than modern CG and DDGs. I imagine an SS-N-19 would constitute a "heavy conventional anti-ship missile", but not a lot else. It was only the SS-N-19 that challenged any of the Iowas' armor. Most ASMs have no chance of penetrating 32' of re-enforced concrete (the strength of an Iowa's armor).

Most missiles fired by most countries will not even approach the abilities of the SS-N-19 so most are NOT "heavy".

Quote:
Putting this into modern context, since there are no more heavy-gun warships to engage, modern warships are not protected against 14" gunfire...The traditional thinking that warships need to be built to withstand attacks from similar warships has carried into the postwar era.
The thinking you're referring to is no longer "traditional". We abandoned that thinking in 1960. "Traditional thinking" is actually "shoot down the threat before it gets to you". So, non-traditional thinking would be to "armor your ship to counter the threat it will encounter".

As Norman Friedman stated in his book US Cruisers, the Alaskas' decks were armored against 12" rounds falling at a 60 degree angle. I am willing to bet that will actually defeat most ASMs.

Quote:
With the proliferation of guided missile-armed surface ships, this theory has fallen by the wayside.
While the pre-WWII/WWII philosophy has fallen by the wayside, I believe your reason is incorrect. From interviews I have done with Gibbs&Cox, NAVSEA employees, and the naval historian James Bradford of Texas A&M University and from the statements made by Norman Friedman stated in his book US Destroyers (1st and 2nd editions), the USN expected all future at-sea conflicts to be waged with nuclear weapons. The US saw that the only ships that could withstand a nuclear blast were battleships, and there was no way we could make all ships as tough as battleships. So, they removed all armor from new design and instead focused on super long range weapons able to engage threats as far away from the group as possible (Talos and Terrier) to reduce the effect of the blast as possible.

All US warships have suffered from this, even up to the DDG-51 class.

Quote:
I think this fact represents a flaw in our thinking.
Absolutely I agree.

Quote:
Like a lot of things, in the end it comes down to money.
You must keep in mind that it's the electronics that are the majority of a ship's cost, especially in an Aegis ship (over $1 billion). The hull, even if armored, costs less than the electronics package.

Quote:
Aside from the matters of metal fatigue in the hulls and conversion costs, a major problem with using these old capital ships is the number of crew required.
The BBs do not suffer from metal fatigue. They have not been used enough to stress the hull, and their material is not nearly as susceptible to fatigue as modern ships. As NAVSEA said in 2006, "The BBs are as good to go today as the day they were made".

Quote:
A new-build ship would have its build cost somewhat offset by having its service life begin new and having a smaller crew. Also, it could be built with a hardened superstructure for better survivability.
I agree with you 100%!!! That's why a modern Alaska-style ship would be most beneficial. There was a design designated "CA-2" that had heavier deck and side protection than Alaska, vastly superior torpedo protection on the sides, a triple bottom, and an aircraft hanger in the stern. Those modifications would protect the decks and sides against 12-14" gunfire (any modern missiles), superior mine protection, torpedo protection, and an H-60/ UAV capacity respectively.

HOWEVER...
The "modern" part of the discussion does need to proceed to another thread, because while the modern large cruiser would be similar to the Alaskas, they would be based on the CA-2 derivative and would be a different subjet.
Post Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:54 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Navydave,

My argument goes back to a view I posted on this forum many years ago. Based on an estimate I read in "Conway's History of the Ship", a heavy conventional anti-ship missile has about the same effect on a ship as a 14" shell. So, armored ships protected against 14" shellfire would also be protected against heavy anti-ship missiles. Presumably, an upstart country with nuclear weapons would not want to expend them on targets such as ships.

Putting this into modern context, since there are no more heavy-gun warships to engage, modern warships are not protected against 14" gunfire. The traditional thinking that warships need to be built to withstand attacks from similar warships has carried into the postwar era. With the proliferation of guided missile-armed surface ships, this theory has fallen by the wayside. Any country's missile ships are vulnerable to any other country's missile ships. The only exceptions I can think of are the Russian Kirov-type "battle cruisers" and the USN missile carrying converted battleships.

I think this fact represents a flaw in our thinking. I think the Russians were onto a good thing in building these missile ships, and we should have followed their example. You could argue that the converted Iowas were the counter, but these remained old ships while the Kirovs were new construction.

Like a lot of things, in the end it comes down to money. Aside from the matters of metal fatigue in the hulls and conversion costs, a major problem with using these old capital ships is the number of crew required. A new-build ship would have its build cost somewhat offset by having its service life begin new and having a smaller crew. Also, it could be built with a hardened superstructure for better survivability.

Les
Post Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:20 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Bob,

I'm not sure myself about mid-course correction capability for conventionally fired shells. But don't overlook the fact that the ship would not be engaging the target with only one gun.

A ship of the type we are discussing would be equipped with 6-9 heavy guns, in at least three turrets. A good fire control system could send each shell to a different point of impact within the area that the moving target would be capable of reaching after time of firing. This would expand the size of the "laser basket" to include 6-9 baskets. Presumably, there would be overlap of these zones, allowing more than one shell to strike a single target.

Unless the moving target is heavily armored, shells set for low-altitude air burst would also greatly expand their destructive radius.

Les
Post Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:46 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
..
Post Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:38 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Russ2146 wrote:
:scratch:
Les, I think Dave said that we would deed a designator and laser guided pojectile.
Yes. Moving targets no longer provide an advantage. As long as there is a UAV in range, you can follow a vehicle with a laser designator. The 155mm round fired from the ship over 30nm away will chase down a maneuvering target.

Lesforan wrote:
I agree with your statement, but I don't understand your statement concerning the USS North Carolina.
Thanks. I wrote too quickly! I am so sorry!!! Reactivating any Iowa BB or even te NC would be significantly less money than a new build CB/CC, and BB-55 would be worth the money you could put into her to get 30+ years out of an existing BB. However, getting a 35-45 year ship with totally new construction and technology would be great AS LONG AS it is constructed with the heavy armor and compartmentalization it is intended to receive. Even the Chinese ABMs would be stopped by the armored decks of the new-build BB/CB/CC. Even with the NC or an Iowa, one of these ABMs would be detonated by the ship's main deck and then stopped by the second deck horizontal armor. Then the ship could proceed to do its buisiness.

Quote:
Reading through this thread again a year later, something occurs to me. If both sides are using drones as laser-designator aircraft, perhaps a need exists for anti-drone drones.
Perhaps! There are now 2' long air to ground missiles that UAVs can mount. Air to air will likely be capable as well. However, a RAM mount could take it out, too.

Quote:
It also seems to me the biggest threat from shore-based defenses will come in confined waters, probably from heavy anti-ship missiles.
Oh yes, and this is why the WWII deck layered armor and Littorio type side armor is excellently suited against ASMs.

Quote:
Flight time of shells from either side would make hits very difficult.
As stated above, no matter where the target goes, laser guidance follows the target until projectile impact.
Post Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:42 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
:scratch:
Les, I think Dave said that we would deed a designator and laser guided pojectile.
Post Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:27 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
NavyDave,

I agree with your statement, but I don't understand your statement concerning the USS North Carolina.

Reading through this thread again a year later, something occurs to me. If both sides are using drones as laser-designator aircraft, perhaps a need exists for anti-drone drones. Specialized drones carrying small air-to-air missiles to take out the enemy's spotter drones. This would be perfectly analogous to the first use of fighter aircraft to take out the other side's spotter planes.

It also seems to me the biggest threat from shore-based defenses will come in confined waters, probably from heavy anti-ship missiles.

As far as mobile shore-based artillery verses bombardment ships, this would involve moving targets out of sight of each other.
Flight time of shells from either side would make hits very difficult. If it is hard to predict the position of a moving target at time of impact, I would think it would be almost impossible to predict the location of a target that is not moving at the time of counterfiring. A moving target moving on a bearing is somewhat predictable. A stationary target is free to move in any direction after being fired upon. A target designator system and steerable munition would be needed to ensure a hit.

Les
Post Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:59 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
The Alaskas were meant as a super heavy cruiser. They were supposed to chase down cruisers of any sort and sink them. There is no other answer.

On a modern level, they would be the most capable new-construction ship the USN could build. Since a BB would most likely not be built, a CB or CC would take its place with modern gunnery techniques, missile emplacements, radar equipment, and UAV/H-60 embarking capability.

The CB/CC would be most capable. Seeing how we could produce TWO, and maybe three to four 30,000 ton CB/CCs for the cost of ONE 100,000 ton CVN, we would benefit greatly from the CB/CC. The CB/CC would provide SIX 12" guns per ship as opposedd to the 60-90 aircraf on the single CVN. The deck, side, and below water protection would harden it against all modern threats.

A 12" gun armed ship would provide SUPERIOR and dominating NSFS for the foreseeable future. All other concerns aside, NSFS is paramount in modern warfare. Next, it would provide a heavily survivable platform to fire well over 120 cruise missiles.

This type of ship is heavily needed and utilized aboard the USS North Carolina would satisfy the Navy's needs for over 25 years.
Post Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:49 am
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
navydavesof wrote:
When considering any practical use of gunnery/artillery, the above arguments are only true when considering peer competitors. Peer competitors such as China or Russia…or those very proficient at using Chinese or Russian systems…are the only powers capable of combating a ship conducting gunnery strikes with any kind of effective counter battery fire. Somalia won't be conducting intricate counter battery fire. However, exploring the rational of a rain of 155mm fire requires the following.

A paramount concern with any kind of ordnance-on-target issue, being either artillery, missiles, or TACAIR, is how long it takes for the assets to arrive on target. A lot of the time this turns into a speed over range issue. Projectiles will always arrive on target fastest, but they still take time to get there. This is where you have to either shoot at where the target is going to be when your munitions arrive. If the target is still, then it's not much of a problem. However, a moving target like these SPGs or a ship are concerned, you have to figure out where the target is going. The 155mm coastal counter battery fire would not be able to find the ship attacking its coast, especially from over the horizon. Even the GPS guided LRLAP projectiles would be of no use here. You would must have a guidance system that can continue to change course in flight and follow the target.

This is where you must have laser guided rounds. Laser guided rounds need a laser designator/illuminator somewhere to designate the target. This requires some sort of vehicle mounting a laser designator, aircraft most likely, to designate the ship. UAV is the best way to do this. However, this is a two way street. The attacking ship firing guided rounds will most likely have UAVs of its own operating within eye shot of the battlefield. Then it boils back down to a question of who gets the first shots in. Who will be more successful? The ship will most likely have a better chance of detecting and shooting down the coastal battery's UAVs or helicopters doing the designating.

This is not to say that the ship will always win, but since the ship is an autonomous machine mounting radars that can detect foot ball sized targets from hundreds of miles and carries a substantial AAW capability, the ship holds a huge advantage over the shore batteries. If talking about shore batteries vs a battleship, even if the shore batteries begin to land shots, the battleship will be able to operate after sustaining a huge amount of damage whereas the shore batteries are rapidly neutralized with one-shot-one kill.

This also depends on a great deal of variables, and each case can be considered.


Excellent points.

I think that current thinking is that SPGs will *not* be dueling ships - if a country feels threatened by a fleet, it is going to respond with shore based cruise missiles, or ballistic missiles with conventional warheads, or air strikes. And then of course there are the SSKs and mines.

I do not think that the fleet automatically wins, in this scenario, in fact, the defender can have a tremendous advantage - especially with submarines. As always, the attack assumes overwhelming fire against the defender. There are no duels in modern warfare.
Post Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:29 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
When considering any practical use of gunnery/artillery, the above arguments are only true when considering peer competitors. Peer competitors such as China or Russia…or those very proficient at using Chinese or Russian systems…are the only powers capable of combating a ship conducting gunnery strikes with any kind of effective counter battery fire. Somalia won't be conducting intricate counter battery fire. However, exploring the rational of a rain of 155mm fire requires the following.

A paramount concern with any kind of ordnance-on-target issue, being either artillery, missiles, or TACAIR, is how long it takes for the assets to arrive on target. A lot of the time this turns into a speed over range issue. Projectiles will always arrive on target fastest, but they still take time to get there. This is where you have to either shoot at where the target is going to be when your munitions arrive. If the target is still, then it's not much of a problem. However, a moving target like these SPGs or a ship are concerned, you have to figure out where the target is going. The 155mm coastal counter battery fire would not be able to find the ship attacking its coast, especially from over the horizon. Even the GPS guided LRLAP projectiles would be of no use here. You would must have a guidance system that can continue to change course in flight and follow the target.

This is where you must have laser guided rounds. Laser guided rounds need a laser designator/illuminator somewhere to designate the target. This requires some sort of vehicle mounting a laser designator, aircraft most likely, to designate the ship. UAV is the best way to do this. However, this is a two way street. The attacking ship firing guided rounds will most likely have UAVs of its own operating within eye shot of the battlefield. Then it boils back down to a question of who gets the first shots in. Who will be more successful? The ship will most likely have a better chance of detecting and shooting down the coastal battery's UAVs or helicopters doing the designating.

This is not to say that the ship will always win, but since the ship is an autonomous machine mounting radars that can detect foot ball sized targets from hundreds of miles and carries a substantial AAW capability, the ship holds a huge advantage over the shore batteries. If talking about shore batteries vs a battleship, even if the shore batteries begin to land shots, the battleship will be able to operate after sustaining a huge amount of damage whereas the shore batteries are rapidly neutralized with one-shot-one kill.

This also depends on a great deal of variables, and each case can be considered.
Post Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:51 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Works for me!

Les
Post Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:27 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
JWintjes wrote:
Lesforan wrote:
Jorit,

Modern 12" guns afloat vs. modern 6" guns ashore. Where would the "rain of fire" come from if the ship stayed out of range of the shore guns?

The ship should be able to pinpoint the shore batteries by radar-tracking the 6" shells to their point of origin. Even mobile batteries can't move that fast.


Les,

three problems:

a) The 6" technology is already there; modern 12" guns are not; if we want to compare technology that does exist, it's latest-generation 6" against WW2-generation 16".

b) A latest-generation SPG has scoot'n shoot capability; PzH 2000 for example can go into position, fire 3 rounds and move out of position again within 90 seconds; scoot to the next position, fire another stick of 3 rounds, and so on.

c) Already existing 6" LR shells have around 40 km range, about the same as the max range of a 16" gun. Of course you could design a 16" LR shell, but already over that distance the shell has, if I remember correctly, a flight time of roundabout 80 seconds - which means that your target won't be there anymore when your shell hits the target area. Now, that's just one SPG; obviously, they always come in groups of three or four, so what you essentially have to fight sequences of 3-shell-bursts raining down on you.

Let's just say I'm sceptical. The thing is, a SPG is not as inexpensive as it was decades ago, but it is not by any stretch of imagination a high-value target. If you lose a half-dozen SPGs and in turn hammer your battleship/cruiser/whatever to dust, you have a maior PR victory.

I'm not at all against mounting a gun that's bigger than 6" on a ship; but I seriously wonder whether putting one modern 8" or even 10" gun on a modern frigate-sized platform might be a more useful option. In fact, the German navy has done some trials with mounting a 6" SPG turret on a frigate instead of a 3" OTO gun; now, that ship was a standard frigate, helodeck and all. Let's assume you have a multipurpose ship that could carry two of these - quite a considerable coastal bombardment platform, I'd say.

Jorit


Nooo!

The only reason the fleet is within range of counter battery fire is that air supremacy has been established; ergo this is no a "duel" - it is a mugging. And if the fleet has done its job - it will be serving up the pain.

Long before the ships are within range - the entire area of operations will be subject to intense scrutiny from space, Reconnaissance planes, and possibly spys. Then the fleet, supported by bombers, SSGNs, tacair, and possibly conventional ballistic missiles; will launch massive cruise missile, drone, air strikes, attacks to destroy/neutralize enemy radars, communications, command posts, ammunition depots, troop concentrations, and of course airfields. The enemy communications links and targeting data will be subject to jamming, cyber attack etc..

The only reason the SPG battery has survived this strike is that it has been hiding (this itself is a victory for the fleet). If and when the enemy turns on his radars, launches reconnaissance aircraft and orders his SPGs fire, or move, they will be subjected to intense aerial interdiction from drones, or strike aircraft, and counter battery fire from the fleet.

And the ships are also shooting and moving constantly *as they fire* and probably faster than the SPGs can displace, and probably with less restrictions on maneuver than the SPGs, which have to use bridges, take specific roads through the city etc.. This makes the ships a tough target for the SPGs.

And btw, enemy artillery is always a high priority target.
Post Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:03 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Just found the link on navweaps:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_6 ... rg_pic.jpg

That's a feasibility study. Problems encountered were apparently software integration and insufficient structural stability of the hull to withstand the stresses of sustained firing; both don't seem to be insurmountable.

Some sort of coastal assault frigate mounting two of these turrets should well be possible.

Jorit
Post Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:40 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
JWintjes wrote:
a) The 6" technology is already there; modern 12" guns are not; if we want to compare technology that does exist, it's latest-generation 6" against WW2-generation 16".


Modern no, but the USN does have 12" guns that are 1980's vintage that were designed and proven to fit in a Des Moines Class 8"/55 turret. They would be reduced to twin turrets but they worked. The USN axed them though due to politics. Dave knows a lot more about those guns though. Could you weigh in on them Dave?
Post Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:37 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Jorit,

Yes, I'd say so.
Post Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:45 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USS Alaska - why?  Reply with quote
Lesforan wrote:
Jorit,

Modern 12" guns afloat vs. modern 6" guns ashore. Where would the "rain of fire" come from if the ship stayed out of range of the shore guns?

The ship should be able to pinpoint the shore batteries by radar-tracking the 6" shells to their point of origin. Even mobile batteries can't move that fast.


Les,

three problems:

a) The 6" technology is already there; modern 12" guns are not; if we want to compare technology that does exist, it's latest-generation 6" against WW2-generation 16".

b) A latest-generation SPG has scoot'n shoot capability; PzH 2000 for example can go into position, fire 3 rounds and move out of position again within 90 seconds; scoot to the next position, fire another stick of 3 rounds, and so on.

c) Already existing 6" LR shells have around 40 km range, about the same as the max range of a 16" gun. Of course you could design a 16" LR shell, but already over that distance the shell has, if I remember correctly, a flight time of roundabout 80 seconds - which means that your target won't be there anymore when your shell hits the target area. Now, that's just one SPG; obviously, they always come in groups of three or four, so what you essentially have to fight sequences of 3-shell-bursts raining down on you.

Let's just say I'm sceptical. The thing is, a SPG is not as inexpensive as it was decades ago, but it is not by any stretch of imagination a high-value target. If you lose a half-dozen SPGs and in turn hammer your battleship/cruiser/whatever to dust, you have a maior PR victory.

I'm not at all against mounting a gun that's bigger than 6" on a ship; but I seriously wonder whether putting one modern 8" or even 10" gun on a modern frigate-sized platform might be a more useful option. In fact, the German navy has done some trials with mounting a 6" SPG turret on a frigate instead of a 3" OTO gun; now, that ship was a standard frigate, helodeck and all. Let's assume you have a multipurpose ship that could carry two of these - quite a considerable coastal bombardment platform, I'd say.

Jorit
Post Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group