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.