The Ship Model Forum

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".

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.

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.

Absolutely I agree.

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.

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".

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.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

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.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

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

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail