From: Jerry Han <jhan@w...>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:55:40 -0500
Subject: Trends in Naval Warfare (was Re: Tank designs [and battleships])
This thread sounds like something we hashed out on sci.military a long time ago... (long before there was a sci.military.naval). Anyways: > Adrian Johnson wrote: Depends on the missile. You're going to need a hell of a lot of Exocet hits (12+) to hurt the integrity of something like an Iowa. A mission kill is a lot easier, because their aerials, missile tubes, etc. aren't protected by the main armour belt. But it'll take a hell of a lot of pounding to get through the belt itself. > Yes, they have lots of armour, yes they carry lots of ordnance, yes Assuming that you can fit the weaponry on smaller platforms. Currently, it just so happens we live in an age where small ships can carry a punch much larger (in respect to size) then in previous ages, and defences haven't kept pace. If ship defences improve to a point where small ships can carry good point defence (e.g. 6km/s point defence railguns), then ship size is going to go up again, as you have to mount larger and larger weapons. Right now, I believe your argument is valid; but since this list isn't just about right now, I'm just stating that it may not hold true in the future. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if this era isn't ending. (I'll stop here unless somebody really wants to hear me babble about it. (8-) ) > >they do; it's just that these days, battleships mount aircraft not Actually, I believe it isn't vulnerability as opposed to irreplacability (if I may mangle English so. (8-) )A modern carrier, with a full air group, is a pretty hard thing to kill.With her aircraft, she can monitor and even control a dome of airspace and surface almost 500km in radius, plus monitor and contain subsurface threats. However, she isn't perfect; and given that the one missile you let through may contain a nuke, you can't afford to make any mistakes. Hence the escorts, which are there to reduce the chance of failure. > >anyway, carriers replaced the battleship when the only battleship Problems with missiles versus guns: 1) No sustained bombardments 2) Much more expensive 3) Resupply becomes a problem. Problems with missiles versus pilots: 1) Can't recall them 2) Can't retask them Missiles have their place, don't get me wrong. But I think they have their place in a 'combined arms' setting (and I still wish the USN would bring back a couple of 'gun' ships. If the Marines ever really have to fight, missiles just aren't going to do the trick. > >actually, a lot of navies don't have destroyers. many just have Not quite that easy. Battleships and carriers can be mission killed relatively easy, but to sink one requires a lot of hard work. An Exocet doesn't have the juice. You need big missiles to sink a CV or BB in one shot, and that means a big ship to carry them. > or cruiser, or destroyer, etc...). I still cringe when I read how OHP FFGs have aluminum superstructures and 'kevlar' armour. Give me a match and I can sink one. Geeze. Actually, if you want an example where missiles don't rule all, just look at the FT Universe. Granted it's 'make-believe', but that doesn't mean life can't imitate art. All you need is a relatively cheap, reliable way of bringing down missiles or manned aircraft, and all of a sudden you're back to guns. (It's one thing to bring down a thin skinned missile; it's another to bring down a 16" shell the weight of a Volkswagen Beetle.) Just some thoughts, that aren't even close to being on topic. (8-) J.