Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

I do not understand your position… You are just lazy today? Or is it a question of faith?

 

I'm not obligated to track down every claim made on the internet. Especially if I see them as outlandish. The idea that an RPG could penetrate the armor of an Iowa class battleship is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer



USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL.

Some information on Wikipedia may create an unreasonable risk for readers who choose to apply or use the information in their own activities or to promote the information for use by third parties.

None of the authors, contributors, administrators, vandals, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever, can be responsible for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.

Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that information you receive from Wikipedia is correct and has been verified. Check the references at the end of the article. Read the article's talk page and revision history to see if there are outstanding disputes over the contents of the article. Double-check all information with independent sources... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer

 

I seriously doubt a RPG or the LAWW can penetrate the armor plating on an Iowa class battleship.

The type of armor used on armor vehicles like tanks is nothing like the type of armor used building warships and the armor used on the Iowa's class BB's is different from the Krupp armor used on other battleships.

The armor used on tanks splinters, the armor used on warships don't splinter causing fragmentation.

Think of a stainless steel butter knife that is 12" thick. It bends but doesn't break or splinters.

And armor of Iowa better than Yamato/Musashi, it plated by nickel-steel

Unlike modern warships, which operate on the concept of eliminating an incoming threat (anti-ship missiles or enemy aircraft) before the given threat strikes a ship and thus carry lighter armor, the Iowa-class was designed and built in an age when ships were expected to withstand an onslaught of naval shells from enemy ships, emplaced coastal defenses from fortified enemy positions near the coast, and the increasing threat of gunfire and armour piercing/ incendiary bombs dropped by enemy fighter and bomber aircraft. Like most World War II era battleships, the Iowa-class was equipped with class B armor plate designed to a post Jutland design (the "all or nothing" armor scheme), but unlike earlier WWII-era battleship, the Iowas benefitted from advances in steel technology that allowed mills to forge the steel at higher temperatures and heat treatment, which produced a much higher-quality, stronger and more elastic armor. The metal was a nickel-steel compound, classified as a stainless steel, that can bend easily and resists corrosion. Most of the armor was manufactured at Bethlehem Steel’s main mill in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Luken Steel’s Coatsville mill just outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The exception was the turret plating, which was forged at a plant built especially for the Iowas: the Charleston Ordnance Works in Charleston, West Virginia.

 

Not really. You know what Iowa belt armor is (~320 millimeters of homogenous steel) and you know what HEAT round can pen (~750 milimeters of homogenous steel for tandem warhead of RPG-7). 750>320, consequently RPG-7 will go through it like a hot knife through butter.

But go on, you can live in denial if you wish to. I mean all navies scrapped the backward junk battleships are. Obviously enough they are retarded, unlike Apacherat wich claimed Iowa can withstand a direct nuclear strike once. (sic!)

 

Comparing millimeters is a pretty lame way of judging armor effectiveness.

 

I can give you armor thickness of the target (or equivalent in RHA)
I can give you armor penetration numbers (or equivalent against RHA)
But I do not do extraordinary proof. No fallen angels, no background music, no magic and military sales marketing.
Though I do believe in Santa

 

You are saying that there are people who believe Wiki without double checking? No, I do not believe you!

Practically the same. Tank armor is more expensive, it requires much more workmanship, it is under constant stress during movement, it requires more cutting in various places but it is thinner and this means it is easier to handle. Splinter production issue is much more important in a tank than in BB, because of limited space where a splinter has much more probability to hit a crewmember or vital component. The ship armor is likely to be simple and cheaper than the tank counterpart. It has to be mass produced. It is produced in enormous (relatively) plates, which makes some special treatments to be impossible. But altogether, naval and tank RHA is basically the same – the top of the line of metal that can be mass produced by the industry in given time. If they are different, than we are talking like 5% penetration quality, not more.

This is strange… HY-80 up to HY-130 are not used as armor, they are deep pressure sub material. Introduced after the war. Why would someone want to use it as armor? Contrary, Class A, is well described in literature, every source states that Iowa is made of Class A armor (some Class B). Class A is almost equal to British hardened Armor that is a well respected “best” armor, against which all other manufacturers are measured. I think your source is mistaken.

Anyhow, this is irrelevant. Iowa was defended against kinetic AP projectiles and HE or HE penetrating shells. WW2 was the dawn on Cumulative shaped charged warheads. At Iowa times, the penetration of a cumulative warhead was equal to its diameter. After the war, in 50s, the penetration skyrocketed to 3 diameters, nowadays it is 6-8 diameters.

Another words:
In 1943 a 100mm HEAT would penetrate 100mm
In 1950 a 100mm HEAT would penetrate 300mm
In 1990 a 100mm HEAT would penetrate 600mm-800mm
Splinter production is irrelevant against Cumulative, Hardness is important but Iowa armor is optimized against Kinetic which requires flexibility. Iowa is simply not designed against Cumulative.
And while the cumulative penetration capabilities have skyrocketed, the armor have not. RHA stayed at the same level, possibly + 5 or 10%.

Well that’s true. No one is going to shoot a historic masterpiece

 

And what is the correct approach?

 

Cant we have a friendly argument ?

 

No RPG is going to penetrate Iowa-class armor like butter.

Silly comment.

 

There is nothing to "judge". Iowa's armor is homogenous steel. Chemical rounds effectiveness is usually measured in equivalent of homogenous steel they can penetrate. Then again, I can give you a ****ton of vidos where HEAT round or missile goes right trough modern tanks' frontal armor, which is way thicker than Iowa's belt.
But of course you are free with your religious beliefs of Iowa's armor magically withstanding that kind of hits or unicorns or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, I am all fro US putting Iowas back into service. I also support US building some Montanas from scratch. As long as US is wasting it's money on backward POS, I am all good with that.

No, not really. I don't see a point in discussing religious beliefs, let alone in a friendly way.

If some people prefer to ignore the obvious, while yelling "Bwaaaaah!111 Not True!111 You are lying!111" it is their call. It is only that they make themselves look stupid while doing so.

 

I'm pretty certain there has been no known examples of an RPG penetrating the frontal armor of an Abrams tank. If they can't penetrate that they certainly can't penetrate the main armored belt of an Iowa class battleship

 

The armor on an Abrams isn’t only steel. It also has advanced composites specifically designed to counter HEAT warheads.

 

Well, the most famous one. M1A1 «Cojone Eh», which was hit by an RPG and burned out. Later US tried to destroy it so it couldn't serve for propaganda purposes. That huge hole in it's turrent front is a penetration achieved by Maverick missile. There is a second one on the left side of the turret, but it is not visible.


Pretty confident there was a case of RPG-29 going right trough lower plate of Challenger-2. There was a video of Leo-2 destroyed with ATGMs as well. Google at will.

 

You can penetrate an Abrams in many places. Hell you can penetrate it with 50 caliber machine gun fire if you hit it in the right place. That in no way invalidates it being basically impervious to RPGs through the glacis.

In regards to fire, even the road wheels of an Abrams will burn (made of aluminum)

 

Maverick missile has HEAT warhead. It went right through turret's front. That is the point.
Besides, as it was stated above, it is armor was designed to beat HEAT warhead. It has nothing to do with Iowa's homogenous armor, which was not designed and can't counter it. Well, unless it is Panzershreck or something equally ancient.

 

From what I've read the Maverick is far better at armor penetration than an RPG round.

 

They were used heavily in engagements through the 1990's. The use of Battleships off the coast of Kuwait and the presence of a large Amphibious force is what kept Saddam looking East, when he should have been looking South.

And while no "beaches were stormed" in Lebanon, there is no doubt that the firepower of the USS New Jersey did a lot to help end that situation. In fact, in one siege Druze militias had been shelling and attacking a village for days, and the US Destroyers were answering the best they could with their 5" guns. But the day the New Jersey arrived on scene, the Druze lifted the siege and left. Just the presence of the New Jersey was enough, they did not even fire any rounds.

And later bombardments (including one 300 round barrage that wiped out most of the higher command of the Syrian militias) caused them to leave all of Western Lebanon in the hands of Government forces.

You do not need to have large amphibious assaults for ships like this to be effective. But yes, it would be nice to have these kinds of ships available if the need was to come again.

 

But we already had a supersonic bomber, in the F-111 Aardvark. Speed of Mach 2.5, they are another great example of a mis-classified Air Force Fighter (like the F-117). Called a "fighter", it was never really used in that configuration.

It all depends upon the military requirements. WWII is really the only real exception to the rule that landings are done on unopposed beaches. And that is because the places we had to land were to small to have unopposed landings anywhere. When the entire island you have to capture is the size of a few city blocks, there is nowhere unopposed.

Such as what was seen in the Korean War at Inchon. There was simply nowhere else that landing could have been done to cut off the North Korean forces.

And when making beach landings, it takes quite a bit of time to set up your landing area to bring in the support forces you need, like tanks, artillery, and to set up landing areas for aircraft and helicopters. So for the initial phases, all such support has to come from ships. Even if the landing is unopposed.

Because you had better believe that if the enemy is able, they are going to start rushing everything they have to try and take it back. So that unopposed landing 3 hours later may turn into the point of attack of a combined arms force of tanks, infantry in APCs, and various kinds of aircraft. A few 5" pop-guns is not going to worry a brigade sized response force. 6-9 12" or 16" batteries is going to make such a force take a much more cautious approach, knowing that they can be shelled 15-20 miles before they can reach the

 

OK, this is absolutely ridiculous. Go and read some history books about fighting the Japanese in WWII. It is really easy to make a hardened bunker. Heck, the Japanese did it to great effect on Iwo Jima by simply burying their tanks in the sand.

And Tomahawks are not designed to strike hardened targets. They are designed to take out targets like bridges, roads, and runways. They are not designed to take out bunkers.

Look, I am not sure why you keep making these silly claims, they are quite far off the mark from reality.

And of course they are built into hardened bunkers. It is the South China Sea, they are going to have to build them into bunkers or else the first Typhoon that rampages through the area is going to destroy them. We do the exact same thing with our equipment in hurricane and typhoon areas. On Okinawa the PATRIOT equipment is packed up and stored in hardened hangars so it is not destroyed in such weather.

 

Saddam wasn't looking south because everyone in the Iraqi military believed the trackless desert there was impassable, not because of any threat of a Marine landing.

And it would be impossible to target the Druze or targets like them in modern warfare with cruise missiles or airstrikes, why?

 

Once we kill the anti-ship missiles and SAM's and then crater the runways of the airfields, who gives a **** how many bunkers they have? We could ignore the islands as the worthless distractions they are at that point or we could use aircraft to kill the bunkers with JDAM's or other bunker-busting weapons.

Just curious, how effective are those Patriots at firing from within those hardened hangars?

 

Marines conduct amphibious assaults excises on defended beaches in the Mariana Islands, WW ll style.

Now the U.S. Marines remember Wake Island during WW ll.

For the first time since December 1941, when Wake Island’s shore gunners sank the invading destroyer Hayate, Marine Corps artillery wants to kill ships. That could be a big boost for the Navy, which confronts ever more powerful Russian and Chinesefleets.

Army artillery is also exploring anti-ship missiles,

The Corps needs an anti-ship, coastal defense missile system



The Marines Corps is looking to counter a threat not faced since World War II ― enemy navies capable of firing at Marines ashore.

Marines need a mobile anti-ship, coastal defense system that can fire at moving, sea-based targets and also pack up and move before being detected. Oh, and it needs to fit on a C-130 aircraft.

Now the Corps is asking the defense industry for just such a missile system, capable of a range of 80 miles or more.

“A complete coastal defense system would be composed of a command and control center, and a surveillance and Over the Horizon (OTH) target acquisition capability, in addition to the kinetic launch system,” according to the formal Request For Information recently issued by Marine Corps Systems Command...

continue -> https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...-an-anti-ship-coastal-defense-missile-system/

 

Yeah, they definitely need that system. I mean look at home many times the Marines have come under shore bombardment in the last 50 years. Definitely need to spend lots of money on that.