Shipbucket

Gonzo - for intercepting inbound rounds, I recommend looking at C-RAM and IRON DOME.

I'd also look at something like the Landing Fire Support (Rocket) as a direction for shore bombardment:



Just to remind everyone, Eilat turned her radar warning system off (because they couldn't get to to stop squawking warnings - Gee, I wonder why?) and she got sunk.

Thiel wrote: Name one ship that has been engaged by a shore battery that had access to air bursting shells since.

USS Wisconsin, escorted by Nicholas, relieved Missouri on 6 February, then answered her first combat call for gunfire support since March 1952. The most recently recommissioned battleship sent 11 shells across 19 mi (31 km) of space to destroy an Iraqi artillery battery in southern Kuwait during a mission called in by USMC OV-10 aircraft. Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) as a spotter in combat for the first time, Wisconsin pounded an Iraqi communications compound on 7 February. Her main guns lobbed 24 shells on Iraqi artillery sites, missile facilities, and electronic warfare sites along the coast. That evening she targeted naval sites with her 16 in (410 mm) guns, firing 50 rounds which severely damaged or sunk 15 Iraqi boats, and destroyed several piers at the Khawr al-Mufattah marina.[4] In response to calls for fire support from US and coalition forces, Wisconsin's turrets boomed again on 9 February, blasting bunkers and artillery sites, and shelling Iraqi troop positions near Khafji after the Iraqis were ousted from the city by Saudi and Qatari armor.

The GC-45 howitzers used by Iraq actually had a two mile range advantage over the 16" 50s on the Wisconsin. So yes they engaged them. Just because the other guy died before he could get a shot off doesn't mean it wasn't a possibility. The armored warship wasn't abandoned for shore bombardment because it wasn't useful, or because the Marines didn't like having them there. It was because the Iowas were too expensive to maintain for a single purpose ship.

Once again give me one example of a ship since the second world war that had its radar mast shot of by any source.

I can't because no-one has gone up against modern coastal artillery in living memory.
The Iraqis had the guns and the shells, but they were traditional artillery units and so lacked the guidance radars needed to shoot at ships, and of course they never got the chance to shoot so it's impossible to say what effect they would have had.

I bet the (maybe) troll who started this thread is kicking back on his chair and rubbing his hands together, smiling

Thiel wrote:I can't because no-one has gone up against modern coastal artillery in living memory.

Well what about naval gunfire. Lots of data on that. USS Hayler was literally shot to bits using 5" and 76mm guns. Fairly good equivalents to 155 shore based stuff.



The following site has good data from 2010 on what happens when hot metal and high explosives hit a modern warship. Note that getting the radar antenna blown of never shows up in the text. What does is the following quote.

"It is of importance that many of the key problems experienced in the Falklands are inherent to the use of warships without protective AEW&C, aerial refuelling tanker and fighter cover, and thus cannot be wished away by putting bigger radars and more defensive systems on warships. In this type of combat, the initiative always lies with the attacker"

http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html

The advantage of armor is that it is always on. It works equally well against C-802 missiles like the ones that hit the INS Hanit or against bombers like the ones that hit the Cole. Sure the big Russian nuclear armed cruise missiles can crack any armored shell, but with those you either shoot them down or die, doesn't matter what type of ship you have. But those weapons have never been used. Against the weapons that have actually been used an armored warship offers a real advantage.

Gonzo wrote:Against the weapons that have actually been used an armored warship offers a real advantage.

Then why have new ships not been armoured for years?

ships today are usually armored with Kevlar. Or like the Norwegian Skjold class, that is build of composite, that composite can withstand a lot more than what steal can. Special on direct hit.

but the kevlar mainly protects crew from shrapnell and bullets smaller then 20mm (or less, depending on the ship)

jabba wrote:

Gonzo wrote:Against the weapons that have actually been used an armored warship offers a real advantage.

Then why have new ships not been armoured for years?

Because the armor conveys an advantage in only the one narrow mission of shore bombardment. Prior to the 2000s the US always kept the BBs and some CAs in reserve for that role. The Russians kept the old Sverdlovs for the same purpose. You only need a couple of ships for that role, and they didn't need to be cutting edge so with cheap labor the old ships did the job just fine. As long as there were armored WW II ships in the mothball fleet there was no need to build new ones.

However now the US Navy faces a very different problem. Labor is now their main expense. Crewing the old BBs is simply too expensive, and the old 8" CAs are worn out and gone to the scrap yards. The original question of the thread was bring the BBs back or not. Because of the labor factor the answer has to be no. However that doesn't preclude the building of a new armored ship, it just probably will not look like a classic battleship.

It may not even have guns, as another poster pointed out an MLRS could do the job of providing a cheap, always available bombardment option. The cheap factor being important. Using million dollar a pop cruise missiles to blow up trucks is waging economic warfare on your own country. The US learned that lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan. They should have learned it in Vietnam, but that is another story.

And the armor does not need to be thick Krupp Steel plates. It might be composites, it could be Chobham. The mission defines the armor and a weight/cost/protection balance would need to be struck. As the old saying goes, good, cheap, light weight, pick two.

My point is that in the littorals you are likely to take hits. Probably not from the top end ship killing missiles of the big navies, but from artillery, suicide bombers, boats full of fanatics with RPGs or at worst a C-802 or silkworm somebody sold to a stateless operator. You want a ship that can take a hit from one of those and remain in action. Not survive without a scratch, but a least be able to depart under its own power.

The only answer to all the US Navy's NGFS woes lies in new-built Alaska class cruisers, built to the original specifications and camouflaged to restore offensive elan: