Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Des Moines-class cruiser in a modern navy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Des Moines-class cruiser in a modern navy.

    I'm not advocating an all gun heavy cruiser, but when you look at her armour, top speed and endurance... that's an impressive hull to emulate and improve upon. Given that modern navies can't afford to lose many ships these days, would armoured ships be the next best alternative?
    "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
    Ernest Hemingway.

    Sapere aude.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
    I'm not advocating an all gun heavy cruiser, but when you look at her armour, top speed and endurance... that's an impressive hull to emulate and improve upon. Given that modern navies can't afford to lose many ships these days, would armoured ships be the next best alternative?
    Could it survive a hit from a SS 22?
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

    Comment


    • #3
      Next best alternative to what?

      Not being seen and being able to shoot whatever you can't see seem to be the best options at the moment. In effect, anti-air power and missiles.
      Wisdom is personal

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Karri View Post
        Next best alternative to what?

        Not being seen and being able to shoot whatever you can't see seem to be the best options at the moment. In effect, anti-air power and missiles.
        he did say hull, and most of what happens in regards to reducing RCS occurs in/on the superstructure, so stealth would still be possible using the des moines hull...
        the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

        A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
        A man dies and leaves his name,
        A teacher dies and teaches death.
        Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
          I'm not advocating an all gun heavy cruiser, but when you look at her armour, top speed and endurance... that's an impressive hull to emulate and improve upon. Given that modern navies can't afford to lose many ships these days, would armoured ships be the next best alternative?
          good luck. i mention armoring ships against small arms and i'm told that's too costly or whatever other excuse people like to give to justify the modern paper thin hulls warships sail around with...
          the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

          A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
          A man dies and leaves his name,
          A teacher dies and teaches death.
          Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Surrey View Post

            Could it survive a hit from a SS 22?
            well it would probably stand a better chance...
            the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

            A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
            A man dies and leaves his name,
            A teacher dies and teaches death.
            Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

            Comment


            • #7
              On the topic of Cruiser hulls.

              The USS Long Beach (CGN-9) was the last ship to use traditional cruiser style hull based on those used during World War II.

              2560px-USS_Long_Beach_%28CGN-9%29_under_construction_in_July_1959.jpg

              USS_Long_Beach_%28CGN-9%29_underway_at_sea%2C_circa_in_the_1960s.jpg

              She was suppose to be upgraded with AEGIS but budgets overruled that.

              NH-90071-KN_CGN-9_AAW_Refit_for_FY77-78-79_Concept_%28FADE%29.jpg
              "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
              Ernest Hemingway.

              Sapere aude.

              Comment


              • #8
                Could it be argued,then, that the Iowa Class Battleships might still be viable ?
                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                  Could it be argued,then, that the Iowa Class Battleships might still be viable ?
                  There's always an argument for it, the main guns would have a more specific role rather than being largely used for everything. In the case of something like a battleship, which is primarily armoured to withstand battle damage... thus avoiding mission kill. Which means sustaining so much damage it has to exit the fight, an armoured battleship could take on much more battle damage and yet still remain critical to the operation.

                  Another important aspect often overlooked, during WW2 the US battleships would carry vast amounts of fuel, thus they were often used to refuel the destroyers and other ships. This increased mission range and provided more flexibility when excess ships were limited. The designers never lost sight of this after the war, they envisioned using the battleships as protected fleet oilers and supply ships.

                  tumblr_nw0m5115LF1uoai9lo1_1280.jpg
                  "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                  Ernest Hemingway.

                  Sapere aude.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                    Could it be argued,then, that the Iowa Class Battleships might still be viable ?
                    as much as i love battleships, the battleship as we knew it is 100% dead.

                    could a new class of large surface ship rise to take on the mantle of battleship? sure, but it won't resemble an iowa class or anything remotely similar.

                    maybe in the future 2 railguns, 2-4 mk110s as far as guns, and 150-200 VLS and 3-4 CIWS mounts with no armor to speak of...
                    the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

                    A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
                    A man dies and leaves his name,
                    A teacher dies and teaches death.
                    Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Have there ever been any tests on how effective armour is against a missile strike? The Russian missiles go much faster and typically carry larger warheads than the US ones I remember playing Harpoon years ago and it took a lot of hits to sink an Iowa.
                      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It would depend on the actual warhead. Is it a shaped charge?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                          Have there ever been any tests on how effective armour is against a missile strike? The Russian missiles go much faster and typically carry larger warheads than the US ones I remember playing Harpoon years ago and it took a lot of hits to sink an Iowa.
                          yes there were tests done, but damn they're hard to find on google lol

                          but lets face it, missiles even the harpoon have larger warheads than yamato's 18" guns carried, on top of that they utilize shaped charges...battleship armor doesn't stand a chance.
                          the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

                          A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
                          A man dies and leaves his name,
                          A teacher dies and teaches death.
                          Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's kinda hard to determine projectile is more powerful, since they work in different ways. Harpoons use a shaped charge while old battleship shells use kinetic energy. They both have their uses.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Large kinetic shells would be useless, considering the thin hull and superstructure on modern warships... it would simply go through the ship like it was made out of paper. Armour wouldn't be a panacea, it's to mitigate the damage to stay in the fight longer. The Des Moines achieved respectable speed and endurance with a 1” bomb deck (intended to detonate armour piercing shells and high explosive bombs before they reached the main armour deck), 3.5” armour deck, up to 6” main belt, and heavily armoured main gun mounts. Now, in a modern configuration equipped with VLS and modern sensors this cruiser hull would be one of the most protected ships afloat.
                              Look at the Kirov cruiser, it has all or nothing firepower but if damaged, she could be out of the fight rather quickly.
                              "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                              Ernest Hemingway.

                              Sapere aude.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X