Originally Posted by 03USMC

Just a point Spike, Mitchell showed that Battle Wagons were vunerable to air attack after WWI.

As always, you are right again..... Old timer's disease,... that's my excuse.

Battleships absolutely have their place. An aircraft or Missile is easily taken care of with modern AA equipment, an artillery shell however is is nearly impossible to defend against.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

Battleships absolutely have their place. An aircraft or Missile is easily taken care of with modern AA equipment, an artillery shell however is is nearly impossible to defend against.

If that is true, why is it that there hasn't been one launched since Nov. 1944? (HMS Vanguard).

They are dinosaurs of another age. Battle ships are about as important to naval warfare as railway guns to land warfare.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

Battleships absolutely have their place. An aircraft or Missile is easily taken care of with modern AA equipment, an artillery shell however is is nearly impossible to defend against.

Untrue. We use converted naval Mark-15 Phalanx gun systems in Iraq (they're known as C-RAM on the ground) to shoot down incoming mortar shells...why not a gigantic battleship shell?

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Just a point Spike, Mitchell showed that Battle Wagons were vunerable to air attack after WWI.

true, but that's why we have destroyers and cruisers

Originally Posted by c/Commander

Untrue. We use converted naval Mark-15 Phalanx gun systems in Iraq (they're known as C-RAM on the ground) to shoot down incoming mortar shells...why not a gigantic battleship shell?

NGF has a flatter trajectory than an 81mm mortar round........just sayin.

And a surface-to-surface cruise missile, which is what the Phalanx was designed to counter, has an even flatter trajectory. It can do it, given the proper calibrations and the opportunity.

Originally Posted by c/Commander

And a surface-to-surface cruise missile, which is what the Phalanx was designed to counter, has an even flatter trajectory. It can do it, given the proper calibrations and the opportunity.

Nice theory ...still don't see CWIS ground mounted taken on a salvo of 5' 54 let alone 16' 50.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Nice theory ...still don't see CWIS ground mounted taken on a salvo of 5' 54 let alone 16' 50.

5", probably not, but the gun itself is pretty much a visual range weapon. The 16" is about twice as fast as a Harpoon at the muzzle, but is also twice the size, and has no onboard propulsion...so at its terminal end, I'd wager a CIWS against a 16"/50.

Hmmm, have to challenge the date of the last launching here. Although not specifically classed as Battleships, the Kirov Class Heavy Missile Cruisers would have to be as close to a WW2 Battleship as an Aegis Class Cruiser is to a WW2 Cruiser. What do you think? Simply a matter of definition?

Yes, CIWS might be pretty good against the sub-sonic cruise missiles I think were around at the time of the development of CIWS, however, how effective do you think it is against a supersonic nuclear capable cruise missile, especially considering the latter can be used as a proximity device, not even having to be close to the target on detonation, to take it out? Would be interesitng to g;et the effective range calibrations from the original anti-ship nuclear test in the Pacific, using captured naval vessels. Then of course, we need to consider the potential of a CIWS to address a hypersonic nuclear capable cruise missile? You know, like the ones BrahMos expects to have developed within now less than 3 years.
NERO1234

Another even greater achievement is going to be how you hit something between the line of sight horizon and the ballistic impact zone, seems to me, rail guns are going to run into a problem of a safe zone. Simply surface a submairne in the safe zone launch a high velocity cruise missile and exit the rail gun mounted combatant. Overly simplified but seems logical to me.

Try a response time of about 1 1/2 seconds in which to identifiy as a threat a sea skimming high velocity cruise missile, laying the gun and firing, whether you're talking about a CIWS or a rail gun the time is awfully brief. If you can't shred enough material of the incoming HVCM the energy from the ballistic impact alone, is probably going to be a terminal event for the target, whether it carries a rail gun or a CIWS.
Personally, in the case of a nuclear capable HVCM, I'd rig it with a sensor trigger that automatically detonated the warhead on impingment of a targeting radar. Let the blast wave do it's work; thats what nukes are all about.
NERO1234