Originally Posted by nero1234

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...

For starts, more effective than you might think, though I don't know the specifics (and couldn't tell you if I did). Second, for supersonic targets, I don't need CIWS as long as I could hit it with an SM-2...which is very doable.

Hmmm! Lets see. You're proposing you can acquire a small agile target traveling 15ft above sea level at better than Mk2.5 in level flight and better than Mk3 in a dive and hit this with an SM-2? How close do you think a nuclear capable warhead has to get before the blast wave takes you out. These are specifically sea denial systems we are talking about here. Please remember how old the Sovremeny Class Detroyer design is, and that Russia has now exported a number of vessels of this Class; which means they already have something superior in service. The Sovremeny Class were specifically designed to overcome the Aegis System vessels of the US Navy and to eliminate American Carrier Battle Groups. In this respose, we haven't even started to consider the hypersonic versions of these missiles, which are already in development.
NERO1234

Exporting those destroyers doesn't necessarily mean they got something superior up their sleeves, another very probable solution to this is that they don't have the money anymore to keep them running. At the moment, Russia is very eager to modernize its military equipment; development of new weapons systems and platforms is a really expensive business, and having to spend millions and billions on new equipment doesn't affect the budget you have to work with. In my opinion, chances are that they needed the bucks they get from exporting those ships elsewhere.

To get back on topic: I think nothing is obsolete as long as it fulfills any given reasonable role, even if it lost (like battleships) its key role in the military. A barrage from 16-inch ship artillery still is absolutely devastating, especially if you keep in mind that most wars today are not fought by equals. It depends on who is using them: the US could use battleships (or, to put another example, also the B-52) without hesitation because the combined ground, naval and air forces guarding their attack make them more or less invincible (if I recall correctly, there was a US battleship deployed to the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War). If your adversary doesn't have the means to defend himself or counter your equipment, no matter how old it is, it is not obsolete. Never change a running system...

If you'd like to put two militaries that are equal in size, equipment and training against each other, you get a different picture. If you cannot rely on unchallenged air dominance and the lack of enemy anti ship artillery, battleships are nothing but moving targets. slow-moving targets that is...

//just my 2 Cents though

edit: found it was the USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin, two Iowa-class battleships, that took part in Operation Desert Storm.

Originally Posted by nero1234

The Sovremeny Class were specifically designed to overcome the Aegis System vessels of the US Navy and to eliminate American Carrier Battle Groups. In this respose, we haven't even started to consider the hypersonic versions of these missiles, which are already in development.
NERO1234

No, I don't think they were, given the fact that both the early Ticonderogas and the early Sovremennys were constructed at the same time (1980). Also, the range of the Sunburn is such that I can absolutely hit a plane carrying it before that aircraft reaches launch range (and certainly a ship).

Also, nuclear devices are designed not to detonate unless fused to do so, which means hitting it with said SM-2 would not cause a nuclear explosion.

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?

You ever try to stop a Mac truck with a baseball?



Either way guys not everybody has all these really coolguy weapons, now days what were dealing with a third world muslim terrorists, or some dirt bag pirate useing anything they can to do whatever amount of damage they can, sit 20 miles off their coast, shell them from the U.S.S Wisconsin, and their ain't a lot they can do about it except run.

An MTB can now carry missiles that can sink a Battleship from over the horizon, so you are tying down a large amount of resources for little return.

Yes, they are.

1. Range. The reason why carriers got on the top was (and still is) because their capability to engage targets located hundreds of miles away, while battleship can engage only targets few dozens of miles away.
2. Accuracy. Salvos of battleship guns still lacks accuracy - their projectiles works just like free falling air bombs. While ground attack planes after taking off from the carrier, can deliver guided bombs and missiles into a target thus increasing effectivity of the use of ammo.

And finally - imagine battle between battleship group vs. carrier group. Which one will fin? I'll put my bet on carrier group.

Originally Posted by Supostat

2. Accuracy. Salvos of battleship guns still lacks accuracy - their projectiles works just like free falling air bombs. While ground attack planes after taking off from the carrier, can deliver guided bombs and missiles into a target thus increasing effectivity of the use of ammo.

What about the cost of all the guided bombs/missles that would be needed in an attack on something well fortified like many of the Pacific Islands were, vs 16" shells?

Originally Posted by Supostat

Yes, they are.

1. Range. The reason why carriers got on the top was (and still is) because their capability to engage targets located hundreds of miles away, while battleship can engage only targets few dozens of miles away.
2. Accuracy. Salvos of battleship guns still lacks accuracy - their projectiles works just like free falling air bombs. While ground attack planes after taking off from the carrier, can deliver guided bombs and missiles into a target thus increasing effectivity of the use of ammo.

And finally - imagine battle between battleship group vs. carrier group. Which one will fin? I'll put my bet on carrier group.

I beg to differ about the accuracy of a BB's shells, Maybe in the 90's and after they aren't accurate, but last time I saw one was Desert Storm, and eth U.S.S Wisconsin hit their intended target every time, and was only off my a inch or two.

What about the cost of all the guided bombs/missles that would be needed in an attack on something well fortified like many of the Pacific Islands were, vs 16" shells?

Cheap free-falling bombs can be used for aerial targets, while carrier group is still far away from enemy. As closer group is to enemy, as easier enemy can strike back. It is always advantage if we can engage enemy, who lacks range and is unable to strike back...

I beg to differ about the accuracy of a BB's shells, Maybe in the 90's and after they aren't accurate, but last time I saw one was Desert Storm, and eth U.S.S Wisconsin hit their intended target every time, and was only off my a inch or two.

And how do you think, why battleships weren't used in 2003, when resistance from Iraqi side in general was heavier than in 1991?

Would anyone of you use gun armed battleship as main force against enemy who owns naval air forces, armed with anti-ship rockets, as well as missile-armed combat ships? Battleship, in this case, is powerful opponent, but with short hands.