NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, this question has been bugging me for a while. In my recent naval exercises, I've sent several thousand Tomahawk cruise missiles at the enemy. Now, from what I gathered, it'd take somewhere up to 48 Tomahawks to sink a battleship.

Unfortunately, I've been talking to my friend who come from military families (there's a lot here in DC). From what I've gathered, a single Tomahawk or two could easily gut a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Now, what is the standard here on NS? Is it the high number of missiles to sink a ship? Or is the more realistic one?

I'm 100% sure it wouldn't take 48 missles to sink one ship. 1 or 2 is more likely.

Alright, this question has been bugging me for a while. In my recent naval exercises, I've sent several thousand Tomahawk cruise missiles at the enemy. Now, from what I gathered, it'd take somewhere up to 48 Tomahawks to sink a battleship.

Unfortunately, I've been talking to my friend who come from military families (there's a lot here in DC). From what I've gathered, a single Tomahawk or two could easily gut a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Now, what is the standard here on NS? Is it the high number of missiles to sink a ship? Or is the more realistic one?

Depends. NS ships are often much more heavily armored than their real life counterparts, as RL ships no longer require heavy armor. Secondly, battleships in RL have always had FAR more armor than carriers. Third, the OpFor in your excercises may be counting missiles shot down by CIWS and anti-missile missiles toward the number taken to sink a battleship.

Now, what is the standard here on NS? Is it the high number of missiles to sink a ship? Or is the more realistic one?The last time I was in a war, I tried to use realistic numbers (my ships don't have RL equivalents, so my numbers may have been off), but I think my enemy didn't (it was last year, so I don't really remember). That battle was quite difficult. <_<

For the answer to that question, there are a few things you need to take into account:

Relative armour strengths
Internal capacity to take damage
The difference between gutting a ship and sinking it outright.

A battleship, Iowas, Yamatos et al, are designed for combat with other warships and have armour belts design to resist damage frome evn 15" and 16" shells. Though not entirely invulnerable, these belts are more than thick enough to handle most SSM missiles, which are usually designed to combat modern warships which armour measured in fractions of an inch.

The internal capacity to handle damage and the effectivenss of damage control is another overlooked factor. Modern missiles are designed to gut ships rather than sinking them outright. Destroying a ships fire control system or its primary armamment effectively neutralise its combat potential.

When I built the Doujin, I built this as its greatest defensive strengh. Rather rely on huge armour belts, the Doujin was instead built so large that it takes a missile punching through four or five internal bulkheads to reach the most vital systems. This allows the Doujin to take literally hundreds of missiles whilst still remaining afloat.

You hardly need 48 Tomahawks to sink a Battleship. If the said Battleship is anywhere near the realm of standards of real-life battleships, a single Tomahawk will allready seriously damage it and i'd say off the top of my head that three would suffice to atleast gut or mission kill one. Ofcourse, if you just arm one with a few-kiloton tactical nuclear warhead, that one will be enough.

Ofcourse, this just means the number of missiles that actually hit. Things like electronic-countermeasures, CIWS and Anti-Missile Missile defences need to be accounted for.

So we've gathered that most NS ships have heavy armor. How many inches of titanium hull would one Tomahawk be able to penetrate, I wonder?

though some equipment here is extremely high spec.

When ive finished overhauling my military i might try to find semi realistic tech to fight agaisnt as the equipment i intend to develope will be based on things that could happen with existing technology.

The bulkhead idea is a good one, i think that might go into our developemebnt of a heavy cruiser. Dont worry though as a small nation we have a long way to go before we can even build the more simple technology.

(OOC below))

Most of the Rps ive read seem to skip the fine details but more approximate. I guess it depends on how much you know, but if someone declares they gutted your ship with two misiles (hits) i guess you can point out that its not so easy and they may have actually damaged it. Its all for fun though isnt it?

I think for anything i create, the spec will be loosely based on modern tech but with slower speeds if the armour is heavier and so on...

What I dont understand if why people on NS build anything bigger than cruisers (and even cruisers are pushing it). All of these big-gun ships went out because they could be easily sunk by a cheaper, faster, smaller missile equipped destroyer or frigate. Do you think RL battleships didnt have armour? Of course they did, but missiles are very powerful, and very accurate, so it isnt enough.

100000 ton battleships may be useless, but NS is exaggerated so
a little extra tonnage wont hurt, im aiming at about 18000 tonnes (technically a bit too heavy to be a proper cruiser) for my cruiser, it was going to be 15000 tonnes but most of the extra weight will be in spreading out vital sytems and making it harder to gut.

It takes years to resear ch proper tech but in modern life we want a quick fix, but in NS time passes quickly, my country grew by 16% population overnight and so thats a few years. We dont have to grwo old waiting fior our technology, so we can just go for the extremes.

Anyway its more fun.

I think that a modern Tomahawk would be able to puncture at least twelve inches of titanium armor. Then again, I never was a sailor.

I was! I caught me a shark!

Very funny Kholint. And I agree with Rodina. I think that one missile would have a good deal of penetration.

Also, I know that the GBU-8/A Bunker Buster can penetrate 20 feet of reinforced concrete, how much armor would that be?

Very funny Kholint. And I agree with Rodina. I think that one missile would have a good deal of penetration.

Also, I know that the GBU-8/A Bunker Buster can penetrate 20 feet of reinforced concrete, how much armor would that be?

That depends on the bunker, but those are designed differently. Also keep in mind the type of missile. If the battleship has thick, dense armor you can easily burn through it with one or two chemical explosive warheads. However for the more RL armored ships, one or two conventional puncture warheads would be enough. It all depends on the missile and the armor, not to mention anti-missile and electronic jamming systems.

That depends on the bunker, but those are designed differently. Also keep in mind the type of missile. If the battleship has thick, dense armor you can easily burn through it with one or two chemical explosive warheads. However for the more RL armored ships, one or two conventional puncture warheads would be enough. It all depends on the missile and the armor, not to mention anti-missile and electronic jamming systems.

As has been mentioned, battleships are immensely heavily-armoured compared to modern ships; combine that with the updated air-defence systems on them and you have a seriously difficult target. I'd reckon that rather than use AShMs it's a lot easier and more effective to use torpedoes. For instance, the Russian 65-76 torpedo (http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WTRussian_post-WWII.htm - scroll down to find it) carries a 450+-kilogramme/992lb warhead, compared to the Tomahawk's 488lb warhead (about 200Kg, give or take). Much more deadly and a lot harder to stop.

Its all depends on the missile and it's payload.

A missile with a basic blast/frag HE warhead (ie most modern Rl missiles) simply isn't going to be able to push through a full armour scheme, take a look at the shells for big guns, they were specifically designed with to penetrate the armour before exploding and were generaly speaking soemthing int he region of 40-60% steel.

Modern GP bombs with the right fuses and pentrator bombs will have a greater effect on battle ships but then you have to get your aircraft within 5-10miles of the abttle ship which lets face it is simply sucidal.

Also as freethinkers mentioned, battleships are designed to withstand these hits and feature heavy compartmentaliseation to prevent a single penetration destroying the entire ship (ie even the mighty iowa can get its armour pentrated by a TOW but that simply make a small hole in one sealed section and have even less effect against a ship like the yamoto which actually has a secondary layer of armour spaced behind the first).

In terms of Rl missiles the tomahawk and the old massive soviet missiles are the only choices for engaging a battleship (the tomahawks as a 1000lb unitary warhead in the anti shipping role). the actual penetration capabilities of the tomahawk's warhead would of course be debatable (if soemone could supply details of it's exact makeup it would help).

BROACH, Thermo baric and other payloads will of course have additonal effects but these aren't widely used.

The GBU-8/A will liekly go straight through the deck armour of msot battleships and maybe even down a few decks causing horendous damage but again you need to get within 5miles to use it...

What I dont understand if why people on NS build anything bigger than cruisers (and even cruisers are pushing it). All of these big-gun ships went out because they could be easily sunk by a cheaper, faster, smaller missile equipped destroyer or frigate. Do you think RL battleships didnt have armour? Of course they did, but missiles are very powerful, and very accurate, so it isnt enough.

The Battleships did /not/ go out because of missiles...they went out because of aircraft carriers and the (faulty) belief that BBs would have no use in modern warfare...the main plans for WWIII (US vs. USSR) involved the mass irradiation of the Fulda Gap as the Soviets rushed into germany...the idea was that any landing would be occurring on either friendly shores or in areas where the enemy did not have time to place serious anti-access systems. The BBs had a lesser role in WWII's naval battles because of the stunning success of aircraft carriers, but it was still the battleships that allowed for the island hopping campaigns in the Pacific and the major landings in Europe...and which covered the infantry until the area was clear of many major enemy emplacements.

The number of ships actually destroyed by missiles is quite small...and the first loss of a ship was a small ex-US destroyer that was being improperly commanded near Egyptian ports during the 1967-1973 War of Attrition. It took several egyptian-run soviet missile boats to damage it enough to sink it. Most modern ships have actually taken serious, but survivable damage after being struck by several missiles or, in the case of the USS Cole, by being assaulted with a massive amount of explosives.

Missiles are actually quite ineffective in crippling even lightly-armored modern vessels and would do horridly against armored units.

.....

Now, as for the rest of this issue...if/when you are firing missiles from long ranges (ie, several dozen km) it is a 'good shot' if you even hit the ship. If you use a radio- or radar-homing missile then you might get the radio antennae or radar array fairly well, but you probably wouldn't hit any major combat systems (ie, the 16in guns) on a BB with a normal shot.

The Tomahawks can carry a 1000lb warhead, which is impressive except for the fact that the SSM variant hasn't really been used much IRL nor has it really been perfected. The TLAM (main T-hawk variant) is set to follow terrain and strike at enemy targets on the ground that are not moving or whose target location is known...to say that a tomahawk would 'gut' an AC carrier is just silly. A very lucky shot might hit some aircraft on deck or, if you're using some top-attack missile, you might pit the runway so that the carrier is effectively incapacitated...but unless you have supersonic, heavy bombers like the B-1B lancer, you're going to get smashed by the carrier's aircraft before you got in range (if you're a ship or a normal strike fighter). The other issue with tomahawks is that they've relatively damn slow...most point-defense ship missiles and other ship missiles go well over the Mach barrier (some in the double, triple, and quintuple mach range) so the interception would be easy using those missiles and even the inefficient current CIWS systems. The SSM version is not likely to even be practical and, IRL, has never really run very far.

The old/large soviet missiles are MUCH less than they're cracked up to be. Most of them failed in Soviet weapons tests (in the range of 3/4 failing). And aside from the technical failures, they are too large to be deployed effectively from ships or normal aircraft and are too easy to shoot down. The effect of those missiles is more in the name than any effect.

----

Thermobaric bombs would be pretty much ineffective vs. a closed-down ship (but would be hell if a hatch were left open). A BROACH or other modern penetrator warhead should do well against the top of BBs...but then you're assuming the use of old-style BBs that don't bother covering/protecting the command and control center, radio rooms, or any other vital systems.

"I think that a modern Tomahawk would be able to puncture at least twelve inches of titanium armor. Then again, I never was a sailor."

I doubt it...it might throw that chunk pretty damn far though. Don't suppose unless you have data to support the idea, though...it's bad practice. The point, however, is that titanium wouldn't be the shielding of choice in a BB. The more likely composition of a modern BB would likely be something like modern tank armor (that is, the composite/mixed armor of British, US, and other MBTs). That armor is very much less heavy and volumous than old steel armor plating...even modern steel armoring is many times more advanced and effective than the armoring on the Iowa Class BBs (remember, those were designed and built in the 40s, with only slight updates of some systems in the 80s). 12 inches of any new-build armor would put twice as much old steel armor to shame...now if you put that thickness new armor on a BB you have something to contend with.

The problem is everyone is asking what a tomahawk could do to steel plate...which hasn't been used in tanks since ~ the 40s and which would probably not be used in a modern BB made from scratch. You should be looking at the capabilities of modern armor...instead of thinking about how 21st century weapons will deal with 19th century armoring.

Tomahawks: big, but quite subsonic missiles. Not "hardened" (or whatever word that fits it) like those penetrator bombs and for penetrating armor. Retired after the Cold War finally ended. I'd say that it can at least cause some "outside damage" with its big warhead, but since it's sorta subsonic and isn't quite designed to penetrate armor (heavy armor in Soviet ships? where?), I don't really think that it can do the job quite easily. May take from tens to hundreds of missiles to sink a battleship depends on the situation ("mission kill" sometimes is easy, just need to have some detonate at the weapons systems and the sensors, which isn't that easy to do than to write on paper).

Soviet missiles: Most are frankly, crap. The AS-4 for example: tests show that only one out of twelve missiles on average can hit their target, not mentioning that the carrier of the missile (Tu-22m bombers) had to get into a very close range for their radar to actually function correctly. Some of the missiles, interestingly, also are reported to physically fell apart after it left the hardpoints.
The modern ship-based ones (Sandbox/Bazalt and Shipwreck/Granit) are bit better, with better eletronics and manufacturing. Been launched in tests and didn't had much obstacles. Also all supersonic and sea-skimmering I believe, so I'd say that it could cause some form of damage.
Also keep in mind that these are actually designed for sinking carriers, not quite battleships, so hmm...

Aye, well said. What about Sunburn and SS-N-27?

Aye, well said. What about Sunburn and SS-N-27?

Moskit -- Missile with good capability and at least a supersonic speed, but only a warhead of 320kg -- not exactly what you are looking for here. The range also varies (120km in one of the earlier models, and somewhere around 240km I believe in the late model). Can only be launched from certain warships right now IRL (there is this Kh-41 which is an air-launched version of the Sunburn/Moskit, but various sources states that it's just an airshow mockup, not one that's actually in service).

Klub -- Depends on which model you are talking about. Two majority models are the "long anti-ship" and the "short anti-ship". Long one is a supersonic one (Mach 2.9) with a 200kg warhead with improved penetration capabilities (still, not that much actual explosive), while the short one is subsonic (though I'm sure that one model makes a supersonic dash at the terminal phase) andh as a larger 400kg HE warhead. Pretty interesting, though limited to surface warships and submarines. Still, IMO not a candidate for some form of battleship killer.

Oh, I was just wondering your view generally :)...thanks for that. I still reckon torpedoes to be one's best bet to kill them off - big warhead, hard to destroy and not too easy to countermeasure in many cases - but I guess then you have to get the delivery system colse enough for it to work. BTW, any sources on the failure rates of AS-4s and -6s?

Oh, I was just wondering your view generally :)...thanks for that. I still reckon torpedoes to be one's best bet to kill them off - big warhead, hard to destroy and not too easy to countermeasure in many cases - but I guess then you have to get the delivery system colse enough for it to work. BTW, any sources on the failure rates of AS-4s and -6s?
My source about the failure rates primarily comes from readings from an (Reliable) internet forum with quite a few experts. If you really want the address, it's http://www.acig.org/forum (although you'll have to register; go under section "NCIG").

Well, uuh, a BB would be tough to sink with a missile, but they aren't really that dangerous in a sea battle. Chuck a few exocet-size missiles at the deck of a BB and all the fragile harpoons or whatever get blown up. Or the antennas for them. 48 Tomahawks would probably "mission kill" a BB, but the thing could be back in action pretty fast.

The Kilean navy uses the SS-N-19 and SS-N-22. The fact that our navy is actually well trained, has enough money for matinence, and has sailors that aren't bitter conscripts that get drunk on industrial cleaning alcohol every chance they get really helps the performance of our russian missiles.

Anti-battleship missiles....well, we're working on those. There isn't anything IRL that could do the job. The SS-N-19 makes for a decent carrier killer, though. The only pisser is that you basically have to throw away a spotter aircraft every time you fire a volley.

Soviet weapons don't suck as weapons designs, but faults with production and quality- faults of the overall soviet system and not their weapons designers- give a lot of their technology a bad rap.

Much obliged, matey.

Oh, I was just wondering your view generally :)...thanks for that. I still reckon torpedoes to be one's best bet to kill them off - big warhead, hard to destroy and not too easy to countermeasure in many cases - but I guess then you have to get the delivery system colse enough for it to work. BTW, any sources on the failure rates of AS-4s and -6s?
My source about the failure rates primarily comes from readings from an (Reliable) internet forum with quite a few experts. If you really want the address, it's http://www.acig.org/forum (although you'll have to register; go under section "NCIG").

I've also independently read the same reports as Omz (although elsewhere on the web). You can find them by doing a concentrated Google Internet Search (GIS) for the weapon names and "failure" or "break up" or something to that extent.

Kilean,
the harpoons aren't the main weapon of the BBs...and being in exocet range means that you're either within Harpoon range or within range of the guns...and the BB is no longer viable as a ship killer in long-range combat, but it will quickly sink other ships at close ranges or wipe out entire defensive (anti-amphibious assault) emplacement lines. That's why you have escourts...so the exocets are shot down and the 16"ers return fire at short range and the picket/defensive ships return missile fire.

Remember, no ship will do it all. And 48 Tomahawks will mission kill just about anything...but they'll also be 50+ million gone down the drain.

Some of you may recall an incident that occured during the 70's onboard a U.S carrier. There was an accident and nearly a dozen bombs exploded on deck and in the ammo stores. The damage was signfigant, but not enough to sink or destroy the ship.

Some of you may recall an incident that occured during the 70's onboard a U.S carrier. There was an accident and nearly a dozen bombs exploded on deck and in the ammo stores. The damage was signfigant, but not enough to sink or destroy the ship.

Yea, the USS Forrestal (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-59.htm).

On July 29, 1967 the USS Forrestal was operating off the coast of Vietnam, when a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom into a parked and armed A-4 Skyhawk. The impact caused the belly fuel tank and a 1,000 pound bomb on the Skyhawk to fall off, spilling JP5 (jet fuel) onto the flight deck and ignited a fire. The bomb exploded, causing a massive chain reaction of explosions fed by fuel and bombs from other aircraft that were armed and ready for the coming strike. Fuel and bombs spilled into the holes in the flight deck igniting fires on lower decks. This was the single worst loss of life on a navy vessel since the USS Franklin (CV-13) was bombed in WWII: 134 lost their lives, while an additional 64 were injured.

That's next to impossible now...thanks to navy requirements for insensitive (non-spontaneously combustive) explosives on ship decks. But it does show what the strength of a carrier is...the deck was seriously damaged and the ship rendered a general 'mission kill' but otherwise fine. Most of the dead were pilots and ground crews caught in the exploding aircraft and munitions...luckily it never got down to the fuel or ammo stores.

I would note that you'll find all that information and a great deal more (explored in greater depth) here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=94873).

The difficulty in NationStates naval combat is not that a battleship will take 48 hits from Tomahawk missiles to sink a battleship - although, given the results of general HE warheads against heavy armor plate, it may well take 48 to actually sink the vessel. The difficulty lies in actually hitting with those missiles. Most NationStates "modern" battleships offer several layers of point defense against the vast quantities of large anti-shipping missiles used in NationStates - long and short range SAMs and extnensive CIWS. Once you subtract off all the missiles that malfunction, miss, are intercepted, or shot down at close range, it can take a number of missiles fired to nail a NS battleship.

That said, most people tend to overstate the effectiveness of their countermeasure systems.

The vast difference between battleships and carriers is important in this regard. Battleships are generally more robust, and carriers require functioning air control towers, radar, and undamaged runways to function in mission terms. It is much easier to mission kill a carrier than a battleship; it's also much more expensive to operate a carrier - and for shore bombardment missions, a battleship is one of the cheapest and most effective delivery systems out there, in the long term. Battleships tend to be fast ships with long running endurance, even if they use conventional fuels. These are reasons why many NS nations use battleships, and even why the US Navy continued to use the Iowas through the first gulf war.

However, on the open sea, aircraft carriers and submarines provide a far greater force projection. A WWII era battleship projected force within a 20-25 mile radius; a WWII era carrier of similar size could readily threaten the same targets with bombers more accurately within a 500 or even 1000 mile radius - admittedly, without the same sustained level of bombardment, but with their superior range, this was hardly relevant.

The effective range of combat aircraft has improved relatively little, but most naval missile systems have an air launched equivalent. A modern missile cruiser could threaten stationary targets within a 500 mile radius with cruise missiles, and strike naval targets in a real and threatening manner at ranges out to nearly 200 miles with the right [large and expensive] missiles; carrier based aircraft today typically have a combat radius of at least 400 miles for heavy bombing missions, and can launch cruise missiles of their own to strike targets substantially farther than a missile boat - and with similar levels of equipment, usually would be striking the same targets more accurately and flexibly.

Further development to missile technology promises to extend the range and accuracy... but in all cases, these increases apply just as well to air platforms. Carriers will probably stay more dangerous than battleships in naval warfare for quite some time. They will also probably remain more expensive, more vulnerable, and larger in most equivalent cases.

Anyone know how effective the evasive 'pop-up' manuveres of missiles such as the Harpoon and Yakhont are against modern point-defence such as the RAM and Millenium or Goalkeeper CIWS?