The Carrier Killer and Evolution of the Fleet

The beginning of the US entry into WW2 saw the transformation of sea power go to the nation that could best utilize the aircraft carrier as the primary weapon of war. The battleship, once king of the waves, quickly slid to second place and over decades became thought to be an obsolete weapon, but comes new news.

US admiral: Carrier killer won't stop US Navy

By Associated Press ,


YOKOSUKA, Japan (AP) — A senior U.S. Navy commander says a new "carrier killer" missile that has become a symbol of China's rising military might will not force the U.S. Navy to change the way it operates in the Pacific.
Defense analysts say the Dong Feng 21D missile could upend the balance of power in Asia, where U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups have ruled the waves since the end of World War II.
However, Vice Adm. Scott van Buskirk, commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, told The Associated Press (News - Alert) in an interview that the Navy does not see the much–feared weapon as creating any insurmountable vulnerability for the U.S. carriers.

He says it's "not the Achilles heel of our aircraft carriers or our Navy."
__________________________________________________________________________

The new "carrier killer" missile is designed to go after US carriers that wander into the channel between Taiwan and China. If the fleet had battleships, carriers wouldn't have to sail that dangerous stretch of water.

At the end of the twentieth century, the last US battleships were retired to become museum ships. This, in my opinion, was an act of tremendous stupidity. While it is true that a battleship is a mobile armored artillery platform, it's uses are not limited to just artillery.

The key use, in my opinion, is that battleships weren't just built to dish out great punishment, but to also take great punishment. As we saw with the 2000 USS Cole attack, today's ships are built more for speed than anything else. With 12 inches of armor plate, a battleship can take a direct hit from most weapons systems and keep on sailing as if nothing happened.

Furthermore...

As a poster in another forum noted, there is shelved technology wherein the 16 inch guns of a battleship, fitted with a sabot round, fins, and a guidance system, can deliver an 8 inch shell 110 miles with pinpoint accuracy. While one battleship can patrol this area of ocean (with one held in reserve-swapped out every few months, another battleship can can flagship a fleet in the pirate infested waters of east Africa. It would be amusing to see pirates try and attack a battleship as pirates have stupidly attacked darkened ships sailing off Africa. THe battleship, and a few other retro ships could take on a group of low tech sea thieves whose methods make a present day blue water US destroyer irrelevant.

So, we go forward, sailing into an unknown, but willigly tying one hand behind our back.

 

I agree, however the US seems to be bleeding red ink, It's no surprise that they were retired, back in the 90's there didn't seem to be much of a threat at sea.

Could even a battleship withstand a missile hit?

I seem to remember the "Shipwreck" missile would pretty much wreck any ship.

 

A missile that can sink a modern carrier can also sink a battleship designed in the late 30's-early 40's. Today, the battleship's principal weapon would be the cruise missile. The big guns would have to get within 25 mile of shore to begin to be effective. Against the Chinese mainland, that would be a suicide mission for the battleship and any support ships.

tom

 

That is not necessarily so. If the missile is essentially a large HE warhead with a slight delay it may well breakup on the battleships armor before going high order. Will still hurt but the BB might have a very good chance of surviving.

 

IMO the "all or nothing" approach for armour layout is not a great idea against small hypersonic missiles with warheads equivalent to 6" to 8" guns, WW2 battleship armour was designed on the assumption a cruiser would not survive long enough to get many hits. Even a more balanced armour scheme designed to protect most of the ship from a 200Kg warhead, and that means a completely new ship, would be hard put to survive a 50 missile salvo from a couple of bomber squadrons that could get more than a dozen hits, and repeat the attempt a few hours later if the first one failed. A dozen 200kg warheads is more than enough for a "mission kill" even without sinking the ship. The RN suffered greatly operating in restricted waters without enough air cover at the Falklands, despite the Agentinians operating at the limit of their aircraft's range and having a very limited supply of SSMs. it can be done if there's no other way but you will be trading ships for planes and something more "expendable" than a capital ship would make a lot more sense than a 50.000t BB with a over 1000 sailors on board.
Not an expert on balistics but a 1500 Kg AP warhead is likely to get through any reasonable armour, thugh IMO a lot more damage can be guaranteed by six 250 Kg ones a couple of which are likely to hit unarmoured parts. The 500Kt warhead of the P-700 Granit (Shipwreck in NATO) would devastate any task force (IIRC the 1946 Bikini bombs were only 23Kt).

 

Many battleships were sunk in WW2 with 1930's-1940's technology. Torpedoes and bombs. The battleships we have left are designed to be protected against those. Modern, ship-killing technology is another matter altogether. Plus these missiles can be programmed to attack from different angles. The BBs may take a few hits, but the Chicoms are sure to launch many to insure destruction. Heck, they're probably turning them out like fortune cookies as we speak.

tom

 

Missiles designed to sink modern carriers are not designed to sink battleships. One could with modern technology design missiles that would be very effective vs battleships but since there are none out there no one has done it.
The original comments were made about a missile designed to sink a carrier and it's impact on a battleship. Now if you are talking about a Chinese attack on a USN task group it's an entirely different matter and probably needs a separate thread in the what if forum.