Plausibility of modern Surface Action Group?

Iowa was designed for a slightly different purpose than the traditional use of super dreadnoughts.

Given a lot of what has been documented on battleships and discussed in texts such as Friedman and Garzke & Dulin, as well as Warships Projects and Navweaps, I'd be interested to see the sources on those tests, as the notion of Harpoons being tested on battleship armour is new to me.

It also clashes with every other source regarding the issue of being mission killed by superstructure and radar hits.

As for 'scooping out the guts' of a single battleship almost 70 years old, it is much more easier said than done. That would involve cutting through the armour deck, removing the turrets and superstructure and generally completely unbalancing and remaking the ship.

The end result would be just as sinkable as any modern surface combatant, if not more so for principles of shock resistance applied to naval construction post Bikini. All the side armour in the world won't stop a back breaking under the keel hit from several heavyweight torpedoes.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
So...I'm going to reiterate what I said before: modern Surface Action Groups are completely plausible. You just have to stop thinking with the whole "how big an explosion can we get?"-mentality.

Jane's Warship Recognition Guide for 2002 lists alot of countries with extensive surface navies but no carriers. This is logical because (surprise, surprise) a carrier program costs a lot of money and normally you need a really good reason to have one.

Many countries have or could deploy a SAG right now and would have a logical reason for doing so. China's done so as a sort of "showing the flag" gesture, making port calls in Australia, America, and other places.

The Canadian navy has deployed what are more or less Surface Action Groups multiple times since it's carrier program went by the wayside, though in the Cold War they were labelled ASW.

And the one that springs to mind for me is the one that's currently deployed right now: the UN-mandated SAG off the coast of Somalia surving in anti-piracy efforts.
 
Oh sure, SAGs are plausible. They are even likely, as so few nations have the resources to field proper carriers. That doesn't change the fact that the kind of SAG that a country without carriers could field would get crushed by a proper carrier in the open ocean. Or that a SAG strong enough not to get crushed, ie including the kind of hypothetical advanced heavy surface combatants mentioned in this thread, would end up more expensive than a carrier group, with far less flexibility. Really, modern surface warships can only survive against proper opponents under air cover, either land or carrier based. If you can't provide such cover, and your goal is sinking enemy ships, you'd be far better off with subs or fast bombers.
 
Nikephoros, notice that my attack plan didn't rely on knowledge of where the individual planes were. And, if cruise missiles were used, you'd want something like our Tomahawk anti-shipping missile that switched modes to seeker-guided as it got close.

And, I'd guess it oughtta be possible to launch scout UAVs from the sea like BBs launched planes in the earliest days of naval aviation.

CalBear, I'm pleading no contestere to CVG general effectiveness superiority; I don't have time to research something so complicated. BUT - the questioner asked something different - whether a SAG could fight effectively against a CVG. That's what my raid plan's in evidence of. It would, as Admiral Yamamoto would tell you, depend on whom took the initiative with a good plan....

Although, the CVs're getting long in the tooth; the BB's reign only lasted four decades, while the CVNs've been out there six; their reign might've ended by now if big wars hadn't become rare. They have many A/C, yes, but they're slow to get up in the air and attack compared to missile firings; CV planes carry light missile loads.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Oh sure, SAGs are plausible. They are even likely, as so few nations have the resources to field proper carriers. That doesn't change the fact that the kind of SAG that a country without carriers could field would get crushed by a proper carrier in the open ocean. Or that a SAG strong enough not to get crushed, ie including the kind of hypothetical advanced heavy surface combatants mentioned in this thread, would end up more expensive than a carrier group, with far less flexibility. Really, modern surface warships can only survive against proper opponents under air cover, either land or carrier based. If you can't provide such cover, and your goal is sinking enemy ships, you'd be far better off with subs or fast bombers.

Here's what I'm saying: this thread has gotten sidetracked into this hypothetical scenario that's never going to happen. You were right in the first two sentences and then you started feeding everyone else the piss. :D



We need to start looking at this realistically. For two SAGs to face off, then you need two countries that dislike each other and would have a strategic/tactical reason to put those forces to sea with a purpose to fight. If you throw a fair amount of logic to the wind and just concentrate on any spark at all, then you get quite a few.

There's...Venezuela and the Dutch right now. The Venezuelans could possibly (I said possibly) take the Dutch-owned islands to their north, then hold a small SAG off their coast to await the inevitable Dutch response and try to make them shoot their way to the coast.

Perhaps a Second Korean War could see North Korean missile-boat groups attempting to inderdict American and Allied convoys in the Tsushima strait gaurded by frigates.

In the 1970s or 80s, the very slim option was there for the South African Navy to attempt to go after Cuban convoys which were probably gaurded by some surface vessels as well.
 
Here's what I'm saying: this thread has gotten sidetracked into this hypothetical scenario that's never going to happen. You were right in the first two sentences and then you started feeding everyone else the piss. :D

Eh? Check out the OP. This thread has always been about the plausibility of a SAG that can take on a carrier group, centered around some modern version of the Kirov, not the plausibility of a SAG as an ad hoc measure for a frigate navy that can't field proper naval superiority ships against opponents that thankfully can't do it either.

I suppose you might be right in that the hypothetical scenario that this thread is about would never happen, and so we might as well discuss ad hoc formations by frigate navies instead, but.....
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Eh? Check out the OP. This thread has always been about the plausibility of a SAG that can take on a carrier group, centered around some modern version of the Kirov, not the plausibility of a SAG as an ad hoc measure for a frigate navy that can't field proper naval superiority ships against opponents that thankfully can't do it either.

Oh! My mistake. My apologies, I'll be honest: I thought I was just rolling with where the thread had gone. Let's be honest: these threads normally go towards what will produce the biggest bang, not what is the most logical.

I suppose you might be right in that the hypothetical scenario that this thread is about would never happen, and so we might as well discuss ad hoc formations by frigate navies instead, but.....

Very true. Very true. Alot of folks seem to like to give their make-believe militaries blank checks around here...:D
 
Iowa was designed for a slightly different purpose than the traditional use of super dreadnoughts.

Given a lot of what has been documented on battleships and discussed in texts such as Friedman and Garzke & Dulin, as well as Warships Projects and Navweaps, I'd be interested to see the sources on those tests, as the notion of Harpoons being tested on battleship armour is new to me.

It also clashes with every other source regarding the issue of being mission killed by superstructure and radar hits.

As for 'scooping out the guts' of a single battleship almost 70 years old, it is much more easier said than done. That would involve cutting through the armour deck, removing the turrets and superstructure and generally completely unbalancing and remaking the ship.

The end result would be just as sinkable as any modern surface combatant, if not more so for principles of shock resistance applied to naval construction post Bikini. All the side armour in the world won't stop a back breaking under the keel hit from several heavyweight torpedoes.

I can't find it right now, but I believe the basic principle was that the Iowa's armor, designed to withstand the 16/50 AP shell at 1225 kg and 762 m/s, can easily absorb the HE warhead of a Harpoon at 221 kg and 250 m/s. IIRC, the fact that the Harpoon used an HE warhead was more important, given that the explosion would be outside the armor and almost completely deflected. Now, something more substantial like a P-700 armed with a theoretical HEAT warhead could be more effective, but the point is that modern anti-ship weapons are designed to kill thin-skinned ships, and using them against a battleship is akin to using a fragmentation grenade against a main battle tank.

As for 'scooping out the guts', I meant it more as building an upsized CGN into an Iowa hull.

As for mission kills, the original BBG concept was for the missiles to be controlled by an Aegis system anyways, so not a big loss.
 
However, the armour of the Iowas was not designed to resist 16/50.

Furthermore, the Harpoon would not be aimed at the belt, but at the superstructure, which is far more vulnerable. The deck armour of battleships is also insufficient to provide complete and invulnerable protection against a full range of threats, including missiles earlier than Harpoon.

Building a CGN in an Iowa hull is a complete waste of money. A CG or CGN can be built cheaper on either the standard line of DLG hulls, a Long Beach sized hull or the general plan of the CSGN. Given the lack of large gun threats, the armour belt would be redundant on a missile armed combatant designed to stand off at long range and/or escort carriers.

You end up destroying the unique capabilites of the battleship (guns) to create a ship that would need an exceptionally large crew, long development time, be a unique system (with all the attendant issues therein) and not do the job any better than a smaller conventional CG.
For the cost of gutting the ship and rebuilding, you could have 2-4 missile cruisers which can operate all the same sorts of missiles and be in more than one place at once.

There isn't a shortage of VLS cells in the fleet to necessitate any consideration of one of a kind ships. Better is the enemy of good enough.

Finally, to repeat: All the side armour in the world won't stop a back breaking under the keel hit from several heavyweight torpedoes.
 
I'm no expert but what if anti aircraft and anti missle technology got to the point they could defend such a battle group against Exocets, Harpoons, or whatever else kind of anti-ship missle that could be sent at it? With all the advances in electronics, rapid fire guns, radar, and other jamming systems coming online. Combine this with fast ships with stealth technology and maybe a SAG could be possible?
 
The balance of probabilities is in favour of the attacker - the defender always has a certain limit on the amount of missiles or rounds that can be carried. If placed in the area of battle for long enough, they will eventually run low.

This can be somewhat assisted by the use of decoys, although that isn't a panacea.

It does come down to the old chestnut of 'they have to be lucky all the time, we only have to be lucky once.'
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
One of the unappreciated dangers in modern missile warfare at sea is fire. Fire has long been an enemy of all sailors, but in this modern age you do not simply get fire caused by shell explosions, you get unburned solid rocket fuel. The solid fuel burns extremely hot (3,000 - 6,000 degrees) hot enough to quite literally melt through steel decking (steel and iron melt at right around 3,000 degrees) and an absolute bitch to put out.

You hit a WW II battleship with a dozen Harpoons, especially if they have a third or more of their fuel left and that BB is in some trouble.

The practicality of a modern BB has been kicked around here a few times (and absolutely kicked to death over at NavWeps). It is true that, currently, there are very few weapons that would present a serious threat to the Iowa or her sisters besides the 533 & 650mm torpedoes used on modern subs (although the SS-N-19, at 3,000 pounds and MACH 3 has some of the same ballistic qualities as a HE shell from a 16/50, with the added gift of the aforementioned solid rocket fuel). This is, however, not because modern technology is incapable of threatening an armored warship. All one needs do is look at the damage that can be done to a modern MBT by an anti-tank rocket, to see the potential that shaped charges present.

A modern MBT, especially one with Chobham armor like that used on the Challenger 2 and M1A1 is literally armored better than a WW II battleship (specifics of armor are very, very secret, the "if I tell you I have to kill you" sort of secret, but it isn't difficult to come up with a ballpark estimate). The M-60A3 had 6.1 inches of armor and weighed in at 54 tons. An M1A1 comes in at around 68 tons, with most of the difference being additional armor, including depleted uranium and the Chobham composite. Figure it has at least 8" of composite armor, more on the front hull and turret face. That armor is supposed to be at least twice as resistant to penetration as pure steel plate. That means an MBT carries the equivalent of at least 16" of Class B plate (Iowa's belt is around 12 inches of Class B). Even if you discount the sales pitch from the Chobham sales team, the tank is as well armored as a Des Moines CA, and a single man portable RPG can punch through that armor (we are not talking the RPG-7 here, but the RPG-29, however, the fact is that both M1A1 and Challenger 2 tanks have been penetrated by man portable systems).

If you can punch through 8" of Chobham with an RPG, what do you think you could do with an 800-900 POUND:eek: warhead and a year of computer aided design? In the battle between armor and warhead, warhead ALWAYS wins in the end.
 
Top