Warship Appreciation Thread

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Only if handled poorly, if I remember right. Then again, we did have a post-mothball explosion because of the powder bags if I remember right.

On the third hand, we've been using a modified version of Kriegsmarine WW2 propellants since we've started using Oto-designed guns (which, from what I've read, don't turn into a blazing conflagration at a drop of a hat like most propellants, they still shift turrets when they go off but not go KABOOM! and thus split the ship in half).
To be fair the Iowa explosion can in part be explained by the USN rushing her yard time especially on the turrets when they where reactivating her so they could try to relieve the New Jersey off Lebanon which had been there for nine months on top of a three month deployment to the Pacific before receiving new orders(hell the New Jersey at the time had been so rushed into recommissioning that the shell hoists where only operational for 8 of the 9 main guns the middle gun on turret 2 was out of action). As it turns out we kinda pulled out of Lebanon before the Iowa was ever recomissoned. And then the USN didn't spend the cash and the five months of yard time required to fix the problem which to be fair made some sense monetarily and as a use of yard resources because the Iowa was supposed to have a major yard period around 4 months after the explosion anyways and thus they planned to fix any of the issues then. As we all know that didn't work out
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Only if handled poorly, if I remember right. Then again, we did have a post-mothball explosion because of the powder bags if I remember right.

On the third hand, we've been using a modified version of Kriegsmarine WW2 propellants since we've started using Oto-designed guns (which, from what I've read, don't turn into a blazing conflagration at a drop of a hat like most propellants, they still shift turrets when they go off but not go KABOOM! and thus split the ship in half).
To be fair the Iowa explosion can in part be explained by the USN rushing her yard time especially on the turrets when they where reactivating her so they could try to relieve the New Jersey off Lebanon which had been there for nine months on top of a three month deployment to the Pacific before receiving new orders(hell the New Jersey at the time had been so rushed into recommissioning that the shell hoists where only operational for 8 of the 9 main guns the middle gun on turret 2 was out of action). As it turns out we kinda pulled out of Lebanon before the Iowa was ever recomissoned. And then the USN didn't spend the cash and the five months of yard time required to fix the problem which to be fair made some sense monetarily and as a use of yard resources because the Iowa was supposed to have a major yard period around 4 months after the explosion anyways and thus they planned to fix any of the issues then. As we all know that didn't work out
From what I remember the issue was that the original powder WW2 bags were more or less each specifically measured and self-contained with a powder ingredient ratio/mix that was almost unique to that bag because of the difficulties in production, and was relying on the silk powder bags to keep any static from hitting it.

After Iowa was recommissioned, people started cutting open powder bags and mixing the bags themselves on the ship because some had rotted or gotten wet during her time in reserve, and they wanted to salvage any powder they could since there were no new powder bags being produced at that time, IIRC.

That mixing fucked with ingredient ratios, and may have resulted in powder that was..touch or static sensitive in a way the original bags were not. Fast foward, and they think the turret explosion was caused by a mishap handling the bags during loading sequence that day. A mishap that would normally been a minor incident became a turret explosion because people had started doing things that the older crews would have known not to do.

Of course that would have made the USN look bad, so instead they blamed it on a gay sailor who they said was suicidal and wanted to hurt his crew and the navy. Even though later inquires made a joke of that claim, it was what Reagan pushed to protect the rep of the Navy and the Iowa's.
 

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
From what I remember the issue was that the original powder WW2 bags were more or less each specifically measured and self-contained with a powder ingredient ratio/mix that was almost unique to that bag because of the difficulties in production, and was relying on the silk powder bags to keep any static from hitting it.

After Iowa was recommissioned, people started cutting open powder bags and mixing the bags themselves on the ship because some had rotted or gotten wet during her time in reserve, and they wanted to salvage any powder they could since there were no new powder bags being produced at that time, IIRC.

That mixing fucked with ingredient ratios, and may have resulted in powder that was..touch or static sensitive in a way the original bags were not. Fast foward, and they think the turret explosion was caused by a mishap handling the bags during loading sequence that day. A mishap that would normally been a minor incident became a turret explosion because people had started doing things that the older crews would have known not to do.

Of course that would have made the USN look bad, so instead they blamed it on a gay sailor who they said was suicidal and wanted to hurt his crew and the navy. Even though later inquires made a joke of that claim, it was what Reagan pushed to protect the rep of the Navy and the Iowa's.
The work on the guns and turrets on Iowa being rushed didn't help either. If either problem hadn't happened it would have been as you said a minor incident
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
The work on the guns and turrets on Iowa being rushed didn't help either. If either problem hadn't happened it would have been as you said a minor incident
Maybe, maybe not; depends on how much knowledge the older crews took for granted and forgot to write-down or pass on when they stuck her in reserve.
 

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Maybe, maybe not; depends on how much knowledge the older crews took for granted and forgot to write-down or pass on when they stuck her in reserve.
The one thing I don't get is how they had problems in the 80s but New Jersey didn't have any problems during Vietnam given that the periods between the ships being in active service was roughly the same. About the only thing that they didn't have problems finding specialized personnel and parts for the 80s was the engineering section since the first pair of Sacramentos each used half the engineering plant from Kentucky and the other pair had a new set of the same made for them so the supply and training pipeline was there
 
Last edited:

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
img
An Aquitaine-class FREMM Frigate Provence of the French Navy is sailing alongside a replica of the Hermione, a 32 gun French Frigate of the Concorde-class first launched a few years back (circa 1779) known for its low radar and thermal signature and cavitation noise.

uoq2wa56m3n71.jpg
 

bintananth

behind a desk
img
An Aquitaine-class FREMM Frigate Provence of the French Navy is sailing alongside a replica of the Hermione, a 32 gun French Frigate of the Concorde-class first launched a few years back (circa 1779) known for its low radar and thermal signature and cavitation noise.

uoq2wa56m3n71.jpg
It's amusing how I had to zoom in just to see the French flag Provence is flying while Hermione's is letting everyone know "I'm French and don't you forget it."
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member


Basically, Lockheed, when working on the F-117, discovered that the stealth setup of the 'Stealth Fighter' was able to deflect sound (via the old polaroid cameras, oddly enough) sensors and Skunk Works went in and designed a concept submarine using this knowledge... which the USN ignored (for submarines anyway) because it compromised speed for that stealth. Why the need for speed? Because the USN's naval force has to get to an area quickly and anything to slow it down is going to ruin that.

It got used for the Sea Shadow testbed, though.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Basically, Lockheed, when working on the F-117, discovered that the stealth setup of the 'Stealth Fighter' was able to deflect sound (via the old polaroid cameras, oddly enough) sensors and Skunk Works went in and designed a concept submarine using this knowledge... which the USN ignored (for submarines anyway) because it compromised speed for that stealth.
So basically make ballistic subs this way because speed does jack shit for their role because said role is "sit in a general area and wait for the Big Red Button to be pushed"? If a boomer needs to be somewhere in a hurry, then things have gone so dramatically wrong that there's not really much point in worrying, so at absolute worst you'll maybe need one or two more built for patrol purposes from transit time to resupply.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
So basically make ballistic subs this way because speed does jack shit for their role because said role is "sit in a general area and wait for the Big Red Button to be pushed"? If a boomer needs to be somewhere in a hurry, then things have gone so dramatically wrong that there's not really much point in worrying, so at absolute worst you'll maybe need one or two more built for patrol purposes from transit time to resupply.
Subs still have to keep up with the fleet
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
So basically make ballistic subs this way because speed does jack shit for their role because said role is "sit in a general area and wait for the Big Red Button to be pushed"? If a boomer needs to be somewhere in a hurry, then things have gone so dramatically wrong that there's not really much point in worrying, so at absolute worst you'll maybe need one or two more built for patrol purposes from transit time to resupply.
No, they need that speed to get to their launch positions as soon as possible and evade torpedoes. This also only works on active sonar, not passive. The only reason that the US and NATO have damn good passives is that we've built all of our modern systems on WW2 German systems.
 

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
No, they need that speed to get to their launch positions as soon as possible and evade torpedoes. This also only works on active sonar, not passive. The only reason that the US and NATO have damn good passives is that we've built all of our modern systems on WW2 German systems.
And spent lots of money and used a lot of brilliant minds on R@D for them
 

bintananth

behind a desk
No, they need that speed to get to their launch positions as soon as possible and evade torpedoes. This also only works on active sonar, not passive. The only reason that the US and NATO have damn good passives is that we've built all of our modern systems on WW2 German systems.
The US and UK weren't slouches in detecting submarines during WW2 either, although it was the active sytems instead of the passive which carried the day.

USS Milwaukee did not have sonar but did have a depth finder which found the deepest point in the Atlantic and was used to chart part of the Pacific. An Omaha-class light cruiser's outdated by WW2 depth finder can't tell you exactly where a submarine is but sure as hell will notice that there's one nearby because the depth readings just went wonky. Cue nearby destroyers going on alert.

Sub: "I don't want to be spotted."
ASW: "You've been spotted. Good luck."
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Subs still have to keep up with the fleet
What the hell is the purpose of a ballistic missile sub sitting in the middle of a fleet? Their literal entire point is to be isolated untrackable "backups" for deployment of strategic nuclear weapons, sticking with a group of surface vessels for anything but resupply that ought to be done stationary is counterproductive to everything I understand of what they do. It applies for show of force, but in that case stealth is no issue so you're fine turning up the propulsion to a "noisy" point.

It looks far more like a "design problem with space to try to fix it" situation than a "Big Fat No" situation. Sure, could turn into an R&D sinkhole, but there's no indication of any effort in deriving compromise solutions that answer some of the speed issue at the cost of some of the active sonar avoidance, or adapting the principals to more useful setups. Note the base is a thousand times less active sonar return. There is a huge amount one can go down while still being a major improvement.

No, they need that speed to get to their launch positions as soon as possible and evade torpedoes.
...Except they can sit around for months. That's the point of the nuclear reactor, letting them stay deployed for extremely long periods of time without resupply that could give away their position. The point of them is middle-of-the-ocean launch points, the way they work doesn't need them to travel to a separate launch point unless they have the rotten luck of inclement weather or were for some reason out of range to begin with.

Do you have anything suggesting they are outside the matter-of-minutes counter-barrage paradigm that I understand US nuclear doctrine to be, needing to do anything more than surface in clear weather to launch their missiles in response? Because I don't understand why one would position them such that they lack an expected target inside their effective radius to end up needing the travel time, unless they're moving to restock or in-between areas of interest.

This also only works on active sonar, not passive. The only reason that the US and NATO have damn good passives is that we've built all of our modern systems on WW2 German systems.
Your claim was specifically that it was discounted for loss of speed. Not anything about compromising other stealth concerns intrinsically. And even besides that, the vast majority of the passive sonar defense is in the materials rather than shape. The subs are pretty much still the same tubes as the first round of them, which was a shape chosen for speed while submerged, not because it was particularly effective at avoiding sonar.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
What the hell is the purpose of a ballistic missile sub sitting in the middle of a fleet? Their literal entire point is to be isolated untrackable "backups" for deployment of strategic nuclear weapons, sticking with a group of surface vessels for anything but resupply that ought to be done stationary is counterproductive to everything I understand of what they do. It applies for show of force, but in that case stealth is no issue so you're fine turning up the propulsion to a "noisy" point.

It looks far more like a "design problem with space to try to fix it" situation than a "Big Fat No" situation. Sure, could turn into an R&D sinkhole, but there's no indication of any effort in deriving compromise solutions that answer some of the speed issue at the cost of some of the active sonar avoidance, or adapting the principals to more useful setups. Note the base is a thousand times less active sonar return. There is a huge amount one can go down while still being a major improvement.


...Except they can sit around for months. That's the point of the nuclear reactor, letting them stay deployed for extremely long periods of time without resupply that could give away their position. The point of them is middle-of-the-ocean launch points, the way they work doesn't need them to travel to a separate launch point unless they have the rotten luck of inclement weather or were for some reason out of range to begin with.

Do you have anything suggesting they are outside the matter-of-minutes counter-barrage paradigm that I understand US nuclear doctrine to be, needing to do anything more than surface in clear weather to launch their missiles in response? Because I don't understand why one would position them such that they lack an expected target inside their effective radius to end up needing the travel time, unless they're moving to restock or in-between areas of interest.


Your claim was specifically that it was discounted for loss of speed. Not anything about compromising other stealth concerns intrinsically. And even besides that, the vast majority of the passive sonar defense is in the materials rather than shape. The subs are pretty much still the same tubes as the first round of them, which was a shape chosen for speed while submerged, not because it was particularly effective at avoiding sonar.
Because submarines are more then just a "one use" thing. They are one of many forms of protection for a carrier fleet for instance, and then they also have the ones that do leave and disappear.

The subs adnt just sitting in position waiting for the order. They are moving, constantly. Because staying still is how you die
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Because submarines are more then just a "one use" thing. They are one of many forms of protection for a carrier fleet for instance, and then they also have the ones that do leave and disappear.

The subs adnt just sitting in position waiting for the order. They are moving, constantly. Because staying still is how you die
An SSBN isn't going to be assigned to protect an aircraft carrier. That would be a "pants on head retarted" - to use an offensive phrase - decision by an Admiral unless said Admiral had no other submarine available.

Sure, a ballistic missile submarine can perform the role of attack submarine in an emergency because they do carry torpedoes. You would have to be an absolute goddamned fucking idiot to assign one to an attack submarine's mission because that's not what it's designed for and the crew probably isn't trained for it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top