For old naval nerds (and nerds of old navies)

[Borderland]

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...red-sea-fight/

So far, so good. The destroyers SD system works. I guess we'll have to have a system failure to determine if we need an upgrade.

[NETim]

I was a tin can sailor back in the late '70's aboard a Spruance destroyer. Back in those days, the threat was mostly Rooskie subs. So we were mostly equipped from the factory to sling some nasty anti-sub ordinance. Later on, very early '80's, VLS and CIWS were being retrofitted to the Spruances. And Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

The Iranian threat then was small high speed boats. We got to shoot all kinds of RC controlled speed boats with the 5" autoloading guns off the SoCal coast.

Ship to ship weapons coordination and data sharing was in its' infancy then. The NTDS systems would tax my poor transmitters. I got pretty good at replacing PA tubes.

The AEGIS class cruisers stepped up the air defense big time.

Those damn subs would blow us up routinely when we played with them. The only thing that could blindside them were helos. Couldn't hear 'em coming.

[Borderland]

I was a tin can sailor back in the late '70's aboard a Spruance destroyer. Back in those days, the threat was mostly Rooskie subs. So we were mostly equipped from the factory to sling some nasty anti-sub ordinance. Later on, very early '80's, VLS and CIWS were being retrofitted to the Spruances. And Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

The Iranian threat then was small high speed boats. We got to shoot all kinds of RC controlled speed boats with the 5" autoloading guns off the SoCal coast.

Ship to ship weapons coordination and data sharing was in its' infancy then. The NTDS systems would tax my poor transmitters. I got pretty good at replacing PA tubes.

The AEGIS class cruisers stepped up the air defense big time.

Those damn subs would blow us up routinely when we played with them. The only thing that could blindside them were helos. Couldn't hear 'em coming.

Nothing has changed.

We have the anti sub tech for deterrence.

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-...c-vla-missile/

Subs used to be a wild card. Not so much these days.

[NETim]

Nothing has changed.

We have the anti sub tech for deterrence.

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-...c-vla-missile/

Subs used to be a wild card. Not so much these days.

Oh I'm sure recent destroyers are still equipped with anti-sub blasting gear. They have/had much more advanced air defense technology though. All we had were the Sea Sparrow missiles back then, which were very short range. (<50 miles) The FT's called them "pop bottle rockets." Later CIWS systems were installed but they had much shorter range still. Once the VLS systems went in on the later Spruances, then different types of missiles could be used, including longer range stuff but yet still have the ability to launch the ASROC anti-sub missiles.

[Borderland]

Yeah, air defense seems to be the present threat. Still using anti-aircraft/missile guns.

[Trooper224]

A Spruance was not a "tin can". Anything the size of a cruiser doesn't qualify.

[awp_101]

Battlecruisers after WWII pt. 1: Stalingrad


(How it started: artist’s rendition of the Soviet battlecruiser Stalingrad.)


(How it ended: the never-finished Stalingrad for use in weapons tests.)

[awp_101]

Battlecruisers after WWII pt.2: USS Hawaii


(The planned appearance of USS Ranger (CC-4), the fourth of the six.) (photo via New York Tribune newspaper)


(End of the road for USS Hawaii on 20 June 1959 as it is towed to the scrapyard.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

On naval forums, folks still post about refitting the Iowas. Kind of like some guy who wants to carry a SAA. Ouch.

[Stephanie B]

On naval forums, folks still post about refitting the Iowas. Kind of like some guy who wants to carry a SAA. Ouch.

Money and personnel sinks. They were, I believe, the only stick-shift 600psi plants in service at the time. The only smart thing that the Congress did was to forbid the Navy from using them as fleet flagships.

Some snarky-ass LT had a letter in Proceedings that began by saying a good warship would be acoustically quiet, have a very large range before refueling and have a large main battery- all characteristics of the USS Constitution, and then went on to suggest that the reactivation of the Iowas was an application of equally faulty logic.