Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

>
> Against the Missouri, a single laser guided bunker buster dropped from
an
A-6
> will either detonate on the water side of the keel plate (bad)[if
thirty
feet of
> steel reinforced concrete doesn't stop them, a few decks of 3 inch
steel
has no
> chance], or in the main magazines or engineering spaces (worse), and
there
is
> nothing that the Missouri can do to prevent it.  Loaded with four such
bombs,
> the single A-6 has a reasonable chance of sinking the entire Iowa
class of
> battleships in a single sortie, if the ships were in the same
formation.
If
> they were positioned like one of the Baker tests, a single modern
carrier
> airwing could sink every battleship built in this century, as their
air
defences
> are not up to the task of dealing laser guided, bunkerbusting bombs,
let
alone
> the aircraft that drop them.
>

This A-6 will need EW support, Tanker support, Fighter cover, etc. 
Then,
your optomistic projection for 100% hits assumes that the target has no
ability to defend itself.  No, I'm not talking the A-6, but the laser
guided
bomb.  Just because the Iraqi's are stupid enough to be bombed by smart
bombs for 10 years and not realize (or read un-classified western
defense
journals) that the best defence is to go after the seeker on the bomb,
data
link on the  missiles, etc., does no mean everyone is that stupid.  If
you
take all four of the Iowa class out and park them and drop laser guided
bombs on them without allowing them to manuever, and without modern EW
defence including the ability disrput the incoming bomb's guidence, yes
you
could sink them all if you get critical hits.  But that is not a fair
test.
Granted, shooting sitting ducks does occasionally happen.  The best
example
of this is Pearl Harbor.  Note that most of the damage came from the
first
strike.  Why?  The Jap pilots weren't being shoot at (for the most
part).

ias