Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

"Imre A. Szabo" wrote:

> 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).

If the A-6's need fighter and EW support, they are not going to bother
shooting
at the battleship, it will be sunk in the mopping up strike after the
carrier
and guided missile escorts are sunk.

Except for the Iowa's, no battleship has the capability to fire on an
A-6 at
all, and even the Iowa has problems.  If the Japanese had smart bombs at
Pearl
Harbor, there would not have been any follow-on strikes.

The A-6 has enough performance to lob the bombs in from outside the
envelope of
the 5"/38 area air defence batteries of the Iowa's, and even 37 knots is
dead
slow to a laser guided bomb.  If we decided to save some money and by
using more
fuel and less smart bombs, more than one A-6 lobs sticks of iron bombs
(while
painting the target with lasers anyways), until the Phalanxes stop
working, and
the last plane drops the LGB to detonate under the keel, between the
funnels.

The Iowas were probably a poor choice of example, as they were (before
being
decommed) fitted with a minimal, but still useful, point defence suite. 
Be that
as it may, some mavericks will take care of the 5" guns and phalanx,
clearing
the way for the LGB.

The reason that current navies lack a ready means of sinking a
battleship is the
complete absence of battleships.  The battleships are gone because there
is a
lack of any useful purpose for them.

Fighters in full thrust are "genre weapons".  Real space fighters will
suffer
from the problem that they are not twenty times as fast as the target,
and
spacecraft do not have to float (the constraint that limited the
protection
available to battleships).  The liabilities of fighters are not modelled
in FT.
In historical, wet-navy battles, small aircraft have the ability to
scout at
long range from the carrier force, and preemptively strike at the enemy.
 In
space, the small craft cannot be appreciably faster than the main fleet
units,
and have a negligible range.  The flavour text included in the Renegade
Legion
line of games, has a lot to say about this, and RL:Prefect is probably a
good
basis for fleet engagements in a star system.