A case for battleships

[Desmond Hawkins]

It is of my opinion that the US Navy should bring back a couple of the Iowa class battleships after some modern refits in order to act as powerful command vessels. It would cost a 10th of what it would cost to build the new command ships that are planned, and they are more heavily armored and powerful (the industrial capability to build large battleships no longer exists). With modern air-defence, Pearl Harbor is not likely to happen again.

Thoughts?

 

[lceman]

Sir, it is not the cost of refit or the cost of building new ships. The issue is the cost of operation of the battleships, particularly the cost of powering it.

 

[Ossric]

Battleships are obsolete...

 

[GrandAdmiral]

They aren't obsolete or costly if they are used for what they are made to do. Nothing is more efficient and capable of bombardment within a couple hundred miles of shoreline. They can put more ordinance on target than any other platform for less money. Precision strikes are what they aren't good at and that makes them a low priority. There are 2 Iowas on reserve. They have been recalled before for active duty. They are just not needed unless we have a major war that requires they're use. Having two on reserve to support amphibious operations is reasonable, but a whole fleet of them would be a waste of resources. The psychological effects would also be of great benefit.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

The $500 shells fired by the Iowa class during gulf war I did a lot more damage than the million dollar tomahawks.
http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

 

[superslug]

Our military money would be better spent on more special operations forces. Not every ass we need to kick is going to be conveniently sitting on a coastline, although I do like the idea of keeping two on standby should amphibious assault vessels need support.

 

[Double Barrel]

Except for the new type of missles that China is developing to take our navy out! We do not yet possess a deterent for the "sunburn" anti-ship missles, and the Pentagon is estimating at least 10 years before we have a defense against these mach-3 speed killers.

I think militarization of space should be our main priority, simply because our enemies will beat us to it if we fall asleep at the wheel. Control space and you'll control the globe, including the oceans.

 

[Siegmund]

I'd love to see them back again myself .. and IF they were on hand we'd find a use for them, much as we did in the first gulf war.... but there are some serious questions about their cost-effectiveness, and they require a lot of upgrading again to be usable with other modern ships.

Those of you interested in probing this farther might want to join me over at www.warships1.com - they have several naval discussion forums, including one devoted just to debating the usefulness of reactivating the Iowas.

 

[amadeus]

A good intelligence community is better than any thousand ton piece of metal.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, and that is no basis for criticism of a warfighting system.

Sunburns and modern cruise missiles are threats to unarmoured ships; the Iowas have a certain something that a more trendy tin can does not have, namely more than a foot of steel armour. Further, there is a defence against them, more than updated SAMs: more gun based CIWS to create a wall of steel and fire to upset the missiles day. Not just 4 20mm Phalanx or 30mm Goalkeeper, but a couple of dozen 30 or 40mm, with intersecting fields of fire. Metal Storm is also an interesting development.

Almost 1100 16" shells were fired in Desert Storm, the equivalent of 542 A6 missions; quite more cost efficient and safe.

Nice to see g2mil's argument presented verbatim, however, they are incorrect when they say that a very big warship cannot be built today. All it would take is a little bit of adaption, and improving upon old methods. 2.5 feet of modern steel armour would be even better than a similar amount of previous alloys.

The Iowas are an excellent warfighting system which have not seen a great deal of active service, belying their age. One is very much in favour of the proposal of returning 2, then the other 2 to service in a fully updated BBG format, taking advantage of extended range munitions, precision strike and guidance capability, and the capacity to carry and deploy a great number of strike cruise missiles. Defensive systems can be installed and updated. The whole kit and kaboodle for not much more than the cost of a destroyer.

Once that is done, commence construction on Dreadnought 21.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
The two aren't mutually exclusive, and that is no basis for criticism of a warfighting system.

Finally. I was waiting for that to be said.

 

[Kryten]

“The Queen Of The Seas Is Dead”: Battleships Are OBSOLETE!

I would first like to state that I KNOW how much damage a 16” shell would do to a modern warship, I KNOW how thickly armoured they were compared to today’s ships, and I KNOW how wonderful they were at shore bombardment.

But before you all get nostalgic for these bygone graceful grey behemoths, may I remind you of the following:-
* NO battleship has been built since 1945.
* EVERY nation in the world scrapped ALL their battleships after WW2, except America, which kept four....and even these are 'mothballed'.

They were made obsolete in WW2, when it was discovered that they needed Carriers to protect them from aircraft (think of the sinking of the Repulse, Prince of Wales, and Yamoto).
And that was with propeller driven aircraft....a 60 year old technology.
Today, with jet aircraft and anti-ship missiles....
(Hey, if they could penertrate thick armour 60 years ago, think what they could do today)

I'm quite sure that the generals of the 1930's felt the same way about cavalry.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Kryten
“The Queen Of The Seas Is Dead”: Battleships Are OBSOLETE!

I would first like to state that I KNOW how much damage a 16” shell would do to a modern warship, I KNOW how thickly armoured they were compared to today’s ships, and I KNOW how wonderful they were at shore bombardment.

But before you all get nostalgic for these bygone graceful grey behemoths, may I remind you of the following:-
* NO battleship has been built since 1945.
* EVERY nation in the world scrapped ALL their battleships after WW2, except America, which kept four....and even these are 'mothballed'.

They were made obsolete in WW2, when it was discovered that they needed Carriers to protect them from aircraft (think of the sinking of the Repulse, Prince of Wales, and Yamoto).
And that was with propeller driven aircraft....a 60 year old technology.
Today, with jet aircraft and anti-ship missiles....
(Hey, if they could penertrate thick armour 60 years ago, think what they could do today)

I'm quite sure that the generals of the 1930's felt the same way about cavalry.

The Yamoto took 6 torpedos, about 20 direct gun hits, and a bomber wing to eventually make it slowly sink. That is a LOT of firepower to draw, and if the Japanese didn't suffer from command debacles at Leyte Gulf, they likely would have been more successful. The Arizona was in port and was a lucky hit for the Japanese

 

[Kryten]

Well....if battleships were so good, why did everybody stop using them?

 

[Norlamand]

There are two types of ships in the navy, submarines and targets.

Battleships are much to inviting a target for torpedos and surface to surface missiles, not to mention air to surface missiles and simple bombs.....

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Kryten
Well....if battleships were so good, why did everybody stop using them?

Well the military also thought in the 50's and 60's that virtually all air battles would be composed of missiles alone. No aircraft.

Besides a battleship can take those hits a lot better than the destroyers and frigates supporting it, so better to hit the battleship than the billion dollar destroyers.

 

[Speedo]

Battleships are simply impractical.

Yes, those guns are awesome, but to limited. You can only reach 15-20nm inland, and if the enemy has a navy or shore defenses, you have to fight your way there.
The cost of refitting them with modern systems would be massive.
The shells and powder bags that the main rifles use are left over from the '40s IIRC, and aren't the most stable things anymore. To make new ones would probably require completely new tooling.
They have no SAM systems. Adding them requires even more money, or if you leave them without it stretches the cover of AEGIS even more thinly.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Speedo
Battleships are simply impractical.

Yes, those guns are awesome, but to limited. You can only reach 15-20nm inland, and if the enemy has a navy or shore defenses, you have to fight your way there.
The cost of refitting them with modern systems would be massive.
The shells and powder bags that the main rifles use are left over from the '40s IIRC, and aren't the most stable things anymore. To make new ones would probably require completely new tooling.
They have no SAM systems. Adding them requires even more money, or if you leave them without it stretches the cover of AEGIS even more thinly.

The cost would not be as big to refit the battleships as command ships, as it would be to build the new command ships they are planning.

 

[newfangle]

I'd be more interested in seeing the deployment of heavy rail guns that can hurl 500kg of Tungsten 500 nm.

 

[lceman]

The case is very simple.

They want to replace old and prevent the construction of two new command ships. If the claim is true that reactivating and upgrading two Iowa Class Battleships is cheaper than building two new command ships and will provide a higher capability, I don't see how anyone could possibly be against this. If the math is correct and the cost is less, why not?! Besides, think of the prestige these kind of ships draw.

One of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard is the "everyone else scrapped their battleships" one. So what? The United States of America didn't become the world's sole superpower by doing what everyone else does.

Why did the rest of the world scrap their battleships?

1. They could not afford them.
2. They lost the war and were forced to.
3. They were allies of America, hence they had our naval protection.

Why should be bring back two Iowa Class Battleships?

1. We have two semi-upgraded barely used ships just sitting around doing nothing!

2. It is cheaper and serves better the purpose that would be filled by building two new ships!

3. Because I said so!