A case for battleships

[Enemy Ace]

@ Titan:

Certainly, if more nations operated aircraft carriers, I would be more concerned. However, even so, destroyers and cruisers would face the same trouble Vs. an aircraft carrier, yet they are not obsolete and mothballed. When the battleship was queen, lesser ships sinkable by battleships were not mothballed. Your comment simply holds no water.

Also, I would like you to consider what nations on this earth operate aircraft carriers. I can count them all on one hand. They all, also, happen to be our allies or certainly not our potential enemies.

So, this aircraft carrier argument simply is not valid.

@ Simon:

Thankyou sir! I did not know these things. I could have swore Missouri and New Jersey did not recieve the refits.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

New Jersey, given it's most recent service in Vietnam in 1969, was first off the block in 1982, followed by Iowa in 1984, Missouri in 1986, and Wisconsin in 1988. New Jersey fired on Syrian and Phalangist positions in Lebanon in 1984, with one shell killing the Syrian commander in the Lebanon; she also led the first BBBG (Battleship Battle Group) in the Pacific later in the decade.
Missouri got the upgrade alright; she visited Australia for the 1988 bicentennary, and was involved in the small tussle known as Desert Storm (Schwarzkopf considered having the armistice signed on its deck rather than on land, but it fell through for logistical reasons. Pity, as 'twould have been good historical symmetry), as well as active patrolling in the Gulf during the 1980s.

Quite right on the carriers; apart from the Russkies and the French, the only other carriers in the world (UK, Spain, Italy, India, Thailand) are 'Harrier carriers', and even the former two are in no way comparable to any US carriers in capability or aircraft.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Well I had known that Missouri served during Gulf War I. I had just always thought she and New Jersey had not recieved the same upgrade their sisters had. I am not as knowledgable in these areas compared to others.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

They all got the upgrade in electronics, radar, 4 Phalanx CIWS, UAVs, 16 Harpoons and 32 Tomahawks in ABLs.
New Jersey was actually put on the reserve list with Wisconsin, but was switched with Iowa in the late 1990s for political reasons.

 

[Ozz]

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

Make it 500 ton Boulders with a tungsten band hurled off the moon.

Topical storms did more damage to the US Navy that the Japanese.

Can you say "Surfs Up"

 

[Speedo]

One would like to see any form of evidence to back up the sometimes wild claims being made as to the vulnerability against modern weaponary, (armour that was designed for a heck of a lot more than 500lb bombs; try direct hits from 2000+ armour piercing shells) or the vague term 'aniti-ship missile'. A whole lot of rhetoric, but nothing substantive backing it up.

Quite easy actually. Now days size means nothing in terms of a weapon's power.

Here are the penetration stats for some modern weapons:
Link

M829A1 APFSDS-T: 670 mm @ 2 km (this is the primary anti tank round of the M1 series. THe M829A2 and E3 claim to improve penetration, but I can't find numbers)

ATGMs: (guess what? you can fire missiles at ships pretty easily)

TOW: 600 mm
Improved TOW: 800 mm
TOW-2 900 mm
TOW-2A: 1000 mm
Hellfire-B: 1200 mm

Keep in mind that all of the above are 0° penetration, and these systems are designed to defeat the layered heavy metal (usually DU) and ceramic armor carried by modern MBTs.

Now, here are the armor stats for the Iowa (and keep in mind that it's armor is all made of steel):

Main Side Belt: 12.1 inches inclined 19 degrees (307mm)
Main Deck Armor: 1.5 inches (38mm)
Second Deck Armor: 4.75 + 1.25 inches (121mm + 32mm)
Splinter Deck Armor: .625 inches (16mm)
Barbette: 17.3 to 11.6 inches (439-295 mm)
Turret Face Plate: 17.0 + 2.7 inches (432mm + 63mm)
Turret Side: 9.5 inches (241mm)
Conning Tower: 17.5 inches (444mm)
Source

Just rhetoric? Hardly.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

That is just a start, and remains rhetoric. No actual testing can confirm such a hypothesis, and firing a puny warhead ATGM at a 60000 ton warship is not a recipe for success. One is aware you are trying to prove a principle, but it is not really based on firm grounding; anti tank ordnance is quite different from antiship ordnance. Anti tank ordnance is short range high velocity designed to cause destruction with kinetic energy; sabot rounds are nothing new, and act somewhat differently over longer ranges - the previously mentioned Peenemunde arrow shell being an example of this.

Further, battleship armour is different in many ways from plain steel, due to the hardening and carbonizing processes used. There is also the issue of zones of immunity to consider.
Such a projectile actually has to get to the target also, being launched from some aircraft or other launcher. This is when it is vulnerable, and beforehand.

Further, creating a new weapon system takes a lot of time, and this increases itself with time. The notional request for the F-22 (now F/A-22) first came in the early 1980s; missiles also take a lot of time to research, develop and manufacture. It is one thing to conceive an idea; to put it into service is another matter. The Soviets had all manner of ATGMs, and more sophisticated ones in the works, but still went back to the drawing board to work on an armour piercing weapon when faced with the rejuvenated Iowas in the 1980s. Once again, one advises of Gorshkov's pithy remark on the topic.

Size and mass are still very much important; carpet bombing still works, and heavy artillery still works and kills.

 

[Speedo]

Again, thats the change in warfare. Sinking the ship is not required, just as a mobility kill against armor is almost as good as a hard kill. It doesn't matter if your body is untouched when there's a 5mm hole between your eyes. Put a few of those missiles into the right places and your ship is still worthless.

Further, battleship armour is different in many ways from plain steel, due to the hardening and carbonizing processes used.

It still is worthless against a penetrator such as those.

Further, creating a new weapon system takes a lot of time, and this increases itself with time.

Not always true. In the Gulf War, when they needed bombs to hit deep bunkers, it took only a short while to improvise using a 5" arty barrel, filled with HE, welded shut and fitted with a Paveway I guidance package. For that matter, bombs such as those (designed to hit underground bunkers) would be devastating to a battleship. The deck armor is the weakest on the ship.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

You still conveniently ignore the actual realities of the task; getting close enough to put those missiles in the right locations, and the unpleasant surprise that a vessel designed to take damage can still operate, given its original purpose to take dozens of hits from very big supersonic shells. Further, there is the assumption that the ship does nothing to defend itself; they are not going to fail to defend themselves.

Any proof as to the worthlessness of such armour still to be supplied.

Using a modified 8" barrel as an underground penetrator to make the GBU-28 is very much the exception, rather than the rule. Such bombs still have to be delivered by vulnerable aircraft, and flying into a task force is slightly different from flying into a subdued Baghdad.
And it also misses the very salient point earlier - the US Navy is very unlikely to be fighting the US Air Force, or their unique weapons. A weapons system is generally judged against what it is going up against.

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by 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.

And Americans wonder why the world is scared of them? The USA spends far to much on military. All that armed forced cant be for defence it must be for offence. The thought of militarization of space is obsence to me.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Good to see your delightful weltanschaung and basis of knowledge extends into the arena of naval warfare, my dear herring.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Originally posted by Speedo


Quite easy actually. Now days size means nothing in terms of a weapon's power.

Here are the penetration stats for some modern weapons:
Link

M829A1 APFSDS-T: 670 mm @ 2 km (this is the primary anti tank round of the M1 series. THe M829A2 and E3 claim to improve penetration, but I can't find numbers)

ATGMs: (guess what? you can fire missiles at ships pretty easily)

TOW: 600 mm
Improved TOW: 800 mm
TOW-2 900 mm
TOW-2A: 1000 mm
Hellfire-B: 1200 mm

Keep in mind that all of the above are 0° penetration, and these systems are designed to defeat the layered heavy metal (usually DU) and ceramic armor carried by modern MBTs.

Now, here are the armor stats for the Iowa (and keep in mind that it's armor is all made of steel):

Main Side Belt: 12.1 inches inclined 19 degrees (307mm)
Main Deck Armor: 1.5 inches (38mm)
Second Deck Armor: 4.75 + 1.25 inches (121mm + 32mm)
Splinter Deck Armor: .625 inches (16mm)
Barbette: 17.3 to 11.6 inches (439-295 mm)
Turret Face Plate: 17.0 + 2.7 inches (432mm + 63mm)
Turret Side: 9.5 inches (241mm)
Conning Tower: 17.5 inches (444mm)
Source

Just rhetoric? Hardly.

Using TOWs and attack choppers against a naval battlgroup is laughable. They would get murdered. 2.33 miles is the range of a TOW.

 

[Speedo]

Using TOWs and attack choppers against a naval battlgroup is laughable. They would get murdered. 2.33 miles is the range of a TOW.

Fine, use a Hellfire II, or a Maverick. Hang 'em on whatever aircraft suits your fancy and have at it.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Then get that aircraft within the less than 20km range to fire such missiles, inside the SAM envelope of the battlegroup, and past the improved and increased number of CIWS. With a hit resulting in a little pinprick of no significance; there is a reason why there is a difference between anti-tank weapons such as those mentioned, and anti-ship weapons - Harpoons and even Exocets have bigger and better penetrator warheads than Hellfires and Mavericks combined, and still have not the capability to strike through; Exocets were not used against the General Belgrano, as they would not have penetrated the 6 inch belt.

 

[Enemy Ace]

There are still three primary roadblocks to the dissenting opinions.

1. The enemies the U.S Navy would face have not these capabilities that are spoken of.

2. Even armed with such capabilities, any other ship in the U.S Navy would be more easily sunk. That does not prevent those ships from being operated.

3. Defensive measures and capabilites can be increased! Currently there is the Phalanx gun that is built to shoot down missiles. There is also a weapon in development that fires a million rounds per second.

To borrow from Simon; As the sword advances, so the shield follows.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Originally posted by Speedo


Fine, use a Hellfire II, or a Maverick. Hang 'em on whatever aircraft suits your fancy and have at it.

If the enemy concentrates it resources on defeating our newly aquired battleships then more power to our carriers. Now I doubt that would happen. The battleship would just add another layer of defense to the battlegroup. The point is getting throught every layer of defense in a US naval battlegroup is no easy task and considering that the battleship would be the hardest ship to sink I don't see how this argument is relevant. Now if something does get past the battlgroups defenses and hits the BBG, then the modern weaponry that you are advocating has already failed and the most likely surface ship to survive would still be the battlship. Not the tin cans and the carrier. I rather be on a battleship hit by a maverick then a tin can frigate or destroyer.