Originally posted by Sh3kel
Resurfacing scuttled vessels and reparing them for duty does not mean they're not a loss, true. But 8 Battleships were sunk or crippled in Pearl Harbour and MANY MANY more sunk in the Pacific campaign. They were repaired and recomissioned, true, but for all means, a crippled/sunk vessel constitutes a loss.
Utterly false, and showing the erroneous nature of your argument.
"MANY MANY more" were NOT sunk in the Pacific. That is what one meant by clearly stating that the USN did not lose a battleship after this date, but lost a fair few carriers. That is historical fact.
We are not talking about those at Pearl Harbour. After the attack on the morning of December 7th, no more.
Now, back to the job of rebuttal after a brief break for
Shackleton.
They are quite cost effective, given the combination of capabilities that they bring into play.
What we have to remember is we are not talking about an academic exercise here, or whether they could be sunk by USN ships, as they will not be used in combat against their own ships. Who is the US likely to fight, and where? Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria are a but a few names that come to mind.
There is an erroneous line of thought that naval gunfire support is no longer needed when carrier aircraft can be deployed. These cost more, are more risky, and are slower. Additionally, they cannot supply fire support 24/7 in all weather.
In terms of reliability and cost effectiveness, weigh up a F/A18 strike, which costs a darn sight more than a 16 inch shell, and takes longer, and puts the pilot and aircraft at risk.
There was and is developmental work being done on extended range munitions, which allow firing even further inland. Currently, destroyers and cruisers have to stay a fair bit off the coast for their own protection, and the firing ranges are thus adjusted. A battleship is very well armoured, and escorted. It can go in close and fire until the targets are destroyed.
They have very accurate, modern, fire control radar, and are equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles for further accuracy. They can sink anything afloat, effectively, but that is not their only role.
The lessons of Jutland were learned a long time ago; no one is suggesting that battleships be used for a c.1900 battle method.
They are a national asset that no one else has anything close to.
There is a well documented and established gap in military capability, in terms of naval gunfire support. There is nothing else that currently is there that can do close to the job of an Iowa.
Starlifter's notion of building new, 21st century battleships (effectively BBGNs) is an intriguing one, but until that time, or another solution is present, there is a gap. For which there is a solution, ready and waiting, needing but several months to put them into full condition. It allows the consolidation of assets, and the saving of money, as it combines a missile platform, gunfire support, and a flagship in one package, that is already built and ready.
After all seeing service in WWII, the Iowas were decommissioned, came back for Korea, and then went back to sleep. New Jersey was used sparingly in Vietnam, and then all four were brought back and modernized in the 1980s, to serve as the centerpieces for Surface Action Groups in the 600 ship navy. They were all decommissioned over 90-92, and Missouri and New Jersey donated as museum ships.
Iowa and Wisconsin are still reserve assets, by an Act of Congress, which precludes their disposal until proper replacements are ready (for naval gunfire support). Thus, they have only spent a fraction of their existence in active service - they are still young ships, operationally.
Age is not necessarily a barrier - look at the B-52, to be in service until 2040. Now, it may not be doing the job of nuclear bombing all that time, which it was originally designed for, but it has been adapted to conventional use without too much difficulty at all. The same principle can be seen to apply to the battleships.
"I talk about battleships here. Why have a boat with big cannons when he have no use. "
As has been shown, 'he' have a heck of a lot more capability than big cannons. And even guns still have a use, as has been shown. Not in the way they did in the past, but still very important and valid.
"Your idea is just a waste of money"
Using them simply as figureheads is a waste, given that they are operationally capable, and there is a job for them to do.
"No use here but if some politicians want gain more votes it maybe a great idea for them only.
Military specialists of the world all agree with the fact that the navy must have their ships more TINY than before. Big huge cannons are useless now because battle on sea will take place with long range attacks (with missiles and aircrafts). Battleships can only be used in ''short'' distance battles like in the past.
With lasers missiles, the navy need more little ships (more movable, practice, less costs and much hard to hit).
P.S.: I love battleships but we have to live in the reality not in the past. Sad but we have to follow the right way."
1.)As it has be said, and not just by me, it is not the politicians who are doing the majority of the calling. Former Marine Commandants come to mind...
2.) Military specialists rarely agree on anything. 'Stealth' ships are useful for a certain role, but not for projecting power, flying the flag, or getting in close and lobbing tons of super sonic 16 shells in on enemy forces.
No one is saying that the purpose of battleships will be surface action against other combatants, and neither are they limited in the way that you characterize them.
3.) Lasers are still not in use, and will stay that way for a while. The reason that ships need to be small and stealthy is because that is their role, and they could not survive otherwise. An Arleigh Burke Destroyer would be destroyed by an Exocet or Silkworm, or the like; an Iowa would not. And that is if the missile even got through.
4.) The right way is to bring back the battleships, as nothing else can present the strong, cost effective, versatile, and awe inspiring qualities a modernized Iowa class battleship can.
"I just think that selling them to Australia is a better plan."
Grovel accepted, but as said before, we'll be building our own under the Evil Dictatorship, and you'll be needing them meanwhile.
The numbers of personnel needed to operate them can be reduced through modern innovation, and the further removal of such unnecessary features as most of the secondary armament turrets.
In the long term, the job they do, the roles they combine and fill, and the lives they will save will make them more than worthwhile.
They are not going to sit there at dock and get hit unawares. There have been a few developments in defensive radar and anti-air warfare since December 7th, 1941, and to compare a modernized BB (G) with the likes of the USS Arizona is like comparing a Sopwith Camel to an F-15 Eagle!
