Author Topic: Bring Back The Battleship ?  (Read 4364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 83,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,451
Bring Back The Battleship ?
« on: May 18, 2017, 19:48:09 »
This is an interesting article about bringing back the 4 remaining WW2 era BB's. The alternative might be to build Kirov type battle cruisers. Something about the 4 old warhorses once again sailing the seas appeals to me.Bring em back Mr Trump.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-america-send-its-old-battleships-back-out-war-20708?page=2

Big ships still have some lethality advantages.  For example, bigger ships can carry larger magazines of missiles, which they can use for both offensive and defensive purposes.  Advances in gun technology (such as the 155mm Advanced Gun System to be mounted on the Zumwalt class destroyer) mean that large naval artillery can strike farther and more accurately than ever before.


Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,188
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2017, 23:19:13 »
Following the Russian lead? From the same web site:

Russia Is Set to Build 12 New Monster Warships Armed with 200 Missiles Each
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-set-build-12-new-monster-warships-armed-200-missiles-16427

and from wikipedia:
The Lider-class destroyer or Project 23560 (Shkval-class destroyer or Project 23560E for export version) is under consideration for construction for the Russian Navy as a nuclear powered combined guided missile destroyer, large antisubmarine warship and guided missile cruiser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lider-class_destroyer

and ...
Russia is bringing back its 1980s battle cruisers ....emerged that Russia's largest ships are to be fitted with its newest missiles as part of an estimated 20trillion rouble (£245billion) naval overhaul.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3486674/Russia-bringing-1980s-battlecruisers-largest-surface-combat-ships-world-Putin-seeks-bolster-nation-s-military-machine.html#ixzz4hUSdscym

I dont subscribe to Janes anymore, so not sure what the real intel might be on these...The Kirov class are actually early 1970's designs, updated a few times with (i think) 2 ships actually launched in the 70's and 2  in the mid-late 80's. It may be that only 1 is currently in commission and in reasonable working order.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 23:29:23 by Cloud Cover »
You're right. I Never  Met A Motherfucker Quite Like You, or someone as smart as you.  Never ever will, either.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 10:21:11 »
You would need to gut the hulls and put in new machinery, that alone will reduce your crew size significantly. I don't think there are any spare barrels left and the USN recently let a contract to dispose of it's stock of 16" shells. Using the hulls you could build an arsenal ship with missiles, AAD and brand new large guns in the 8-14" range and/or electromagnetic guns. The biggest value of the ships is in their armoured hulls which are designed to take far more punishment than modern ships. Most of the top decks would be significantly different and the BB pushers might not like the final result. The current guns are manpower intensive and lot's can go wrong (quite a few BB blew themselves up) hence the reason go for a modern gun, not so large, apparently the Brit 14" were quite good and the maybe a upscaled version of the gun feed from UK Tiger/Lion Class cruisers, which also apparently was quite efficient. With 8-14" you could pack a lot of explosive, rocket and guidance stuff into each shell basically making them short range fast cruise missiles. 

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,728
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,362
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2017, 10:28:49 »
I can only wish!   I agree, there is still a place for big gun ships.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 102,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,293
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2017, 11:05:40 »
I have toured USS Missouri in Pearl Harbor. She is in no condition to be an active warship. Her hull and plant are now nearing 75 years old. I am no naval architect, but the cost of a refit to modern standards would beggar the imagination.

It is time to move on.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2017, 12:04:10 »
Can't be worse than the hulls of some active warships (or recently active). The plant is toast and few people now could run such a beast. The Japs completely gutted a few of their BB's and rebuilt them, cheaper than new even back then. The armour on these ships is actually fairly complex, I believe they have crush tubes in the torpedo belt and composites at certain areas. We could likely not afford to build such a hull, but if you gut it and start fresh on the inside you gain a lot of space for other stuff. Most of the existing superstructure would have to go. You could keep 2 of the main turret shells and gut the guns and mechanisms and then replace one turret with the Electrical gun and some vertical cells.   

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,470
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2017, 13:11:37 »
Should national doctrine determine that naval gunfire support is required for amphibious operations, by US Marines and Army formations, then the battleship is a good idea. Especially if someplace like  the Korean theatre 'goes hot'.

Ironically, the Army may be the best advocate for the Navy in this regard :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,368
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2017, 13:22:48 »
Given new technologies like the US navy's experimental rail guns, reviving the battleship style ship could be possible, for example a nuclear powered vessel containing 6 rail guns in three turrets, plus cruise missiles could provide a very powerful off shore fire base far inland. The biggest problems are any battleship would be a huge target, and the cost would also be enormous
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 286
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2017, 15:03:23 »
Given new technologies like the US navy's experimental rail guns, reviving the battleship style ship could be possible, for example a nuclear powered vessel containing 6 rail guns in three turrets, plus cruise missiles could provide a very powerful off shore fire base far inland. The biggest problems are any battleship would be a huge target, and the cost would also be enormous
On the financial front, is the question basically whether it's cheaper to maintain a 21 C monitor fleet, or aviation assets capable of delivering the same NGFS-style (responsive to and integrated with land forces/those forces' needs) support?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2017, 16:02:10 »
Looking at the costs of the Zumlt class, I don't hold out hope that the US could design and build a totally modern BB without breaking a lot of piggy banks. If you decide to do this, survey the hulls, make repairs as required. Gut the innards and all new machinery, then add the new weapons. At least being forced to use the armoured hull and Citadels will keep them constrained from going full stupidity with bright eyed new ideas.   

Online jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,069
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2017, 16:09:50 »
You guys sound like the people who are long for the days of new 3 and 4 engine jet liners.  The world and technology has moved on.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,470
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2017, 17:06:40 »
Given new technologies like the US navy's experimental rail guns, reviving the battleship style ship could be possible, for example a nuclear powered vessel containing 6 rail guns in three turrets, plus cruise missiles could provide a very powerful off shore fire base far inland. The biggest problems are any battleship would be a huge target, and the cost would also be enormous

Trade you one battleship for 4 x F35s ;)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 469
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2017, 18:55:22 »
Yes please.  More big targets for submarines and cruise missiles.  Really help the Chinese out with their area denial anti-ship ballistic missiles.  Smaller, manouverable ships that cost less, have less crew and networked systems will wreck one of those, and they will be cheaper as well.  The CVN's should be enough for the US.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 83,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,451
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2017, 19:16:33 »
Yes please.  More big targets for submarines and cruise missiles.  Really help the Chinese out with their area denial anti-ship ballistic missiles.  Smaller, manouverable ships that cost less, have less crew and networked systems will wreck one of those, and they will be cheaper as well.  The CVN's should be enough for the US.

I might agree with you to a point but the USN also has the mission to conduct amphibious operations. Having the ability to provide fire support is critical. IMO in most cases frigates and destroyers can do that,but I also see the need for a big gun. If we brought out a couple of Iowa's armed with rail guns in addition to the full range of missiles we might have a short term solution.In short a true Arsenal ship.The theat to surface ships from a land based ballistic missile is overblown,unless it has a nuclear warhead.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,202
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,268
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2017, 19:44:49 »
The theat to surface ships from a land based ballistic missile is overblown,unless it has a nuclear warhead.

Nevertheless, I still would be a tad nervous about facing any missile threats as I'm not 100% confident in the CIWS always getting anything thrown at me.  Throw enough crap, some may stick.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,470
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2017, 21:34:58 »
Yes please.  More big targets for submarines and cruise missiles.  Really help the Chinese out with their area denial anti-ship ballistic missiles.  Smaller, manouverable ships that cost less, have less crew and networked systems will wreck one of those, and they will be cheaper as well.  The CVN's should be enough for the US.

An aircraft carrier is at least twice as large as a battleship And any battleship would likely not be deployed outside of air cover.

I think ....
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 170,466
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,679
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2017, 08:58:23 »
Battleships provide big guns, and big armour.

Please explain why we need these in the modern sea battle environment?

Armour is defeated with a bigger warhead, and arguably, the bigger warheads are already out there.

Bigger guns?  Railguns/cruise-missiles fill that role quite nicely.

Battleships are huge, magnificent, and incredibly complex war machines.  The idea of having to raise the deck of the heads up from the armoured citadel so that there's space for the plumbing below it without penetrating the armour was something I'd never considered until I saw it in person. 

Could the old battleships be re-activated and brought back?  Yup.  At a huge cost.

Could new battleships be built?  Yup.  At an equally huge cost.

Why would we do it?  To be honest, I do not know.  I do not see what capability they really bring to the battlespace that doesn't exist within another class of ship already, with the exception of armour.
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,470
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2017, 12:20:43 »
Why would we do it?  To be honest, I do not know.  I do not see what capability they really bring to the battlespace that doesn't exist within another class of ship already, with the exception of armour.

Because it's YUGE!!!!
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Member
  • ****
  • 11,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 239
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2017, 15:08:51 »
I have had the pleasure of being on the Wisconsin. It was still configured as it was in the Gulf War. It actually had a excellent showing of itself in that war, and the advantages that can come from a big ship like that (definitely worth a quick read through).

The costs involved in bringing up to speed and using one would be immense. I wouldn't necessarily say they are obsolete or unnecessary just that they are likely to expensive to be worth the cost. We have heard that argument for tanks (i.e. a LAV is more than sufficient) planes (i.e. missiles would make them obsolete, this was a 50s/60s argument and part of what cost us the Avro Arrow), and the .50 cal yet there is still a role and need for those items. For some of those items it took a real shooting war for us to see the value of them again.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2017, 10:42:20 »
Nevertheless, I still would be a tad nervous about facing any missile threats as I'm not 100% confident in the CIWS always getting anything thrown at me.  Throw enough crap, some may stick.

Keep in mind these ships were expected to be hit by shells weighing 2700lbs and survive and fight back, with modern self-defense systems, that becomes a serious target and would take a lot of resources to combat, not to mention they would not be alone, toss in a sub, Arleigh Burke and a few others, you have a potent force. The WWII Iowas could reach out to 32km, likely with modern guns they could throw out smaller but equally lethal shells to twice that distance and do it for days on end, before they would have to leave the theatre to resupply.
 

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,470
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2017, 11:43:57 »
Keep in mind these ships were expected to be hit by shells weighing 2700lbs and survive and fight back, with modern self-defense systems, that becomes a serious target and would take a lot of resources to combat, not to mention they would not be alone, toss in a sub, Arleigh Burke and a few others, you have a potent force. The WWII Iowas could reach out to 32km, likely with modern guns they could throw out smaller but equally lethal shells to twice that distance and do it for days on end, before they would have to leave the theatre to resupply.
 

And AFAIK that was their main purpose in supporting amphibious landings: providing sea based artillery support, in enough depth 24/7 in all weather, to protect the bridgehead forces while artillery could be transferred from ship to shore in enough quantities to take over.

I met a guy who was in 1st Abn Div at D Day that loved battleships. They were their salvation during the tough fights to stem the German counterattacks over the Orne etc. And this during a campaign where the Allies had pretty much complete air supremacy.

However, if we see ourselves never having to do those kind of operations again, you probably don't need battleships.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2017, 12:58:17 »
It was more the BB was to dominate the sea, allowing for such operations and commerce to take place, they found their secondary niche in Long range Shore bombardment when coupled with radios and spotting aircraft. Some people speculate that the UK would have failed to re-take the Falklands via Port Stanley had the Argentinians brought the Belgarno over early and secured her in the harbour to provide fire support.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 170,466
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,679
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2017, 15:27:41 »
I've been onboard the Texas, the Missouri, the Wisconsin, the New Jersey, and the North Carolina.

Amazing ships.  Amazing construction, and incredible firepower. 

But.

As proven by the Belgrano in 1982, just a target to modern submarines from well beyond the horizon.

As proven by Billy Mitchell in Project B in 1921, the necessity of air-cover is critical.  With modern over the horizon missiles, the aircraft wouldn't even need to get close. 

The age of the battleship was really the First World War, and the failure of the main fleets to fully engage in Jutland was, truly, the last time that lines of battle would face off in that fashion.  Yes, there's Guadalcanal, Savo Island, etc, but the reality is, Jutland was the apex, and after that, battleships were on the descendant, while aircraft carriers have been on the ascendant.

What has changed today that would bring rise to the battleships again?  Add more armour....which can simply be battered by more explosives.  Look at the Yamato.  Put all the torpedos into one side and roll it over.

Survivability in a modern battlefield at sea is not linked to armour, but sensors to find the enemy before they threaten you, and weapons able to engage that enemy once found. 

Putting a ship back to sea with a fuk-ton of armour is not the solution on today's battlefield.  Besides, what would we have to pay Irving to build it?  First we'd have to create our own Bethlehem Steel plant in Dartmouth from scratch....and then barge the plates of armour over to their shipyard (which they'd have to expand again) to weld together into a ship. 

Nope, can't see it.  Battleships were done in 1921.  After that, they were mostly targets, or shore bombardment units.

We'd be better off putting a bunch of "Rods from God" in space than floating a battlewagon:

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/

Space-based KEW's...basically a 'smart' crow-bar dropped from orbit with a guidance package.  Put enough of 'em up there and we'd be able to drop on demand in 15 minutes anywhere in the world.  Including through a battleship's armour.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2017, 15:36:21 »
As I recall the torpedo 21 inch Mark VIII is a updated 1925 design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_21_inch_torpedo#21_inch_Mark_VIII

So Old tech, met old tech and old tech won (and lost).

From wiki:
One of the torpedoes struck 10 to 15 metres (33 to 49 ft) aft of the bow, outside the area protected by either the ship's side armour or the internal anti-torpedo bulge. This blew off the ship's bow, but the internal torpedo bulkheads held and the forward powder magazine for the 40 mm gun did not detonate. It is believed that none of the ship's company were in that part of the ship at the time of the explosion.[17]

The second torpedo struck about three-quarters of the way along the ship, just outside the rear limit of the side armour plating. The torpedo punched through the side of the ship before exploding in the aft machine room. The explosion tore upward through two messes and a relaxation area called "the Soda Fountain" before finally ripping a 20-metre-long hole in the main deck. Later reports put the number of deaths in the area around the explosion at 275 men. After the explosion, the ship rapidly filled with smoke.[18] The explosion also damaged General Belgrano's electrical power system, preventing her from putting out a radio distress call.[19] Though the forward bulkheads held, water was rushing in through the hole created by the second torpedo and could not be pumped out because of the electrical power failure.[20] In addition, although the ship should have been "at action stations", she was sailing with the water-tight doors open.

The ship began to list to port and to sink towards the bow. Twenty minutes after the attack, at 16:24, Captain Bonzo ordered the crew to abandon ship. Inflatable life rafts were deployed, and the evacuation began without panic.[21]

The two escort ships were unaware of what was happening to General Belgrano, as they were out of touch with her in the gloom and had not seen the distress rockets or lamp signals.[19] Adding to the confusion, the crew of Bouchard felt an impact that was possibly the third torpedo striking at the end of its run (an examination of the ship later showed an impact mark consistent with a torpedo). The two ships continued on their course westward and began dropping depth charges. By the time the ships realised that something had happened to General Belgrano, it was already dark and the weather had worsened, scattering the life rafts.[19]

Argentine and Chilean ships rescued 772 men in all from 3 to 5 May. In total, 323 were killed in the attack: 321 members of the crew and two civilians who were on board at the time.[


So the the real failure here is training, command and judgement. Had the General Belgrano been stationed in the harbour with some ASW defenses, she would have been untouchable and could stopped the Brit advance with her guns and prevented a successfully counter invasion. New tech or old tech, piss poor planning, lack of competent leadership will get you killed.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,728
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,362
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2017, 08:40:20 »
As proven by the Belgrano in 1982, just a target to modern submarines from well beyond the horizon.

As proven by Billy Mitchell in Project B in 1921, the necessity of air-cover is critical.  With modern over the horizon missiles, the aircraft wouldn't even need to get close. 

Just a bit of nit picking here but the ARA General Belgrano was a WW2 era Brooklyn-Class Light Cruiser, manned by a conscript Navy and sunk at 37 years old.  She had no where near the capabilities of a BB. As well she was unescorted/unprotected and outside the "Total Exclusion Zone" when she was attacked an sunk. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgranote

The Billy Mitchell lead Project B wasn't as conclusive as Billy would have liked it to be.  These Pre-dreadnaught and WW1 era BBs were unmanned, stationary targets who didn't/couldn't fight back, and they were alone.  If there was ever a set of criteria that will ensure the wished outcomes, this was it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell#Project_B:_Anti-ship_bombing_demonstration
« Last Edit: May 24, 2017, 08:46:19 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 83,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,451
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2017, 08:58:05 »
Like carriers the BB requires an escort against submarines primarily. Updated with air defense missiles and anti-submarine capability it could be a potent addition to an amphibious ready group.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,657
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2017, 09:38:29 »
Halifax Tar beat me to it, but I too wondered how we got from discussing the merits of re-activating BB's with 16 inch guns to the merits of using a light cruiser with 6 inch guns only in the Falklands.

By the way, Colin, parking the General Belgrano in port Stanley to provide fire support would have had an air of "deja vu all over again" for the Falklands. In WWI, HMS CANOPUS (an actual battleship, but past her best-before date) was actually grounded in the harbour to serve as a land battery against  Graff Spee's squadron of cruisers, at least until Sturdee could show up with the two I class battlecruisers.

Had the General Belgrano been so parked, it simply would have become her resting place instead of the mid-ocean current location. She would have shown up on the overheads and found herself on the receiving end of four to six Exocets at mid range (so still half full of fuel) in only a few hours - to end up burned to a crisp.

But everyone is trying to avoid the real issue here: In our era of precision strike, do we need unguided, grossly imprecise gun support for the ground troops? Because for all the noise and apparent effect of shore bombardment, it is a very imprecise matter with not as much as thought of actual usefulness. Talk to the WWII army in Normandy or to the US Marines in the Pacific about how effective they found the "big guns" bombardments to have been after the fact and you will see that it was a lot less effective than expected. On top of that, the BB's or any other shore bombardment ship using guns would have to get in to within sight of land, and therefore in today's world would be at risk from shore batteries of portable ASu missiles. If on the other hand, you just wish to have a large hull to load with precision Land Attack missiles that can be fired from way out at sea, safely, then you don't need to spend all the money to rebuild the BB's from near scratch. All you need do is build a large "missile carrier" from scratch. (BTW, I don't even know if the US Navy has any Engine room Firemen to operate the boilers - and if you are talking of opening them up to remove the steam turbines and replace them with gas turbines, while removing the boilers, you are then getting into major redesign that is not worth it). 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2017, 10:24:08 »
I thing the Brits only had the Sea slug which they did use for bombardment and the Sea Skua which might have not been that effective against an armoured ship.

I not married to the 16", as I recall the UK 14" were newer guns with better accuracy than the 16" and better effect on target. Hence the reason I would go with new guns from 8-14" firing modern ammunition and taking advantage of the armoured hulls with completely new power plants. New guns (and associated ammunition handling) and power plants would also significantly reduce manning requirements as well.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,728
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,362
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2017, 10:34:55 »
Halifax Tar beat me to it, but I too wondered how we got from discussing the merits of re-activating BB's with 16 inch guns to the merits of using a light cruiser with 6 inch guns only in the Falklands.

By the way, Colin, parking the General Belgrano in port Stanley to provide fire support would have had an air of "deja vu all over again" for the Falklands. In WWI, HMS CANOPUS (an actual battleship, but past her best-before date) was actually grounded in the harbour to serve as a land battery against  Graff Spee's squadron of cruisers, at least until Sturdee could show up with the two I class battlecruisers.

Had the General Belgrano been so parked, it simply would have become her resting place instead of the mid-ocean current location. She would have shown up on the overheads and found herself on the receiving end of four to six Exocets at mid range (so still half full of fuel) in only a few hours - to end up burned to a crisp.

But everyone is trying to avoid the real issue here: In our era of precision strike, do we need unguided, grossly imprecise gun support for the ground troops? Because for all the noise and apparent effect of shore bombardment, it is a very imprecise matter with not as much as thought of actual usefulness. Talk to the WWII army in Normandy or to the US Marines in the Pacific about how effective they found the "big guns" bombardments to have been after the fact and you will see that it was a lot less effective than expected. On top of that, the BB's or any other shore bombardment ship using guns would have to get in to within sight of land, and therefore in today's world would be at risk from shore batteries of portable ASu missiles. If on the other hand, you just wish to have a large hull to load with precision Land Attack missiles that can be fired from way out at sea, safely, then you don't need to spend all the money to rebuild the BB's from near scratch. All you need do is build a large "missile carrier" from scratch. (BTW, I don't even know if the US Navy has any Engine room Firemen to operate the boilers - and if you are talking of opening them up to remove the steam turbines and replace them with gas turbines, while removing the boilers, you are then getting into major redesign that is not worth it).

While I know we are stuck on expensive missiles and other guided munitions, it is my belief that should we find ourselves in a peer V peer level, non-nuke conflict again we will quickly find that our stocks of these mentions will deplete and have a long lead time until they can be restocked for use.  Bullets and shells, IMHO, will very quickly become our go to munitions in this environment, as they are cheaper and easier to mass produce. 

Always the Sup Tech I see things with logistical glasses on lol
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,657
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2017, 10:48:36 »
I thing the Brits only had the Sea slug which they did use for bombardment and the Sea Skua which might have not been that effective against an armoured ship.

Actually, Colin, all six Type 21 (Amazon), three Type 22 (Broadsword, Batch I) and, two of the Leander class (post conversion) that were in the Falkland conflict carried four Exocet missiles each. On top of that, the three Swiftsure class submarines all carried some Sub-Harpoon missiles. So there were no shortages of bullets to deal with the General Belgrano, or with the Veinticinco de Mayo, had she reared her ugly head.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2017, 11:14:14 »
Have anti-ship missiles ever been tested against an armoured ship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn-class_cruiser
    Main Belt at Machinery:5 inches (127 mm) on 0.625-inch (16 mm) STS plate
    Main Belt at Magazines:2 inches (51 mm) on 0.625-inch (16 mm) STS plate
    Deck: 2 in (50 mm)
    Barbettes: 6 in (152 mm)
    Turret Roofs: 2 in (50 mm)
    Turret Sides: 1.25 in (31.75mm)
    Turret Face: 6.5 in (165 mm)
    Conning Tower: 5 in (127 mm)

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,728
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,362
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2017, 12:38:06 »
Have anti-ship missiles ever been tested against an armoured ship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn-class_cruiser
    Main Belt at Machinery:5 inches (127 mm) on 0.625-inch (16 mm) STS plate
    Main Belt at Magazines:2 inches (51 mm) on 0.625-inch (16 mm) STS plate
    Deck: 2 in (50 mm)
    Barbettes: 6 in (152 mm)
    Turret Roofs: 2 in (50 mm)
    Turret Sides: 1.25 in (31.75mm)
    Turret Face: 6.5 in (165 mm)
    Conning Tower: 5 in (127 mm)

That is not allot of armor. Remember the Belgrano was a WW2 Light Cruiser.  For comparison:

Iowa Class:

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm)

Bulkheads:
Iowa/New Jersey: 11.3 in (290 mm)
Missouri/Wisconsin: 14.5 in (370 mm)

Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (290 to 440 mm)

Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm)

Decks:
main 1.5 in (38 mm)
second 6.0 in (150 mm)
splinter 0.625 in (15.9 mm) over machinery, 1 in (25 mm) over magazines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_armor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)

I could be wrong, Navy Shooter can correct me, but I don't think current anti ship missiles have an armor piercing capability. 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2017, 12:49:55 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 38,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,470
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2017, 15:25:46 »
That is not allot of armor. Remember the Belgrano was a WW2 Light Cruiser.  For comparison:

Iowa Class:

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm)

Bulkheads:
Iowa/New Jersey: 11.3 in (290 mm)
Missouri/Wisconsin: 14.5 in (370 mm)

Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (290 to 440 mm)

Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm)

Decks:
main 1.5 in (38 mm)
second 6.0 in (150 mm)
splinter 0.625 in (15.9 mm) over machinery, 1 in (25 mm) over magazines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_armor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)

I could be wrong, Navy Shooter can correct me, but I don't think current anti ship missiles have an armor piercing capability.

Normally I'd have to strongly consider security when talking about missile efficacy, but I truly do not know anything about ASM capability against armoured targets. We're just taught how to shoot them and how many to shoot. We're not actually taught how effective each missile is and why (unfortunately, that's the stuff I really wanted to learn).

Anyways, from what I do know about ASMs, my prediction would be that our Harpoons and similar size/speed missiles would basically bounce off of a Iowa class's armour.  Your best bet would be to hope it hits the mast and destroys their un-armoured radars so that they are no longer combat effective. Now, some of those supersonic missiles out there might have some better luck. 500kg travelling at Mach 3.0 has a bit more kinetic punch than a Harpoon travelling at 0.8 mach, regardless of warhead size.
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2017, 15:59:31 »
Even the Belgano took more than 1 torpedo hit and sank slowly and that apparently without being at action stations with watertight door open. These ships were not just armoured, but designed to prevent flooding from progressing.




Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,202
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,268
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2017, 17:06:35 »
Modern torpedoes no longer hit the hull but detonate beneath the keel, creating a void which breaks her back.  It would be interesting to see what a Mk48 would do to an Iowa.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,728
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,362
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2017, 19:48:55 »
Modern torpedoes no longer hit the hull but detonate beneath the keel, creating a void which breaks her back.  It would be interesting to see what a Mk48 would do to an Iowa.

I dont think there is any doubt that the Iowa would sustain damage but I dont think it would be as catastrophic as we have seen on you tube clips. 

The Iowa displaced 57'000 tons, full load, while a CPF displaces 4700(ish) tons.

Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 170,466
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,679
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 38,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,470
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2017, 09:09:40 »
Some interesting discussion on this here:

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/45770-effects-of-modern-asm-on-a-wwii-era-super-battleship/#topmost

Well.. that was a whirlwind. I started the read thinking, "for sure, the BB would be able to withstand modern missiles!", to "Nope, the BB is toast", and back again, and then the other way.

I still think the BB would in reality by able to shrug off most anti-ship missiles without significant structural damage; it might even be impossible to outright sink a BB with modern ASMs. However, a mission kill against a BB is very simply. All you have to do is hit it's superstructure with a few SM-6s, take out it's FC, Air, and Surface Search radars, and she's blind by modern standards. It might take a few extra missiles to do that to a BB compared to a DDG, but the relative cost in extra missiles is far outweighed by the difference in cost between a BB and a DDG.

I think bang for your buck, a BB just isn't worth the cost. It, like any modern warship, is just to vulnerable to mission kill.
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,202
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,268
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2017, 09:19:38 »
Nobody really spoke to what a modern torpedo would do under the hull, though.  They did briefly touch on the screws and rudder but not hull.  The torpedo belt armour isn't made for today's ordanance.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 38,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,470
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2017, 10:20:00 »
Nobody really spoke to what a modern torpedo would do under the hull, though.  They did briefly touch on the screws and rudder but not hull.  The torpedo belt armour isn't made for today's ordanance.

If you want to see what a Mk48 does to a larger ship (since most video are of them detonating under small destroyers, check out the video of HMCS VICTORIA sinking USNS Concord during RIMPAC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyQQBwpygVQ

One shot; one kill.

Mind you, I bet her water tight doors were removed, so there was no watertight integrity. I'm curious what would have happen had they been closed.
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #40 on: May 25, 2017, 11:14:52 »
It's impressive what damage some ships took and stayed afloat


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 83,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,451
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2017, 11:17:45 »
Not many modern ships could survive a modern torpedo or a couple of anti-ship torps. The key is to avoid being hit in the first place because of countermeasures and escort protection.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 38,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,470
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2017, 13:42:04 »
Not many modern ships could survive a modern torpedo or a couple of anti-ship torps. The key is to avoid being hit in the first place because of countermeasures and escort protection.

By that, do you mean cannon fodder?



Just an idea I've had...

 ;D
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2017, 14:12:47 »
So strap some Kingston's to the each side and off ya go, the new "reactive armour"   [lol:

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,657
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2017, 14:32:21 »
Anyone can get in the way of a torpedo ... once!

On a serious note, however, please consider that the matter has more than just the "modern" torpedo to it.  Submariners, for ones, take into consideration their target on determining the best course of action.

Large ships (aircraft carriers, cruisers, etc) get contact detonation; "soft" escorts (destroyers, frigates, corvettes) get under hull detonation. Boomers get contact detonation, opposing diesel subs and attack subs get near side detonations to crush the ballast system, etc. etc. That, BTW is why the USNS concord is shot for contact detonation in the bow. She is a tanker in design and therefore, the idea is to cause as much flooding forward, in one of the tank, with the contact explosion causing crush damage to the bulkheads located between the various forward tanks. Watertight compartments then don't matter: the main fuel tanks are filling up, one after the other and she is doomed. The fact that the process would be quick when the tanks are empty or slow when they are full (unless she just bursts into flames) is irrelevant: you can't go down into the tanks to plug the breach and she will sink in the end.

Also, for those who think BB's can take torpedoes, consider the following names: USS ARIZONA, USS OKLAHOMA, USS UTAH  and HMS PRINCE OF WALES - all sunk by torpedoes during WWII (doesn't matter that the torpedoes were air launched).  Also, think about the BISMARCK: disabled by a single torpedo from a WWI Swordfish plane that lead to her final demise, this final demise included some other torpedoes from HMS DORSETSHIRE (a cruiser).

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2017, 17:29:44 »
For the Bismarck

2 torps from swordfish

16 torps fired from destroyers –all missed
A total of 2,876 shells were fired at Bismarck from 0847-1019, most at relatively close ranges (see Table 4).  During that time, it is possible that as many as 300-400 shells hit the German ship.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm



Offline YZT580

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 475
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2017, 22:15:59 »
The swordfish was not a WW1 aircraft but was developed in the 30's.  It has the distinction of having sunk more German naval vessels than any other aircraft.  Unfortunately, the survival rate of aircrew was very low since the ideal release point for the torpedoes was only 1000 yards and the aircraft was barely doing 100 knots at the time. 

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 10,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 438
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2017, 23:27:08 »
Don't forget about some of the big bad boys of ASM like this guy;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

Even if you shoot it down, you have 3 tonnes or shrapnel coming in your general direction at mach 3 (or 7-8 if they get the hypersonic version working).

I'm sure the 'semi armour piercing' warhead would punch through at that point, regardless of armour.  I think that's where you need the screen to extend your detection range and give you some reaction time.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,728
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,362
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2017, 06:15:07 »
Also, for those who think BB's can take torpedoes, consider the following names: USS ARIZONA, USS OKLAHOMA, USS UTAH  and HMS PRINCE OF WALES - all sunk by torpedoes during WWII (doesn't matter that the torpedoes were air launched).  Also, think about the BISMARCK: disabled by a single torpedo from a WWI Swordfish plane that lead to her final demise, this final demise included some other torpedoes from HMS DORSETSHIRE (a cruiser).

OGBD,

Using the happenings of Dec 7 1941 and the fate of Force Z on Dec 10 1941 doesn't really support your position. 

The BBs moored at "Battleship Row" that morning were at a relaxed state of readiness, on what we would consider Sunday routine, stationary and attacked by surprise while a state of war didn't exist.

Force Z, was simply out manned, out classed and sent on a mission of no return, unknowingly, by the British government of the day.  You have to remember this was at the time of IJN supremacy in the pacific where there able to just about sink anything that didn't fly the flag of the rising sun.

If we look at Yamato she its said to have taken 11 torpedos and 6 bombs.  Taking that kind of damage and sinking while at action stations and fighting a battle is a truer showing of the amount of damage a BB can endure.  Imagine if was properly escorted and protected.   
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 09:03:26 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,470
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2017, 10:32:30 »
For the Bismarck

2 torps from swordfish

16 torps fired from destroyers –all missed
A total of 2,876 shells were fired at Bismarck from 0847-1019, most at relatively close ranges (see Table 4).  During that time, it is possible that as many as 300-400 shells hit the German ship.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm

Scharnhorst took a pounding from a torpedo as well:

"The torpedo hit caused serious damage; it tore a hole 14 by 6 m (15.3 by 6.6 yd) and allowed 2,500 t (2,500 long tons; 2,800 short tons) of water into the ship. The rear turret was disabled and 48 men were killed. The flooding caused a 5 degree list, increased the stern draft by almost a meter, and forced Scharnhorst to reduce speed to 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph).[24] The ship's machinery was also significantly damaged by the flooding, and the starboard propeller shaft was destroyed.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Scharnhorst
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,657
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2017, 15:24:34 »
I wasn't planning on being exhaustive. For instance, no one mentioned the RN Fleet Air Arm attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto.

I simply wanted to indicate that even when Battleships were at their summum, torpedoes had successfully been used against them. So, draw your own conclusions on how a WWII Battlewagon would stand up to current torpedoes ...

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 129,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,841
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2017, 15:51:04 »
draw your own conclusions on how a WWII Battlewagon would stand up to current torpedoes ...

Probably like this:

Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #52 on: May 26, 2017, 17:10:51 »
Would it be fair to say that modern torpedo are basically the same as their WWII brethren, but the targeting and guidance is significantly improved, leading to a far greater chance of a hit on the ship vitals?

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,657
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #53 on: May 26, 2017, 19:20:57 »
No, it wouldn't be fair.

And I must leave it at that.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,188
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2017, 10:06:43 »
Getting back to the BB's, and possible uses for them (past); does anyone have access to mid70's-early 80's copies of USNI's Proceedings

As I understand it, there was a very serious plan put forward by the US Marines (who were running out of Amphib options) to convert at least 2 of the 4 Iowa's to a class of vessel known as the Heavy Assault Ship. Essentially, a combination of the A and B mountings, removing everything aft of the rear funnel, and installing a huge helicopter flight deck with 4-6 landing spots, installing an elevator and below deck storage for up to 30 helicopters (mix of Sea Knights and Cobras). Room for about 800 marines, plus air crew.

However, the US Navy opposed this and had the ships reactivated as modest Tomahawk platforms, upgraded the sensor suites and radars, installed more space and features for command and control, and this was eventually undertaken as a less expensive measure to reactivate all 4 of the vessels instead of a radical conversion.  As a result, the USN then had requested to build 4 additional  Tarawa class, which was approved and then cancelled as well.   Trick, bait and switch, cancel... seem familiar?


   
You're right. I Never  Met A Motherfucker Quite Like You, or someone as smart as you.  Never ever will, either.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,070
  • Freespeecher
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2017, 10:57:58 »
The more recent "Proceedings" article [colour=black]"Think outside the Hull"[/color] advocates for a far different model.

The Marines could benefit by having many small fire support ships carrying boxes of missiles roaming around potential landing zones and confusing the enemy as to where, exactly, the landing was supposed to take place. With sufficient range, each ship could use its missiles to cover multiple potential LZ's, or during a landing, strike distant targets to disrupt the enemy response (essentially an very updated version of Soviet "Deep Battle" theory).

As far as naval gunfire is concerned, the future seems to belong to high energy rail guns with ranges of up to 200 km, which would require an entirely different class of ship (and maybe small aircraft carriers full of UAV and UCAV's to spot targets for the railguns and do BDA on the results).
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #56 on: June 18, 2017, 12:16:04 »
Point and counter-point Jane.  ;D

 
Quote
Why America's Battleships Will Never Make a Comeback
By James Holmes

June 18, 2017U.S.

There’s a mystique to battleships. Whenever inside-the-Beltway dwellers debate how to bulk up the U.S. Navy fleet, odds are sentimentalists will clamor to return the Iowa-class dreadnoughts to service. Nor is the idea of bringing back grizzled World War II veterans as zany as it sounds. We aren’t talking equipping the 1914-vintage USS Texas with superweapons to blast the Soviet Navy, or resurrecting the sunken Imperial Japanese Navy superbattleship Yamato for duty in outer space, or keeping USS Missouri battleworthy in case aliens menace the Hawaiian Islands. Such proposals are not mere whimsy.

Built to duel Japan in World War II, in fact, battleships were recommissioned for the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. The last returned to action in 1988. The Iowa class sat in mothballs for about three decades after Korea (except for USS New Jersey, which returned to duty briefly during the Vietnam War). That’s about how long the battlewagons have been in retirement since the Cold War. History thus seems to indicate they could stage yet another comeback. At this remove from their past lives, though, it’s doubtful in the extreme that the operational return on investment would repay the cost, effort, and human capital necessary to bring them back to life.


Numbers deceive. It cost the U.S. Navy $1.7 billion in 1988 dollars to put four battlewagons back in service during the Reagan naval buildup. That comes to about $878 million per hull in 2017 dollars. This figure implies the navy could refurbish two ships bristling with firepower for the price of one Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. One copy of the latest-model Burke will set the taxpayers back $1.9 billion according to Congressional Budget Office figures. Two for the price of one: a low, low price! Or, better yet, the navy could get two battlewagons for the price of three littoral combat ships—the modern equivalent of gunboats. Sounds like a good deal all around.

But colossal practical difficulties would work against reactivating the dreadnoughts at low cost, despite these superficially plausible figures. First of all, the vessels no longer belong to the U.S. Navy. They’re museums. New Jersey and Missouri were struck from the navy list during the 1990s. Engineers preserved Iowa and Wisconsin in “reactivation” status for quite some time, meaning they hypothetically could return to duty. But they too were struck from the rolls, in 2006. Sure, the U.S. government could probably get them back during a national emergency, but resolving legal complications would consume time and money in peacetime.

Second, chronological age matters. A standard talking point among battleship enthusiasts holds that the Iowas resemble a little old lady’s car, an aged auto with little mileage on the odometer. A used-car salesman would laud its longevity, assuring would-be buyers they could put lots more miles on it. This too makes intuitive sense. My old ship, USS Wisconsin, amassed just fourteen years of steaming time despite deploying for World War II, Korea, and Desert Storm. At a time when the U.S. Navy hopes to wring fifty years of life out of aircraft carriers and forty out of cruisers and destroyers, refitted battleships could seemingly serve for decades to come.

And it is true: stout battleship hulls could doubtless withstand the rigors of sea service. But what about their internals? Mechanical age tells only part of the story. Had the Iowa class remained in continuous service, with regular upkeep and overhauls, they probably could have steamed around for decades. After all, the World War II flattop USS Lexington served until 1991, the same year the Iowas retired. But they didn’t get that treatment during the decades they spent slumbering. As a consequence, battleships were already hard ships to maintain a quarter-century ago. Sailors had to scavenge spares from still older battleships. Machinists, welders, and shipfitters were constantly on the go fabricating replacements for worn-out parts dating from the 1930s or 1940s.

This problem would be still worse another quarter-century on, and a decade-plus after the navy stopped preserving the vessels and their innards. Managing that problem would be far more expensive. An old joke among yachtsmen holds that a boat is a hole in the water into which the owner dumps money. A battleship would represent a far bigger hole in the water, devouring taxpayer dollars in bulk. Even if the U.S. Navy could reactivate the Iowas for a pittance, the cost of operating and maintaining them could prove prohibitive. That’s why they were shut down in the 1990s, and time has done nothing to ease that remorseless logic.

Third, what about the big guns the Iowa class sports—naval rifles able to fling projectiles weighing the same as a VW Bug over twenty miles? These are the battleships’ signature weapon, and there is no counterpart to them in today’s fleet. Massive firepower might seem to justify the expense of recommissioning and maintaining the ships. But gun barrels wear out after being fired enough times. No one has manufactured replacement barrels for 16-inch, 50-caliber guns in decades, and the inventory of spares has evidently been scrapped or donated to museums. That shortage would cap the battleships’ combat usefulness.

Nor, evidently, is there any safe ammunition for battleship big guns to fire. We used 1950s-vintage 16-inch rounds and powder during the 1980s and 1990s. Any such rounds still in existence are now over sixty years old, while the U.S. Navy is apparently looking to demilitarize and dispose of them. Gearing up to produce barrels and ammunition in small batches would represent a nonstarter for defense firms. The navy recently canceled the destroyer USS Zumwalt’s advanced gun rounds because costs spiraled above $800,000 apiece. That was a function of ordering few munitions for what is just a three-ship class. Ammunition was simply unaffordable. Modernized Iowas would find themselves in the same predicament, if not more so.

And lastly, it’s unclear where the U.S. Navy would find the human expertise to operate 16-inch gun turrets or the M-type Babcock & Wilcox boilers that propel and power battleships. No one has trained on these systems since 1991, meaning experts in using and maintaining them have, ahem, aged and grown rusty at their profession. Heck, steam engineers are in short supply, full stop, as the navy turns to electric drive, gas turbines, and diesel engines to propel its ships. Older amphibious helicopter docks (LHDs) are steam-powered, but even this contingent is getting a gradual divorce from steam as newer LHDs driven by gas turbines join the fleet while their steam-propelled forebears approach decommissioning.

Steam isn’t dead, then, but it is a technology of the past—just like 16-inch guns. Technicians are few and dwindling in numbers while battleship crews would demand them in large numbers. I rank among the youngest mariners to have operated battleship guns and propulsion-plant machinery in yesteryear, and trust me, folks: you don’t want the U.S. Navy conscripting me to regain my proficiency in engineering and weapons after twenty-six years away from it, let alone training youngsters to operate elderly hardware themselves. In short, it’s as tough to regenerate human capital as it is to rejuvenate the material dimension after a long lapse. The human factor—all by itself—could constitute a showstopper for battleship reactivation.

Battleships still have much to contribute to fleet design, just not as active surface combatants. Alfred Thayer Mahan describes a capital ship—the core of any battle fleet—as a vessel able to dish out and absorb punishment against a peer navy. While surface combatants pack plenty of offensive punch nowadays, the innate capacity to take a punch is something that has been lost in today’s lightly armored warships. Naval architects could do worse than study the battleships’ history and design philosophy, rediscovering what it means to construct a true capital ship. The U.S. Navy would be better off for their inquiry.

Let’s learn what we can from the past—but leave battleship reactivation to science fiction.

James Holmes is Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College and coauthor of Red Star over the Pacific. The views voiced here are his alone.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/18/why_americas_battleships_will_never_make_a_comeback_111616.html
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,070
  • Freespeecher
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #57 on: June 18, 2017, 23:44:11 »
No, if any gun armed battlewagons return to the fleet, it will be a totally new class armed with modern weapons, ranging from 64MJ railguns to massive batteries of hypersonic missiles. They will be powered by nuclear reactors (to feed the insatiable power demands of their weapons and sensors), and send their ordinance at targets up to 1000 km away with the missile battery, and over 200 km away with the railguns. Much more likely than a huge surface platform will be a swift attack sub armed with long range weapons like the USS Virginia class or the Indian Navy's Arihant class submarines, SSN's carrying strategic weaponry.

Anyone foolish enough to go to sea with a WWII era battleship will see their expensive museum piece slip beneath the waves in very short order.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.