Bring Back The Battleship ?

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

I can only wish!  I agree, there is still a place for big gun ships.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

 

[MilEME09]

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

 

[quadrapiper]

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?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.   

 

[jmt18325]

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.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

 

[Underway]

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.

 

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[jollyjacktar]

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 shit, some may stick.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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 ....

 

[NavyShooter]

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.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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!!!!

 

[Eaglelord17]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.