Time to bring back the Battleship?

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by IBCW, Mar 11, 2015.

  1. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

    "Two battleships should return to service and replace the two 35-year old Blue Ridge class flagships, and to fill several other roles. One battleship could serve as the 7th Fleet's flagship in Japan, and another as the 6th Fleet's flagship in Italy. Fleet flagships do not make lengthy deployments, so fuel costs would be low. Since battleships carry anti-ship, and 32 Tomahawk missiles, plus nine 16-inch guns, they do not require escorts when reacting to most world events, and can provide a sea control capability if necessary. Finally, no ship can "show the flag" better than a battleship."

    Good article which makes a lot of valid points on why at least 2 of the Iowa class battleships should be brought back into the fold in the US Navy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2015
  2. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    One interesting thing about the Marines is they always seem to want to hold on to older, proven technology.
    In this instance, they don't believe the Navy can provide enough firepower for an Amphibious land assault without
    using the Battleship. In the past they have wanted to hold on to the Cobra attack helicopter, the A-10 thunderbolt,
    the M-60 battle tank....I'm sure their are more examples, but these are the first to come to mind. The other branches
    seem to always want the newest, shiny toy to play with, while the Marines just want the most proven and battle tested
    equipment that just works. OORAH! :)
     

  3. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    The problem is that mainline battleships are hideously expensive to produce and maintain. Most branches and observers seem to believe that equivalent capabilities in regards to delivered firepower and defensive capacity can be achieved with, newer, far less expensive technologies.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  4. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    "The planned construction of two flagships will cost ten times more than reactivating two Iowa class battleships, which were refitted just 15 years ago. A battleship with 1200 crewmen can combine the capabilities of a flagship (800 crewmen), a cruiser (350 crewmen), an artillery regiment (2000 men), and an anti-TBM system into one warship. Many Congressmen are anxious to field effective missile defenses, perhaps anti-TBM funds could be used to reactivate two Iowa class battleships, a cost the Navy estimates at just $200 million. This is certainly wiser than spending one billion dollars for each new command ship.

    The Navy claims that battleships are expensive to operate and manpower intensive, ignoring the fact that an aircraft carrier with air wing costs five times more to operate and requires four times more sailors. Defense contractors have pushed the idea that million dollar Tomahawk missiles can provide precision firepower, ignoring the fact that only 288 Tomahawks were fired during the entire Persian Gulf war because of a lack of suitable targets, while battleships fired over 1000 $500 16-inch shells with twice the explosive power. The Navy could truly leap ahead by modifying the battleships to use liquid propellant rather than the manpower intensive "powder bag" system used for over 100 years."
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2015
  5. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Yes, that's what the advocates are claiming.

    There are many who dispute the math.

    Personally, I haven't formed an opinion either way and, I admit, battleships are cool.

    Completely irrelevant. Battleships and Carriers perform different roles. One of the big reasons being pushed to bring back battleships is as a support and protection role for carriers.

    It's like someone complaining that body armor is more expensive than a handgun. Who cares? They're not intended to perform the same tasks. :)

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  6. Nothing compares to a mobile battery of 16 inch guns.
     
  7. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,705
    2,181
    Florida
    Look, the bottom line is that it takes a battleship to destroy alien invaders who operate from sea-based VTOL UFOs. If we don't reactivate a couple of them, we will be screwed when the invaders decide to throw a forcefield over Oahu and start launching explosive pegs at all of those puny little frigates.

    On another note, with a picket line of frigates to provide anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile defense capabilities, a battleship would be a formidable flagship. Many people point to air and missile threats as the reason for the battleship's obsolescence, but paired with smaller vessels, it certainly would hold it's own--probably better than aircraft carriers, cruisers, or dedicated flagship vessels.
     
  8. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    "Navy ships today have just a quarter inch of armor, while the battleships are protected by several inches of steel. During World War II, one Iowa battleship was hit directly by a solid steel 5-inch round, which caused a small dent. A battleship suffered a direct hit by a 152mm shell off Korea, but it only broke open one hatch. Since Pearl Harbor, when semi-manned World War I battleships were sunk in port, no US battleship has been sunk, let alone severely damaged. In contrast, over the past 20 years, whenever a modern cruiser, destroyer, or frigate has been hit by a single missile or mine, they have struggled to stay afloat. The Navy is always in need of target ships, so why not use one of the older battleships. Navy task forces could fire hundreds of harpoon missiles, tomahawk missiles, hellfire missiles and even 5-inch gun projectiles at the target battleship and cause only minor damage."

    Battleships are as tough as they come. :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2015
  9. colthrash

    colthrash Member

    600
    36
    Pocket battleships with rail guns!!!!! awesome idea
     
  10. Rerun

    Rerun Member

    8,113
    2,515
    Go talk to the Japanese and ask them how tough Battleships are: Their two largest Battleships armed with 18" guns are currently sitting on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

    eldar
     
  11. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    "There is tremendous debate about a battleships survivability. Although I implied they are invulnerable, they can be sunk. A larger Japanese battleship of an older design, the USS Yamato, was sunk after direct hits from 10 500lbs bombs and 12 torpedoes. Several former Soviet Admirals said they were terrified of the battleships since they couldn't stop them with massed cruise missile attacks. Unfortunately, the Navy has never conducted anti-ship missile tests against the battleships. Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman has stated that the French Exocet anti-ship missile, which sunk British ships during the 1983 Falklands war, can penetrate 2.75 inches of steel. An Iowa battleship has steel armor from 6-17 inches thick, compared to just a quarter inch on modern Aegis cruisers and destroyers. "

    I would wager that a modern battleship with state of the art defensive capabilities would fair much better than
    those old Japanese Battleships. With or without assistance from the rest of the fleet. :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  12. Rerun

    Rerun Member

    8,113
    2,515
     
  13. duster066

    duster066 Supporting Member

    It's an interesting thought, and you've made a good argument. I was prepared to laugh this off, but not bad.

    I know nothing about Navy issues. But with modern air defenses a battle ship might be very survivable for all but nukes. I don't think nukes are a good argument against this idea because nearly nothing can survive those things.
     
  14. Rerun

    Rerun Member

    8,113
    2,515
    The biggest fear the US Navy has for it's Carrier groups is a foreign power sending diesel subs against them, especially since they have neutered their Anti-Submarine Warfare forces.

    The diesel boats are very quiet and with today's selection of torpedoes a significant threat against them.

    The same is true in a Subs versus any other Surface Vessel.

    eldar
     
  15. duster066

    duster066 Supporting Member

    Yes I've read that. And not just subs but also shore launched anti ship missiles as well. Basically ships are most at risk in the very environment they're most likely to be needed for as large scale surface battles are not likely in the near future. But I think his point is a battleship will be better able to take the pounding than current ships.
     
  16. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,493
    10,697
    NE Utah
    Do we have the infrastructure to supply an active battleship?

    Ammunition, powder, the oilers and all the rest?

    Regardless...I like the idea of saving money; and it's not like any other navy on the planet is even 50% as capable as ours is.
     
  17. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    Can't have a Battleship thread without some awesome images:

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And a shout out to the USS Alabama:

    Now:
    [​IMG]

    In her Glory Days:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  18. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    Almost as cool as the mighty MO!......
     
  19. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,705
    2,181
    Florida
    Convert them to nuclear, and that will take care of the fuel issue.
     
  20. SteveC

    SteveC Member

    1,782
    0
    WV
    It's interesting to read all the thoughtful opinions. That said:

    There is nothing that floats that is more awesome than a battleship.

    Just my .02