Speaking of battleships...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess the question I would have is this: If the battleships were no longer there and you had to build something completely from scratch, what would you build?

Personally, I think a gun platform is a useful tool, but I am not sure 16" is required. Also, a sizeable ship could load up a whole mess of MRLS launchers for lighter artillery support. Those have a bit more range than standard artillery and can be very accurate according to the show I saw the other day. I don't think cruise missiles are completely the answer as they are expensive and so maybe not the best for just bombardment.

Either way, we will eventually come upon a target with good enough AA defenses that we can't bomb it without taking heavy losses.
 
I was thinking about naval battles the other day. What would really happen these days if two strong naval powers really went to war with each other? I guess I kept thinking about WWI. Either there would be some big battles and it would be decided in a short time or neither would want to risk their big ships a stalemate would be reached with subs and smaller ships fighting.

I really am concerned about enemy subs being able to put a big dent in our Navy. I hear the new deisel subs are very effective these days. We only have so many carriers.
 
These are GUNS, really big GUNS, C&R they may be but they work really well. Add the psychological effects and its a winner.

Look around the globe at the places where the Marines are or may be going.

Look south of the United States, the Red Sea, Korea, the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea, Taiwan, Indonesia and Venezuela. A BB off the coast would be a powerful sight to add to any negotiations. Its the visual.

Modern munitions would give it additional range and accuracy. I say keep them and freshen them up and take 'em out for a spin around the world a few times. A motivating factor in many ways.

They are guns that need to be taken out and shown off.

Lord knows the politicians are frugal in their spending.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

And there is this.
Nuclear - W23 warhead, about 15-20 kilotons

Vick
 
MechAg what most people fail to understand is a cruise missle is not really a tatical option for a field commander. The time it takes to program target, flight plan, etc... means that it is almost worthless for a grunt with an immediate threat in his area.
 
That is why

they have air strikes from carriers. In my opinion the battleships are dinosaurs and it would be a waste of money to bring them back. I say this even though I LOVE them. US Navy 1960-67
 
I recall a NATO exercise where Norwegian diesel subs took periscope pictures of our carriers. It was underplayed by the Navy at the time.

Against a modern foe, you would have to deploy much assets to protect the BB. In Gulf I, the Brits splashed a Styx on the way to a BB or some reports said.
 
Here is an article about that.

Quote:
HMS Gotland In For Service


(Source: Kockums AB; dated May 12, web-posted May 18, 2006)


At this very moment, a 35-man Kockums support team is in the USA, carrying out essential maintenance on the submarine HMS Gotland, following her participation in naval exercises in the Pacific. Jörgen Olsson and Peter Thuvesson lead the team. HMS Gotland has docked in San Diego for a thorough overhaul.

HMS Gotland was despatched by freighter to the US Third Fleet’s base at Point Loma, San Diego, in May 2005, in response to a US request. She is on lease to the US Navy, complete with her Swedish crew. Since her arrival, HMS Gotland has participated very successfully in a large number of joint exercises.

The programme of exercises started on July 18th last year, since when HMS Gotland has spent more than 110 days at sea. It was now time for an overhaul, and Kockums flew a team of experts over to the USA to carry out a service of the vessel and check her general state.

The Swedish crew has performed extremely well, receiving considerable praise from their American colleagues. HMS Gotland has been able to remain undetected. The Stirling AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) system, developed and installed by Kockums, has enabled the vessel to escape detection, even when sought by talented US crews, and even under difficult operating conditions.

Swedish submarine know-how, in terms of design, construction and operation, has received a lot of attention in the naval and defence press.

-ends-


[link]www.defense-aerospace.com[/link]
 
I wonder...

I wonder if a new kind of ship is needed for gunfire support. Cruise missiles are so expensive. I am speculating if something on the order of an eight inch shell fired using modern positioning systems might be more cost effective in some circumstances than a ship launched cruise missile. If the battleship might be too costly to bring back, how about a cheapo "virtually new-build" eight-inch gun "cruiser" using some kind of already existing hull from the mothball fleet?
 
Let's not forget that during recent naval wargames with India, Indian forces were able to penetrate Aegis and Nuclear sub screen and destroy a US Naval Task Force by "sinking" the carrier.

People who believe that battleships have a chance of survival are living in the wrong century.

what most people fail to understand is a cruise missle is not really a tatical option for a field commander. The time it takes to program target, flight plan, etc... means that it is almost worthless for a grunt with an immediate threat in his area.
Aggie's Revenge, you really think a unit commander is going to be given operational control of naval artillery for "tactical" applications? You'd be lucky (and better off) to get a fire mission from a 1/2 battery of Paladin 155mms.
 
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17054

Saving the Battlewagons of the U.S. Marines

by Oliver North
Posted Sep 15, 2006

On Dec. 4, 1983, 28 aircraft from the USS Independence Carrier Battle Group attacked Hezbollah and Syrian anti-aircraft positions in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. Two U.S. Navy A-7s were lost on the mission and a third aircraft was damaged. One of the downed pilots died of wounds in captivity and the other, Lt. Robert Goodman, was taken prisoner and paraded before the cameras. Though Lt. Goodman was eventually released, the U.S. Navy had learned a hard lesson.

Ten days later, U.S. reconnaissance flights were fired on again -- but this time the response was different. Instead of launching air strikes, the battleship USS New Jersey opened fire -- and with just 11 2,700-pound, 16-inch rounds, silenced the anti-aircraft sites. This feat was repeated on Feb. 8, 1984, when Syrian artillery opened fire on Christian West Beirut -- inflicting heavy civilian casualties. Less than two hours of fire from the New Jersey's 16-inch guns eliminated the Syrian artillery threat. It wouldn't be the last time the World War II-era "battlewagons" would serve our national interests.

During the 1981-1988 Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollahs running Tehran decided the best way to influence the outcome of the conflict was to attack Western oil tankers transiting the Persian Gulf -- through which passes 20 percent of the world's oil. The United States responded by beefing up the 5th Fleet -- and deploying the USS Iowa. The battleship's captain, Larry Sequist, described the effectiveness of the 45,000-ton armored behemoth: "When we would sail the Iowa down the Strait of Hormuz, all southern Iran would go quiet. Iran's Revolutionary Guards were steaming around in boats with rockets, shooting at ships. When we arrived, all of that stuff stopped."

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the battleship Wisconsin was among the first capital ships to arrive in the Persian Gulf. By the time Operation Desert Storm concluded on Feb. 28, 1991, the Wisconsin and her sister battleship, USS Missouri, had delivered more than 1 million pounds of ordnance on the enemy from their 16-inch guns, Tomahawk TLAM-C cruise missiles and 5-inch gun batteries. Fire from the battleships was so overwhelming that an Iraqi garrison actually surrendered to one of the USS Wisconsin's unmanned aerial vehicles.

Despite the effectiveness of the vessels in modern warfare -- and pleas from the U.S. Marine Corps to retain them for Naval Surface Gunfire Support -- two of the four battleships, the New Jersey and the Missouri, were decommissioned and turned into floating museums. Until now, however, Congress has insisted that the Wisconsin and Iowa be maintained in "a state of readiness" for "rapid reactivation" in the "event of a national emergency."

But all that may be about to change. A House-Senate Conference Committee is now considering lifting the requirement that the last two "heavy gun" ships in the allied arsenal be kept ready for action. Apparently the lessons of recent history have been lost on the administration -- and perhaps even in the corridors of Congress -- despite new threats from Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and interfere with shipping in the Persian Gulf.

Just three weeks ago, Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval craft attacked a Romanian oil rig, assaulted the offshore platform and briefly took the crew hostage before evicting them. And last week, as President Bush was preparing to remind the world of the threat posed by Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a cheering crowd of supporters that "Iran has the ability to control the flow of oil the world needs."

Given the Jihad being waged against the West in much of the Islamic littoral, Iranian "saber rattling" and the lack of any replacement for the well-protected firepower of the Wisconsin and Iowa, turning them into floating museums now seems foolhardy. Yet, according to the green-eyeshade procurement wizards at the Pentagon, the two remaining battleships are too old, too expensive to operate and too costly in crew size to be deployed.

Instead of keeping the heavily-armored battlewagons maintained and ready, the brass at the five-sided puzzle palace and big spenders on Capitol Hill want the Marines to bide their time until 2012, when the Navy says it will deploy seven new DDG-1000 class destroyers -- at $3.3 billion apiece. These slower, thin-skinned vessels are to be equipped with an unproven Advanced Gun System designed to fire rounds weighing only 63 pounds but costing nearly $100,000 each. Even if the new ships eventually perform as advertised by their promoters, that's scant solace to the soldier or Marine who needs naval gunfire support at any point during the next six years.

People in Washington who ought to know better -- like Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- have turned a deaf ear to the plight of the Marines. Thankfully, a handful of stalwarts led by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., have taken up the cause of preserving the Wisconsin and Iowa as mobilization assets. He believes that keeping the battlewagons ready to fight will save American lives. He's right.
 
If we don't want them sell both or all 4 to Japan or South Korea, bet they'll make a show of them.

We ought to load them up and post them around the world, like sentries on the perimeter.

Guns, really big guns.

Vick
 
"limited engagements" of the future

The former triad to assure mutual destruction were the land based ICBM's, SAC, and the submarines.

I think the "dreadnaughts" would still form a strong third arm of firepower for any of our ground forces; the others being air power and missles.

Our nation should not put all of it's eggs in one basket. Or two even.

"A three strand rope is hard to break." Book compendium -Bible.
 
Let's not forget that during recent naval wargames with India, Indian forces were able to penetrate Aegis and Nuclear sub screen and destroy a US Naval Task Force by "sinking" the carrier.
Yes, but didn't this involve literally rolling some dice to determine the outcome? Do they still do these exercises that way?
 
As I type this I am aboard a ship at sea, so I have a slight bit of perspective. Working in the oil industry I have traveled to many of the not so nice places. One of my observations is a lot of the not nice places are close to the coastlines. I think if you pull out an atlas of the world and look at all of the areas of the nasty part of the world, lots of the population are within 25 miles of the coast. Also a great deal of the infrastructure of the country is in the same areas.

To me, there is nothing like proven technology that still works. Take say the M1 Garand or the M1 Carbine. They are both of the same vintage, and they both can do the job intended quite well. They may not be the best choice, or even the most technologically advanced, but they sure work when you need them too.

Anyway, I hope the you guys back in the states can keep our leadership focused on keeping up the big battleships working and active.
 
Aggie's Revenge, you really think a unit commander is going to be given operational control of naval artillery for "tactical" applications? You'd be lucky (and better off) to get a fire mission from a 1/2 battery of Paladin 155mms.

The Marine Corps has historically interfaced with our Navy counterparts for shore bombardment-both in tactical and strategic use. In fact, Marines have units specifically whose job it is to control, facilitate and spot for Naval (et al) gunfire called ANGLICO.

So while a "unit" commander (definition of "unit" being quite relative) may not be given operational control of a naval gun or guns, commanders can and will draw thier support accordingly and effectively as is possible, just like they would do from USMC-owned air and artillery.

Cruc
 
Now I'm a former Army boy and don't pretend to know the differance between a bulkhead and a bucket but this is my $.02

I suspect part of the problem is that guns are not new, cool, or sexy. Do you want to be the guy who worked on a gun (merely refining designs developed over 100 years ago) or the one behind a super, new whizbang "weapons system" that forges new grounds?

That's what the problem is exactly. Why spend money on an existing weapon system that doesn't have a corporation to build/expand new factories in your state or put money in you reelection campaign fund? Why promote an old system when XXXXcorp will bring you on after you retire if you back thier "Uber-tin-can" project. Why back an "old" idea when we can have "newer and better." I wholeheartedly agree with the Marines. Getting rid of the BB's is kinda dumb. No, not kinda. . it's really dumb. The capacity they represent just can't be readly duplicated by any modern system. It'd cost trillions to duplicate the kind of "area denial" a battleship is capable of.

Like the A-10 and the B-52, the 105mm Howitzer, the batleship. . they are all unique in their abilities. AF tried to be rid of the B-52 and A-10. . . still got 'em. Didn't need the B-52 'cause stealth was gonna win and we didn't need that ungodly big gun on the A-10. Oops. Army thought to get rid of the 105mm howitzer. . still got it too because it's just dang handy and shoots fast. Sling load it off a Blackhawk. Try that with a Paladin.

Electronics is sexy, artillery is not. Cruise missiles and JDAMs are cool. . . 16" shells are not. What 16" shells are are damn effective. So's a JDAM, but in a differant way. I think we oughta pump a few billion into further "moderization" on those existing hulls. Strip out the old steam plants and put in a nuclear kettle. Update the FCS and build better projectiles for those 16" guns. Makes more sense then a whole new unproven class of ships with unproven guns.

What the US soldier, sailor, and Marine need are effective weapons. Just because it's old doesn't mean it ain't in some ways more effective then newer weapons.

Of course what do I know. . I used to jump out of perfectly good planes. Outdated mode of warfare. Airborne operations were a thing of the past too. . until the 173d jumped into Northern Iraq.
 
If it hasn't already been said, I'll go ahead and say it. As cool and awesome as battleships are, in these modern times of warfare where you can fire two superpowerful missles without even seeing your target, the battleship is an antique. All the ground support and troop support an army could want can be supplied by aircraft carriers.

The ability to bring an entire fighter squadron anywhere in the world is the top of the line currently, so I'm sure the days of big gun battleships are over.
 
As cool and awesome as battleships are, in these modern times of warfare where you can fire two superpowerful missles without even seeing your target, the battleship is an antique.

So is Division level artillery. . . imagine, a buch of gun bunnies slamming out rounds and correcting fire by radio. It's just so antiquated. . .

and yet in it's role it works and works well.

Also those superpowerful missles cost super expensive bucks. A chepa Tomahawk is about half a million and delivers one 1000lb warhead. Half a mil will probibly run a battleship for (wild assed guess here) a couple days worth of fire missions, counting ammo that we already bought decades ago.

I just think it's dumb to throw out any tool just becasue it's old, especially when there is nothing that can quite replace it's unique ability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top