16-inch guns fired on BB-64 for last time

[akodo]

Would it be worth it to build and man one today, cost wise? Who knows. But a battleship patrolling a dangerous zone, such as the Persian Gulf, would be a more assured vessel than the destroyers and frigates the can be sunk by bomb-laden speed-boats.

That's actually a good argument to battleize the next generation of missle cruisers. The biggest threat isn't from russian subs, it is from Extremists in suicide boats.

 

[Ash]

"Nobody can cast 17" thick steel armor anymore. It's lost tech."

Eh, all the plans, drawings, etc exist on every one of the battleships. There are still guys around who actually made them. This ain't the dark ages and the vacuum following the fall of the Roman Empire.

Ash

 

[PeteRR]

The foundries capable of casting 17" thick steel don't exist. The engineers who designed the casting process are long gone. The verbal knowledge passed down from generation to generation on the foundry floors doesn't exist anymore.

Given time you could regain the ability, but that pool of knowledge was the result of building armored ships for 60+ years.

 

[Bezoar]

The only factory from the glory days of armor plate is Krupp. but i dont think they have the ability to roll that kind of plate anymore.

As for metal foundries today, i doubt they have the ability to make the steam engine cylinders that weighed 30 tons like the ones that were used in the naval yards in england.

 

[PeteRR]

I know where there's a complete extra propulsion system for an Iowa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SS_United_States_Philadelphia_2005.JPG
The United States is sitting about a mile away from the New Jersey on the Delaware River.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

 

[Coronach]

"pressing the issue is like arguing that our soldiers on the ground should be issued Garands"

Not really. The question of their obsolescence can only be answered if you first ask and answer "in what role?"

Surface warfare? Ironically, not completely, but ships don't kill ships anymore, unless someone really screws up somewhere. Aircraft kill ships. Submarines kill ships. Ships do not go toe to toe with ships anymore. An Iowa would be at the core of a battle group that would preclude her ever coming close enough to have a surface action. However, if something went seriously sideways and it were to happen, she'd fare well. Her armor is proof against missiles of the not fission/fusion variety, and her probable offensive weapons (Harpoons) are as good as anything else in the fleet. If stuff got really close, sure, she could open up with the guns.

The thing is, though, you have a ship that is, offensively, as powerful as a destroyer or cruiser, and is much more expensive and valuable...and all of this for a scenario that just won't happen.

Command and control? She's fine as a command ship. So are lots of other ships that don't cost nearly as much to operate, or that can do other things (carriers, amphibs). Coordination of air defense? Not without multi-billion dollar upgrades. Coordination of sub defense? Same deal.

Support of land forces? She is still a viable option, and is in some ways better than anything else out there. Using her has a missile platform is fine, but again, she's no better offensively than any Spruance class destroyer. The only arena in which a BB is better than anything else out there is in naval gunfire support. In that, she is waaaaay better than a cruiser toting dual 5" guns. And her loiter ability is better than air support. And if a missile battery on shore does open up, she won't miss a beat.

The REAL question is, are BBs worth the truly frightening expense to operate and maintain in order to get the advantage they offer in that one, narrow role?

The Marine Corps says yes, but the Corps isn't the one footing the bill. The Navy is. If the USMC wants her as gunnery support, let the USMC put her on their budget.

One last thing: the fact that she isn't set up for anti-air combat or anti-sub combat isn't an issue. She would never, ever operate alone. Modern naval warfare is a team sport.

Mike

 

[PeteRR]

In an expanding Navy, against a blue water opponent, they made sense. Post-Cold War, not so much.

 

[BitterBeerFace]

I agree that the political will and some armor technologies are lacking if we wanted to bring back BBs.

Something everyone who talks about airpower and cruise missiles seems to forget is the capability of anti-air gear. I'm not just talking about defensive... offensive as well.

What do you do when your aircraft and missiles can't penetrate an enemy's air defense? Can their phalanx-type stuff stop a 16" shell in-coming? how about 9 of them incoming all at once?

I'd love to see the US build a couple of new BBs powered by nukes, with craploads of armor, tons of anti-air capability, and a couple big gun turrets (2 2x turrets would probably be plenty, really)

 

[M249MachineGun]

I hate to interrupt the technical discussion, but...

You know you have a huge gun when you could use a REALLY big Magpul doohicky for just a PART of your powder charge and bullet.

 

[sacp81170a]

You know you have a huge gun when you could use a REALLY big Magpul doohicky for just a PART of your powder charge and bullet.

I imagine the neighbors would get a little upset if you lit one off for the 4th of July and at midnight on New Year's.

 

[rc109a]

Coron
Don't say she will "never" operate alone. They did many times. The closest air support we had during a crisis at one time was over an hour away. We were shot at without having any type of surface to air coverage. The closest US ship was not even on radar. If you want to rule out subs go ahead, but before you do take a look at who has the largest sub building program going right now with over 8 subs on the ways and over 15 in construction. then take a look at South america and see what is high on those guys Christmas list. The littorials can play hell on any ship. If they get in close then there is not much a modern ship can do other then run and put up space between. Your right about being able to put up a lot of ammo. I do mena a lot more then a CG with dual 5", the big issue is can she hit what she is shooting at? The CG's have a lot better Fire Control system and required a 10th of the amount of rounds to hit a target. The new DDG's can usuall hit what they are shooting at with the 1st or second round. I have never seen that done with a BB. Now start combining the two capabilities then you have a hell of a ship and that would be just awsome. A BB with Aegis and the MK160 FC system for the guns. Put in Gas turbines or better nuclear propulsion and you cut the crew down to 500. This was planned by the way for the BB's, but the cost was too great.

 

[Ash]

"The engineers who designed the casting process are long gone. The verbal knowledge passed down from generation to generation on the foundry floors doesn't exist anymore."

Do you REALLY believe that?

Ash

 

[CletusFudd]

When I was at the Navy Recruit Training Center in Orlando Florida in 68' they brought in an 8 incher on a flatbed to salute the Admiral during a graduation ceremony. They pulled it between some barracks on the fleet side of the base and got it all set up. When they touched that sucker off it blew out ALL the windows on both sides of the street. We were rolling around laughing our butts off. Needless to say they re-thought their procedure.

 

[Coronach]

Don't say she will "never" operate alone. They did many times. The closest air support we had during a crisis at one time was over an hour away. We were shot at without having any type of surface to air coverage. The closest US ship was not even on radar.

During an actual shooting situation? I confess that I'm very shocked by this. Sure, you might leave her unescorted at peacetime, but I can't imagine doing so in a crisis.

If you want to rule out subs go ahead, but before you do take a look at who has the largest sub building program going right now with over 8 subs on the ways and over 15 in construction. then take a look at South america and see what is high on those guys Christmas list.

Oh, I don't discount subs. At all. It's just that NO high value unit has any sort of on-board sub defense to speak of. They all rely on their escorts for this- preferably airborne assets from a carrier.

The littorials can play hell on any ship. If they get in close then there is not much a modern ship can do other then run and put up space between.

That's why you should have escorts, preferably with those newfangled nifty rapid fire gun mounts and electronic wizbangitry that makes stuff disappear real fast.

Your right about being able to put up a lot of ammo. I do mena a lot more then a CG with dual 5", the big issue is can she hit what she is shooting at? The CG's have a lot better Fire Control system and required a 10th of the amount of rounds to hit a target. The new DDG's can usuall hit what they are shooting at with the 1st or second round. I have never seen that done with a BB. Now start combining the two capabilities then you have a hell of a ship and that would be just awsome. A BB with Aegis and the MK160 FC system for the guns. Put in Gas turbines or better nuclear propulsion and you cut the crew down to 500. This was planned by the way for the BB's, but the cost was too great.

Love to see it. One turret forward, one aft, a VLS in the center and helo facilities. Don't know if you'd need Aegis, since she would/should be escorted, but hey...you're already dropping a cool billion on the ship, may as well go whole hog, right? And armor. Lots of armor.

Mike

 

[WAID]

Steel making isn't exactly the mysterious art it once was. The process's and facilities could be remade as long as the money and motivation to spend it was there.

Is the Missouri really in that bad of shape? When I got to visit it we could only go in one room and see part of the deck? I guess it's been a while.

 

[230RN]

Absolutely fascinating thread.

Murdock, Post # 68, said,

There was honor in standing tall in a ship that could see its enemy and be seen in turn, and having the coolness and fortitude to take it and dish it out with an enemy that had some concept of honor as well. Sadly, that's all as dead to us now as knights on horseback. We are poorer for it.

Well-phrased, sir, and thank you for your service.

 

[Coronach]

kind of how we needed more armored Humvees and less AbramsM1A1s in Iraq. Do we need a ton of missle cruisers today?

This is a general critique of our current situation, actually. Do we need bombers, air superiority fighters, carriers, cruisers, nuclear subs, tanks and ICBMs when we are constantly fighting low intensity conflicts?

The answer is yes. The reason we are fighting low intensity conflicts is because we have more and/or better bombers, air superiority fighters, carriers, cruisers, nuclear subs, tanks and ICBMs than anyone else. Stepping up to the USA in a conventional war would be very very costly. Ask Saddam Hussein. So, when we do fight, it is in unconventional conflicts. Do we need COIN/low-intensity tools and units? Absolutely. But should it be at the expense of our conventional warfare forces? Probably not. Change that equation far enough and someone, somewhere will decide that they can take us on in a stand up fight.

Is the Missouri really in that bad of shape? When I got to visit it we could only go in one room and see part of the deck? I guess it's been a while.

It doesn't take much to make it VERY expensive to rehab the ship to fighting shape. None of the Iowas are in poor shape, but the two museum ships are no longer maintained in the manner that a reserve fleet ship is. Could they be brought up? Absoutely. But it would be even more expensive than spinning up the two still in reserve status (which is already prohibitively expensive).

Mike

 

[rc109a]

Coronach
Yes, it is a bit scary without having an escort. In todays navy even the high value unit has very little in the way of escorts. A helo is the best asset against subs and the CVN's carry a few, so they have that covered. The plans that talked about a modified propulsion system also refered to taking out turret 3 and replacing it with 4 full sized lainchers (each launcher holds 64 birds). Aegis would be needed to maintain the air defense system. since we are putting this much stuff we might as well make her a stand alone fighter. Put several 25mm bushmasters and lots of 50's mounts and hopefully the littorals would not be too much an issue except for that darn 38 foot draft. With this much armor she could handle almost any small boat attack. I know the 155mm rounds only bounced on the deck. We did not even go to general quarters when the shore batteries fired on us. We just laughed and conducted counter battery operations and they for some reason shut up... Humm...lol

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

That's why you should have escorts, preferably with those newfangled nifty rapid fire gun mounts and electronic wizbangitry that makes stuff disappear real fast.

The required escorts must be added to the overall resource cost of deploying the platform.

All that said, I take the Marines' request for a credible fire support platform seriously, and would like to see it addressed.

 

[protolith]

Wow my Garand comment must have hit a nerve, but I think my original argument still stands. While I think there is a valid place in the fleet for the Battleship, especially in softening and covering a beach head for a classic Marine Corps style scorched earth landing, I don't think is practical is trying to resurrect the actual ships we currently have as museum pieces and in mothballed reserve.

Just as the Garand platform is still proving itself relevant in the form of M14s currently deployed in the sandbox, there is an obvious place for real firepower on the battlefield.

.30 cal main battle rifles and 16 inch guns, sometimes you do need a big whoppin mallet instead of a tack driver.

 

[sacp81170a]

.30 cal main battle rifles and 16 inch guns, sometimes you do need a big whoppin mallet instead of a tack driver.

Well said.

 

[sacp81170a]

One thing I haven't seen discussed yet is the development of new kinds of ordnance for the 16-inch guns. It seems to me that having the capability to launch 2000lb+ projectiles would lend itself to the development of a wide variety of useful payloads. One thing that comes specifically to mind is the use of focussed EMP weapons. The Air Force was experimenting with a non-nuclear device that would generate an EMP limited in range that would be very useful for poking holes in an enemy's radar and SAM coverage. That's one big reason the Chinese developed the Tiger Song network with radar sites linked by fiber optic cable. That would limit their vulnerability to pulses conducted down communications cables but it still doesn't protect the electronics of the systems themselves. No doubt they were also hardened against EMP, but you can't harden every little piece of comm gear or you wouldn't be able to carry it around. Employed in the short time leading up to a landing, an EMP weapon might be extremely useful in disrupting an enemy's local command and control, especially at the small unit level.

That doesn't even begin to address CBU's, guided munitions, or other specialized pieces of electronic whizbangitry that some genius might think up.

 

[rc109a]

All the projectiles that we fired were developed 40+ years before. The powder was the remainder from WW2. We did have a version of the CBU. We called it the Bouncing Bettys. It released a cluster of bombs just over the intented target. The projectile would burst and out would come lots of little ones. Very effective against the troops. Since we got to watch all this on realy time television with our drone in the sky it made for some interesting late night movies. They did come up with a 13" round that was fired by the 16" guns. I beleive it went almost 40+ miles, but not sure what happened to it. I know we were to get digitaly fire control computers after the gulf, but it was not installed even though it was paid for and waiting for us in Norfolk. If the ship would have remained in service a few more years the true potential would have started to shine through. We once did war games with the new Arliegh Burke DDG. We both simulated launching harpoons at each other. She shot two and we shot 8. Our captain called the other one and said both of his missles hit us. Teh other capain asked if we were sunk or sinking. Our CO replied that we just called away sweepers and wa getting ready to paint the black marks on the hull, but in a few seconds he was getting eight missiles on deck. They refs ruled the Arliegh Burke sunk. when wepulled into port we had to go over and paint the Arleigh Burke since it was the least we could do embarassing them on their very first time at sea (we were actually the host ship for thier comissioning and we were just trying to make them look pretty, but it sounded good to the crew).

 

[Ash]

"I don't think is practical is trying to resurrect the actual ships we currently have as museum pieces and in mothballed reserve."

I agree with that observation - though it could be done and the ships be perfectly serviceable and competent for the job. The cost might not be worth it.

Ash

 

[scrat]

it was done already once in the 80;s. now if they would have just kept them up. you would not have to spend a small fortune to get them going