Speaking of battleships...

[SigfanUSAF]

OK, battleship debate.

The two remaining of the four Iowa class battleships are among the finest war machines ever built. A 57,000 ton vessel powered by four 212,000 SHP steam turbine engines at better than 33 knots is quite impressive. Albeit the 887' ships are built on 1940s technology, they underwent several massive overhauls in their careers. Lest we forget the Vietnamese wouldn't even sit down at the table to talk until we removed the USS New Jersey from her waters (68?). As far as accuracy of the WWII era projectiles, google the HMS Warspite.

"During the Battle of Calabria she was credited with achieving the longest range gunnery hit from a moving ship to a moving target in history. This was a hit on the Giulio Cesare at a range of approximately 26,000 yards"

Considering the fact that the Giulio Cesare had accelerated to nearly flank speed, that's impressive.

The US Navy actually did a "cost effectiveness" study in the late 70s to early 80s during their final refit. Considering they can fire those 2700 pound 16" projectiles non stop, in any weather condition, without risking multi million dollar aircraft and hundreds of lives should be commended.

How much does a single flight of say, 30 miles roundtrip, plus ordnance, for an F/A-18 with 4 500lb "dumb" bombs cost? If he's shot down?

And a single 16" 2700lb projectile? Dropped with the same level, if not greater, accuracy.

I'd like to know.

 

[gaweidert]

Battleships

My father served on the U.S.S. Washington in WWII. It was the only American battleship to sink anothe battleship in the war. It took all of two minutes to reduce the Kirishima to a floating, burning hulk with nine 16" hits and about forty 5" hits. The North Carolina is a sister ship to the Washington and still on display in Wilmington NC. In 1980 I got a first rate tour of the ship from my dad. He was 21 again when on board.

Accuracy is out to 21 miles. During Vietnam they were used to "neutralize" enemy pill boxes. They would use armor piercing shells and land them in front tothe target. The shell would penetrate the ground and explode under the bunker. Fighter jets would sometimes fly along side the shells for fun and actually simulate a bombing run. VC could not figure out how a fighter jet could carry such a big bomb.

Recyle time for the big guns was 30 seconds. Best recorded time on the Washington was 14 seconds. Not bad for loading a 2700 pound projectile and six bags of powder each weighing 110 pounds.

My father was a "gun captain". His battlestation was right next to the breech. His job was to supervise loading and clean the breech area after each shot.

Great diplomats. During Gulf War I, an Iraqi unit surrendered to a UAV that was sighting for the Iowa. After a few shells they had had enough.

If put back in service, the only armored ship we would have afloat. BTW, recently during some war games, a diesel British sub penetrated the US fleet and scored a kill on one of our super carriers. Got clean away too.

 

[Waitone]

Talk about your basic Shock 'n Awe demo.

A fire mission for a BB
Arclite Raid from a flight of B-52.

A battleship may be expensive but if the grunts wearing textile armor feel they need big caliber firesupport someone had better listen.

What happens when the US gets into a conflict where we don't have air dominance?

 

[CWL]

Sorry guys, doesn't make sense. Committing billions of $$ into a fire platform limited to 25 miles range from the coast? Anyone take a good look at the size of Iran? I don't believe that Marines will ever be making the kind of ocean assaults like in WWII.

Just because a 16in shell has a 100yd blast diameter doesn't mean that it is as accurate or as penetrating as a smart weapon or JDAM. Air-deployed cluster munitions would cover the same or greater space with greater accuracy.

Just one Iranian (or Russian/Chinese) made anti-ship missle needs to hit to create the worst US naval tragedy since WWII.

Unfortunately, the days of the battleship is long past.
(Just did a search, the 16in rifled cannon is based on a 1895 pattern that was updated in 1919!)

 

[SigfanUSAF]

Price comparison:

Smart bomb v. 2700 AP projectile
Cluster bomb v. 2700 projectile

Just one Iranian (or Russian/Chinese) made anti-ship missle needs to hit to create the worst US naval tragedy since WWII.

16" of belted armor plate would be better off than the USS Reagan!

 

[ilbob]

My guess is that the cost of keeping these old war horses in service exceeds what the navy is willing to pay these days.

The amount of firepower it can bring to bear on a relatively close in target is very impressive but it has very limited utility for anything 20 or more miles away.

It would seem to have some considerable use as a threat against any port city, and that covers a lot of the problem areas.

I seriously doubt the USMC will ever assault a defended beach again, which would seem to be its most useful role.

Keeping a couple in service just for the intimidation factor might be worthwhile though. maybe the navy could find a way to keep them in port most of the time so the operations cost is minimal while having a reserve crew available that takes it to sea a couple times a year to keep it ready.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

english kanigit =And I forgot to mention the whole issue of survivability.

He is right, it is about survivability The Iowa class was built to take hits from 14in to 18in guns, 2,000lb to 3,000lb shells and still hit back. Just one Iranian (or Russian/Chinese) made anti-ship missile needs to hit to create the worst US naval tragedy since WWII. There is only a couple anti-ship missiles with anywhere near that fire power, the soviet AS-4 kitchen with a payload of 2,205lb would do some damage but it takes a full sized bomber to launch them. Most anti-ship missiles have a payload of under 500lb, most under 250lb and are only designed to go through a couple of inches of armor not 16in plus.

The biggest issue is that they can only hit things that are with in about 10 miles of shore. Unless we have complete control of the shore line, any closer is risking getting hit by artillery. The 27 mile range of the 16" shell is out classed by modern artillery. They are at the point of being able to hit before we can hit it. The Iowa class were all giving tomahawk cruise missiles as well, they carried more tomahawks then another US warship, giving them the range to take out targets several hundred miles away.

Battleships have no use at sea any more and naval bombardments have been superseded by strategic air power. You can fire those 16 inch guns for 5 minutes and still not hit that pesky tank With a 2700lb shell you don't have to hit the tank just get close to it. There are stories of US and British naval shells landing with in 50 yards of German tanks in Italy during WWII and flipping them on their tops. Also 9x2700=24,00lb every 30 seconds that’s power.

The Battleships are better able to survive in a hostile environment then any other warship we or anyone else has and the only surface ship with more fire power then a battleship is a carrier and with in a 25 mile radius their is not a ship afloat that could last more then a couple of minutes against it and that includes carriers. That’s why in the gulf area they could be so valuable to us, a confined space where the enemy has to get with in gun range.

 

[antsi]

-------quote------
It was the only American battleship to sink anothe battleship in the war.
-------------------

Are you sure about that?

What about the Battle of Surigao Strait? If memory serves, I thought the Fuso and Yamashiro were sunk by Oldendorf's firing line of BB's. There were also DD's firing torpedoes at them, too, so maybe it doesn't count as a pure BB vs BB battle.

My take on the debate about retiring them - it seems to me, the BB's have a very unique set of capabilities that aren't really matched by any other platform. It is possible to conceive of scenarios where the BB really is the best weapon for the job. It is also possible to conceive of many other scenarios where other systems do just as good or better job. The question really comes down to whether the pro-BB or anti-BB folks are doing a better job of predicting the future. Historically, the people ordering and manufacturing the weapon systems have often done a very, very poor job of predicting or anticipating future needs.

One aspect of this debate, if I understand it correctly, is whether the BB's should be altered so as to render them permanently unfit for military service - something along the lines of the de-milled machine guns you can get with the receivers sawn through. Personally, I do not see the point of this. If you we don't need them now, then sure, mothball or museum them - but what's the point of emasculating them? This aspect seems more like one bureaucratic faction trying to win an argument permanently, than a rational "keep your options open" decision about weapon systems.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

and

they have smart shells too. they test em down in dahlgren va BIG BOOM

 

[CWL]

Sigfan & Ozarkhillbilly, you forget that the armor plating on a battleship is not uniformly thick everywhere. Battleship armor even comes in different grades.

While the face of main gun turrets, the belting and towers are exceptionally thick, modern antiship missles are designed to hit either at-or-below the waterline, or perform a pop-up and drop onto the deck. These areas can have very little armor plating -often the same or less than modern tanks.

Underwater plating was designed to stop pre-WWII torpedos while decking consisted of two layers -bombdeck of 1.5" and main armor deck 5"<.

In addition, one cannot just compare one shell v. smart bomb. You have to include the total cost to deliver that munition + % accuracy of strike + survivability of weapons system/soldiers.

Shooting one 16" shell must also include total cost of battleship & 24-hr escorts = surface defense vessels, submarine defensive perimeter + air warning and defense flights + carrier force to provide air defense (plus CVN's defensive ring).

 

[4v50 Gary]

The comment was made that you can use a 16" gun and not hit a pesky tank. Well, you don't have to hit that tank. Within one block of it is close enough and that'll toss the tank, crew and all, end over end. BTW, naval gunfire remains the most accurate of unguided weapons. Consider that they're firing from a moving platform that pitches and roll, and still have to hit a target out over 20 plus miles, that's good shooting.

Can the new Navy destroyer substitute for the battleship? The Navy thinks so. The Marines, who like those 16" shells levelling an entire city block, don't think so. Considering it is the latter who are on the ground (with the exception of the corpsmen who are swabbies and the Seabees), I'd have to go with the Marines.

Armor on the Iowa class is based on the "all or nothing" principle that we adopted decades ago. Large parts are unarmored. What is armored are the gun turrets, barbettes, conning tower, the belt along the waterline, and parts of the upper deck to protect the machinery.

 

[RedAlert]

Drones

During the Gulf War, drones were used to provide the services of a forward spotter. Accuracy was thus achieved by realtime aiming corrections. It only took a round or two to achieve pin-point hits.

A battleship does not operate as a stand alone platform. It is always accompanied by an escort, all Capital Ships are so escorted. To my recollection, no cruise missles were fired at any US Navy ships during either Gulf campaign. Not to say they aren't available, but were not used.

One does not just Drop a 16" gun turret and barbette into just any ole ship. Massive weight plus enormous stresses are developed during firing. During WWII when "full broadsides" were fired on occasion, the recoil would push the entire ship about 20 feet to the side! One needs the mass and structure of the BB hull to contain these forces.

With modernization, crew requirements were significantly reduced through removal of a zillion pom-pom guns, 3"-50 dual mounts as well as another zillion of open 5"-38 mounts. Each mount took quite a number of men to operate them. Modern radars, electronics and communications further reduced the crew compliment.

As far as the liners for the barrels are concerned, I'm sure the wonks at Waterviliet Army Arsenel could ramp up to do the job. They buillt them in the past and my meetings with those folks convinced me they had the "Can DO" spirit as well as know-how. As a side note, in 40 some days, they developed and manufactured the original armor piercing "Bunker Buster" bombs that were dropped in the GW by F-111 tactical bombers. They made the bombs out of excess 155mm gun barrels. I've seen the video of the manufacturing process and they were amazing in their abilities.

You know the financing of the wars falls the same on each service. Only so much money is available at the communal teat. So its easy to understand the admirals positions knowing that the money for manning and operating (refit too) is the same money they might have used to modernize their equipment. I don't suppose any service acts differently.
RDF

 

[armoredman]

I helped re-arm the New Jersey at sea, back in the 80s. Carriers are impressive floating cities, submarines are the silent killers of the deep, but there is one king of the sea, and when you see that lean killer shape slicing through the waves, you know who it is. This is one ex-sailor who would love to see the battlewagons return.
The only drawback would be the national blow to morale if one was sunk. I'd hate to see the only good thing ever called New Jersey head down to Davy Jones locker.

 

[GEM]

We can't even supply the troops we have in Iraq adequately and we are going to spend billions on this?

Let's get real here. It's about as useful as waiting for the Japanese to raise the Yamato and make it a starship. Loved that show.

 

[Brian Williams]

One does not just Drop a 16" gun turret and barbette into just any ole ship. Massive weight plus enormous stresses are developed during firing. During WWII when "full broadsides" were fired on occasion, the recoil would push the entire ship about 20 feet to the side! One needs the mass and structure of the BB hull to contain these forces.

NOPE, never happened, for the same reason a 200 Lb man is not thrown backwards 3 steps when he shoots a 458 Win mag.
A 200lb man weighs 1,400,000 grains and if he shoots a 500 gr bullet, he is throwing a bullet that is .000357% of his body weight. When a BB class shoots a 2540 lb projectile, and the ship weighs about 52,000 tons, or 104,000,000 lbs, it is shooting only .0000244% of its total weight. Even if it fired all 9 of it 16" guns at the same time, or .000391% of its total weight, it still will not move.

 

[pete f]

re the tomahawk and the BB for long range, using a BB for tomahawk platform is wonderful, but I can load a vertical launch system on a RORO container ship and carry every tomahawk in the US inventory.

The only purpose to these BB's is the gun. The problem with the gun is that no all of the world lies within 10 miles of the coast. Look at the map, Where are you going to put a BB that would have effect against Iraq, or Afghanistan, or in the Balkans? The current hot spots of the world do not meet the parameters that the ship requires.

Also although we all love big guns that launch corolla sized junks of steel and high explosive with enviable accuracy that far, we must realize in the era of modern warfare against small groups of fanatical heathen, then we must also consider collateral damages.

It does not do the American political agenda any good to destroy a city block of people when all we needed/wanted to kill were the occupants of one building. Hence the usefulness of the ER Hellfire launched from a Predator Drone. Or the JDAM flip launched from a F18 20 miles away. We more often need to kill a particular subset of occupants of a building, doing so without killing all the neighbors, and doing it in a way that there is no warning.

My wife builds guidance systems for ordinance and aircraft. She has seen video of real life use of her systems to achieve accuracy of +/- 2 feet. She has seen a JDAM used to HIT an individual who was spotting for a Roadside IED, according to her, there was a moment from the weapon hitting the ground until detonation where it was clear the weapon had passed thru his body. She is also working on the small diameter bomb systems where they are purposely using far less explosive as the needs to drop a 2000 pounder in the war on terror are being replaced by the need to drop a 276 pounder with incredible accuracy.

Al Jazeera is just waiting for us to make the next big mistake and hit a school or a day care center when the know full well the BG's have been there using it as a human shield. We need weapons to kill with the accuracy of a surgeon. Hell, if all we were concerned about was killing Bin Laden, don't you think some of pakistan/afghanistan would be glowing by now? We will get him someday, we had people at arms length once, we will do it again. It would be best for us to be able to put him on TV with 2 hits to the T zone, but more than likely we are going to be ID'ing residue for his DNA.

There is no doubt that the BB is a great weapon, in its intended purpose, which was naval warfighting against other shipping and shore bombardment. But when that parameter is not needed, why are we still campaigning for it. Let us say we were going to put a naval blockade on the Straights of Hormuz, or even the whole Gulf of Oman. Then one could see the use of a BB, otherwise, they just are a waste of money in todays warfighting.

 

[Aggie's Revenge]

Say what you will but a BB at the front of this formation would make this the sexiest picture of the year!

 

[Geno]

Battleship?

Those are fishing boats!

Doc2005

 

[CornCod]

They don't have the capability to make the barrel liners anymore and the Navy thought they were out of them, but someone stumbled on a big pile of 16 inch barrel liners out in some desert facilty the military runs. I think they have plenty now.

 

[Powderman]

Do away with the big boomers? Huh. Mistake. BIG mistake.

Now, I don't have a Naval background. I'm just an Army grunt--albeit an ex Army grunt for a while now.

Everybody talks about "cost effectiveness", "accuracy", "firepower", etc.

First of all, take off the PC hat, and just sit back and think for a minute.

Let these four names come to mind:

Iowa.

Missouri.

Wisconsin.

New Jersey.

Four of the most effective and feared weapons platforms in existence.

Look at the pictures, and see the shape gliding effortlessly through the water.

Firepower? You want firepower?

I had the opportunity to set foot on the deck of the USS Missouri, where it was moored in Bremerton, WA, before moving to Pearl Harbor. Walk across the deck if you will, and touch one of the turrets, where three of the massive 16 inch rifles sit at rest. If you don't feel a sense of pride, and a sense of history, you're just cold inside.

Just imagine for a second, if you will...ALL of these massive ships are STILL IN EXISTENCE, and are STILL OPERATIONAL.

Someone wants to fight? No problem.

Just imagine the sight of all FOUR of these ships, parked off someone's coast. Four of the most effective weapons platforms ever built, side by side, on the gunline, with the Ensign of the United States flying proud. Just think about it for a second, and picture it. Did you get a shiver that ran up your back? I sure did!

Can you say loose bowels? Surrender would be forthcoming at a rapid pace.

I say, bring them back! Instead of spending billions of dollars, let's refit these ships, load them up with Tomahawk missiles, and send them off.

Here's to the big steel, folks--the ships that put the anchor in the Navy emblem. BRING THEM BACK!!!

 

[pharmer]

No way the Navy is going to OK any ship with tons of black powder in hundred # bags. After the turret explosion back about 15 years ago, that was the end of them. Joe

 

[Limeyfellow]

Let's get real here. It's about as useful as waiting for the Japanese to raise the Yamato and make it a starship. Loved that show.

Oh thats just wrong. Now I have Starblazers damn themesong running through my mind and its likely to stay there for weeks.

Your other points are quite true though. It just tends to be too much money with limited resources. If you don't watch it you end up like the Soviet Navy did.

 

[roo_ster]

While I am retired AF I do know that the BB has a greater loiter time than any B-52 or other strategic bomber. Unless the target is more than 24 hours of steaming away, the BB will get there quicker.

Every weapon system has it's own advantages and disadvantages. The key is to maintain enough flexibility in your choice of systems to match advantages to the tactical situation at hand.

My take on the debate about retiring them - it seems to me, the BB's have a very unique set of capabilities that aren't really matched by any other platform. It is possible to conceive of scenarios where the BB really is the best weapon for the job. It is also possible to conceive of many other scenarios where other systems do just as good or better job.

FPrice & antsi pretty much hit it spot-on. The Iowa class BB's have the advantage/unique capability of unmatched loitering/bombardment power. It is understandable that the Navy dismisses this and that the USMC sees this as a serious capability to be maintained.

The 23 mile number dates from way back, using WWII era munitions. The application of some of the technology already developed for our 155mm howitzer munitions would extend the range, reduce CEP, and increase terminal effectiveness: rocket assist, GPS guidance, terminal guidance, submunitions, retargetting, in-flight updates, etc. Also, some development from tank gun rounds would provide interesting capabilities, such as a saboted round similar to APFSDS KE round for pinpoint/armored/bunkered targets a LONG ways off. Also, most of hte world's population resides within 50 miles of a coastline. A whole lot of what we care about does, too.

Also, good luck shooting a 16" ballistic projectile down, as our cruise missiles and jets can be.

This talk of how "new war will be one of insurgents, asymmetry, etc" is somewhat amusing. That IS the present war and will eventually be the "last war" we'll prepare for. So, we'll be good-to-go for counterinsurgencies right about the time the Chicoms and Norks unleash hades along with uncountable hordes of infantry, armor, missiles, & the like all over the orient.

I think a couple of the big dogs would increase our military's overall flexibility.

Last, I think one of our problems in Iraq was too little collateral damage. The pedagogical value of towns ground into rubble and minarets blasted to dust is not to be dismissed out of hand.

 

[cox3497]

Aggie's Revenge,

Great picture! Is that the one from the operations conducted in the Pacific between Japan and Guam that ocurred around June of this year? If so, I was on the middle carrier. Don't often see three carriers together like that!

cox3497

 

[Lonestar]

Let's get real here. It's about as useful as waiting for the Japanese to raise the Yamato and make it a starship. Loved that show.

Oh thats just wrong. Now I have Starblazers damn themesong running through my mind and its likely to stay there for weeks.

Holy Heck I remember that cartoon. That was my favorite when I was a kid. I remember sitting in school, day dreaming that my pen way the Yamato shooting that giant laser beam thing out of the front. Here is the opening theme from youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLinou8_LoU&mode=related&search=