Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[Shipwreck]

LOL, whatever you say cuz. I'm through with arguing with you to no point or end.

Enjoy your bullets while the rest of us enjoy our lethal radius.

Have a nice day.

LOL.

You probably meant to say your lethal fragmentation radius/area ?

I'll certainly continue to enjoy the bullets.

Have a nice day too.

[Bill]

Much more than $5.0 billion per unit.

You would have to rebuild a complete infrastructure that no longer exists for such things as :

1. armor plates

2. 16-inch guns

There are currently no manufacturing facilities in the USA for any of these, and even worse, the knowledge base is long gone.

This is a valid point so i will engage you.

There was no infrastructure to build an SR-71 either, yet we did....in record time for very reasonable money. And we did it without computers. Some day the USAF will want a starfighter aerospace superiority spaceplane, and we don't have infrastructure for that either. I bet it gets built once the RFP is issued though.

I would assume that a modern BB would use much more modular construction throughout, modern armor plating techniques and materials(composite chobham type, kevlar, DU238, etc, etc- and a lot less of it would be needed when compared to USN Class A or B steel armor) and would employ all the latest CAD design/prototyping so it would not be the same as trying to build one like they built them back in the early 40s(nor would it be the same ship).

The only way we'll ever find out what it would actually cost is if the USN issues an RFP, and that aint happening any time soon. A Nimitz(last i read) was about 5Bn a pop, and has more than double the displacement, and extremely expensive nuclear propulsion. When we consider that we didn't have the infrastructure to build a DD-X(Ie, many of it's systems have never been used before, so are for all intents and purposes they were 'ground up' systems) and see it's cost coming in at around 3bn(again, last i checked) and it's rather large size(it is really a cruiser in everything but name), i figure 5bn is a reasonable guess. Now that DOESN'T MEAN they'd be on time, on target wrt the price tag. Nothing ever is. I am not married to the 5Bn figure at any rate, it's really just a WAG. I could see it going as high as 7bn for a modern new build Iowa, but that's a high end WAG. You wanna split the difference and call it a 6bn pricetag, go for it.

[Shipwreck]

Not really, For our lip service we got new toys to play with. Osprey, AAAV (has new name , can't remember right now) LPD-17. And Excalaber. No one in the MC wants BBs back. Before they pushed for BBs we would be screaming for MLRS/Himars

EFV - Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

[Shipwreck]

This is a valid point so i will engage you.

I merely answered the question that was asked initially, i.e. what a new build Iowa would cost.

I have no idea on what a modern battleship would cost, because I don't know what a modern battleship would look like. It just doesn't make sense to me, because no matter what modern techniques or materials you would use, the Battleship as a class of warships is a sunset technology.

As such, it would bring no specific benefit to other classes of warships, while draining an enormous amount of resources away from useful military equipments.

I don't know much about airplanes, but I guess the SR-71 was *beneficial* to other aircraft types because it explored some technologies that could subsequently be cascaded throughout the aeronautics industry. Don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong.

As for Battleships as we know them, I would simply quote this abstract of an essay written by Bob Henneman :

"The wartime mass-production efforts of WWII killed the battleship. Tanks, trucks, jeeps, aircraft, escort vessels, Liberty ships, and even carriers were being cranked out at an astounding rate. But there is simply no way to mass-produce battleships. No matter how quickly you assemble the parts, it still takes YEARS to manufacture the heavy armor, turrets, and main guns. The manufacturing process simply cannot be rushed, and the facilities capable of this type of work are limited in capacity. The US completed a handful of battleships after the war started, but all were pre-war projects. Not one US battleship laid down or authorized after the entry into the war was finished. Those not already well advanced in construction were suspended, so that the money, manpower, and steel could go into projects with a more immediate return. The battleship died not in combat, but at the hands of bean counters."
http://www.bobhenneman.info/Tech%20A...s/endofera.htm

For illustration purposes :

* an Essex-class CV cost $68.9 millions (source Jane's), whereas an Iowa-class BB cost between $100.0 and $125.0 depending on the sources ($100.0 millions is from Jane's, $125.0 millions from Malcolm Muir).

* USS Iowa was laid down in June 1940 and commissioned in February 1943 (i.e. 32 months), USS Essex was laid down in April 1941 and commissioned in December 1942 (i.e. 20 months).

This situation could only be much worse nowadays, since the infrastructure to build and support an Iowa is gone, while we still have whatever it takes to build and support a CVN.

Moreover, with time becoming an ever more expensive resource nowadays, long-lead items (armor and main artillery) would very much play further against the Battleship.

No matter how much I happen to like Battleships (and I really do), they have no place in modern warfare. That's why the Iowas should now be preserved as Engineering Marvels from the Past rather than languish in some sterile Reserve Status.

The USS Iowa herself is in a piss-poor condition, and can only deteriorate further if it remains at Suisun Bay. Donating it as a museum is the only way to preserve it as a genuine testimony of the American savoir-faire. It's also more than time to give a decent memorial to those 47 sailors who died for our country.

My 2 cents really...

[Defcon 6]

Much more than $5.0 billion per unit.

You would have to rebuild a complete infrastructure that no longer exists for such things as :

1. armor plates

2. 16-inch guns

There are currently no manufacturing facilities in the USA for any of these, and even worse, the knowledge base is long gone.

bs.

If you were going to build a modern battleship you would design it from scratch. Hence a term I coin as BB(X).

The knowledge base is actually not gone, since modern day armor is very up to date in the field of tanks. Needless to say building large armor plates isn't such a difficult task. Nevertheless anyone who says the industries can't build a new 16" gun system is full of it.

So yes, there are manufacturing facilities all around the states, and yes, the knowledge base does exist, but nevertheless we don't need it since it's obsolete knowledge anyways.

[Defcon 6]

I merely answered the question that was asked initially, i.e. what a new build Iowa would cost.

I would say 6.4-7 billion a piece.

I have no idea on what a modern battleship would cost, because I don't know what a modern battleship would look like. It just doesn't make sense to me, because no matter what modern techniques or materials you would use, the Battleship as a class of warships is a sunset technology.

Take a look at the Russian Kirov class heavy cruisers are actually more or less modern battlecruisers. Nevertheless, new futuristic hull designs would make a better alternative for a BB(X).

As such, it would bring no specific benefit to other classes of warships, while draining an enormous amount of resources away from useful military equipments.

In the same way the DD(X) and CG(X) programs are. Lets not forget the CVN-21's.

I don't know much about airplanes, but I guess the SR-71 was *beneficial* to other aircraft types because it explored some technologies that could subsequently be cascaded throughout the aeronautics industry. Don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong.

No, the SR-71 was more or less one of a kind. It was like the B-2 in the idea that it was a very special bird built for a specific purpose. It had a titanium skin that had to be cut using high tech methods, very expensive to build. Took lots of new infrastructure.

As for Battleships as we know them, I would simply quote this abstract of an essay written by Bob Henneman :

"The wartime mass-production efforts of WWII killed the battleship. Tanks, trucks, jeeps, aircraft, escort vessels, Liberty ships, and even carriers were being cranked out at an astounding rate. But there is simply no way to mass-produce battleships. No matter how quickly you assemble the parts, it still takes YEARS to manufacture the heavy armor, turrets, and main guns. The manufacturing process simply cannot be rushed, and the facilities capable of this type of work are limited in capacity. The US completed a handful of battleships after the war started, but all were pre-war projects. Not one US battleship laid down or authorized after the entry into the war was finished. Those not already well advanced in construction were suspended, so that the money, manpower, and steel could go into projects with a more immediate return. The battleship died not in combat, but at the hands of bean counters."
http://www.bobhenneman.info/Tech%20A...s/endofera.htm

Such ideas are obsolete as well now.

For illustration purposes :

* an Essex-class CV cost $68.9 millions (source Jane's), whereas an Iowa-class BB cost between $100.0 and $125.0 depending on the sources ($100.0 millions is from Jane's, $125.0 millions from Malcolm Muir).

* USS Iowa was laid down in June 1940 and commissioned in February 1943 (i.e. 32 months), USS Essex was laid down in April 1941 and commissioned in December 1942 (i.e. 20 months).

A Nimitz class carrier cost 9 billion dollars.

The Iowa was a heavier vessel than an Essex class CV by a good bit. Hence the higher price. An Essex also lacked much of any sort of weapon besides airplanes. Bad comparison.

This situation could only be much worse nowadays, since the infrastructure to build and support an Iowa is gone, while we still have whatever it takes to build and support a CVN.

No, I disagree and I had relevant knowledge on the industry as you put it. The infrastructure theory isn't sound since so many factory processes are automated now. Factory workers hand building battleships is long over. The infrastructure to build a CVN is the same infrastructure to build a Iowa, especially since a Nimitz is a 98,000 ton vessel. The differences are more aesthetic differences than anything. And remember, a 16" gun is just a big metal tube with a breech.

Moreover, with time becoming an ever more expensive resource nowadays, long-lead items (armor and main artillery) would very much play further against the Battleship.

Not really, since all those have to be in-theatre weapons for the most part. They require on site logistics and they are totally different mission systems to be exact.

No matter how much I happen to like Battleships (and I really do), they have no place in modern warfare. That's why the Iowas should now be preserved as Engineering Marvels from the Past rather than languish in some sterile Reserve Status.

I'm glad you took the time to make an arguement, and I'm glad you make concrete statements.

The USS Iowa herself is in a piss-poor condition, and can only deteriorate further if it remains at Suisun Bay. Donating it as a museum is the only way to preserve it as a genuine testimony of the American savoir-faire. It's also more than time to give a decent memorial to those 47 sailors who died for our country.

Not really. The deck needs to be replaced, which will cost about 2 million dollars. The turret needs to be repaired, about another 2-3 million. And those 47 sailors could be better honored by providing support for current troops.

[Bill]

I have heard all those arguments before, many times. I used to be a regular poster over at warships1 back in the day when actual living, breathing experts posted there, and the level of detail that board got into was almost mind numbing.

In your opinion the BB is a drain on the fleet. In today's budget climate, that is a valid point, no doubt. If you'll look back through this and other threads you'll note that i don't make much of a case that i think they should be brought out of retirement. I also don't think they should be released from Cat B either though. For the pittance it costs to keep them in Cat B it is well worth it to keep them that way for the forseeable future. Just in case.

What i do take exception to however is statements that the BB is 'obsolete', 'useless', and blah, blah, blah.

IMO, a modern(or fully modernized Iowa) BB would be a tremendously powerful warship with a wide variety of uses that in many cases could fill the shoes of a carrier as well as doing things a carrier can't do, and do so with a crew a hell of a lot smaller than the Iowas sailed with in 1990.

That is a very good thing to have around if you can afford it, i just can't see anyone disputing that. But people do.

Even as presently configured in some potential conflicts an Iowa could prove to be worth it's weight in gold(Taiwan and Korea are two obvious examples). Is this justification enough to activate them? No, probably not.

Is it justification enough to keep them in reserve? I say yes, absolutely.
And the shenanigans the USN has played with their compliance with keeping them in true Cat-B readiness should stop.

On another point, BB's very slow build-time is not a hindrance unless you're losing them in a protracted war, and then the same applies to a Nimitz class carrier. They are by no means quick to build either. For a peacetime economy a long buildtime is actually good for the workforce and a political goldmine for the senators bringing in the work(it's the other 98 senators you'd have to worry about, lol).

You've never seen, nor will you see, me say that we 'need' battleships.

We don't 'need' them at all. Of course, we don't 'need' a lot of the things we have. As a nation we are paying a pretty low % of our GDP when compared to the last 50 years. In the kind of budget i think we should be maintaining(around 5.5-6%) battleships would be a lot easier to justify, and would go from a fantasy to a feasible option.

Of course i don't see that happening either...

[Shipwreck]

Take a look at the Russian Kirov class heavy cruisers are actually more or less modern battlecruisers.

Pr.1144 "Orlan" is NOT a battlecruiser.

Do you know what a battlecruiser is ?

The turret needs to be repaired, about another 2-3 million.

In 1999, it was estimated that fully repairing USS Iowa's Turret #2 would cost another $12 to $14 millions.

The differences are more aesthetic differences than anything.

You are saying that the differences between a CVN and a BB are more aesthetic than anything else ?!?!

ROTFL.

[Gun Grape]

Or the only place. Sometimes we just can't pick and choose where we want to come ashore, it is dictated by terrain, tides, timetables, and blah, blah, blah.

Not anymore. OMFTS doctrine specifies otherwise. Also just the current stuff LCAC, AAV opened 80% more beachs to invasion than were avaliable using LCU, LST, ect. We can pick and choose.


{quote]
In those instances, a BB would be a very handy addition to the toolkit.[/quote]

yet the Navy/MC has chose not to use them in any amphibous landing/assault since the Battle of Okinawa. Maybe they know something

"Yes, but that was 83. Syria had one of the thickest SAM zones in the world. The soviets were force feeding them to get real world data on their missiles.

And it's very likely that today in the same circumstances the Sovs/Russkies would be feeding Syria with modern SA-10/20s. That would make the 24nm range of the JDAM-ER totally insufficient wrt platform standoff range. There are plenty of modern SAM systems(Both BLUFOR and REDFOR) that will outrange the JDAM(any model). We can still use systems like TLAM, SLAMER, etc, but none of those have deep penetrating warheads, and they're all very expensive, and none of them is as fast reacting as a gun system, which can be a real problem when facing emerging targets that are only exposed/identifiable for a short period of time. An example would be Mullah Omar's convoy a few years back in A-dirtistan. We found them, but by the time authorization to fire was granted, the opportunity to engage was gone.

Here is that argument of what will you use for targeting? RPVs? How many of them did we loose in Yogo , Iraq, Afghanistan? And why is it that you can fly a RPV
but I cannot fly my aircraft? Now for your example of Omars convoy. Use an RPV with Hellfire. Those are in the inventory. And don't need the Iowas for a high cost RPV platform. Other ships in the fleet already carry them.

[Gun Grape]

The Commandant of the USMC has stated the exact opposite publically, many times.

has toed the Navy line. Keep them in Cat B. Now we say we are comfortable with doing away with them

[Defcon 6]

Pr.1144 "Orlan" is NOT a battlecruiser.

Do you know what a battlecruiser is ?

Once again we see Shipwreck to be the know nothing newbie.

It's classified as a heavy missile cruiser to be exact, however it meets the mission description of a battlecruiser.

And 1144 Peter the Great could be used as an example, but I would point to the Admiral Nakhimov.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/

In 1999, it was estimated that fully repairing USS Iowa's Turret #2 would cost another $12 to $14 millions.

I'll check the GAO report. At any rate 12 to 14 million still proves my point that it would costs jack squat to make the repairs to get them back to sea worthiness.

You are saying that the differences between a CVN and a BB are more aesthetic than anything else ?!?!

ROTFL.

I can see where your going to go with this. But essentially my only point in this was that they are capital ships, they are big and have highly complex systems. So aesthetic might be extreme as far as terminology goes but nevertheless my point was and is, we have the ability to build a 98,000 ton nimitz then we have the ability to build an Iowa. And I'm not talking about infrastructure here since you wouldn't have a clue. A lot of infrastructure had to be developed for the Nimitz carriers, so it wouldn't take a braniac to understand what it might take to develop infrasructure for a modern battleship. Not much as far as the great challenges of building naval ships go.

[Defcon 6]

Not anymore. OMFTS doctrine specifies otherwise. Also just the current stuff LCAC, AAV opened 80% more beachs to invasion than were avaliable using LCU, LST, ect. We can pick and choose.


{quote]
In those instances, a BB would be a very handy addition to the toolkit.

yet the Navy/MC has chose not to use them in any amphibous landing/assault since the Battle of Okinawa. Maybe they know something[/QUOTE]

Actually on tank.net some military officer pointed out the obvious, that the pacific war involved tremendous amphibious landings and beach invasions. Something we won't see unless we go to the point of total war. In which case M21 is exactly right.

Here is that argument of what will you use for targeting? RPVs? How many of them did we loose in Yogo , Iraq, Afghanistan? And why is it that you can fly a RPV
but I cannot fly my aircraft? Now for your example of Omars convoy. Use an RPV with Hellfire. Those are in the inventory. And don't need the Iowas for a high cost RPV platform. Other ships in the fleet already carry them.

Meanwhile we failed to bring down the Yugo IADS. Meanwhile our aircraft are not invulerable. Meanwhile why fly your aircraft if you don't have to. And M21 is right, the SAM's today are more sophisticated, making JDAM a joke really. If we took on an opponent with a sophisticated IADS we might end up with vietnam like losses.

Furthermore, missiles are interceptable. A seawolf missile is perfectly capable of intercepting a tomahawk missile for instance. Eventually shells will be the most effective device of use. Eventually we will have rail guns which will do for the gun what guidance did for the missile.

Point has been and still is, that so far you haven't made much of an arguement against battleships. I would advise you to make a thesis statement similar to what I've done in the past. Give maybe four examples to support your thesis and lets get on with it.

[Gun Grape]

More 'disinformation' for ya(from the same link as earlier):

"The Marine Corps supports the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships," said a Nov. 19, 2004, General Accounting Office report. Since then, current Marine leaders have adhered to the naval position, but not retired Marines. Gen. P.X. Kelley, the renowned former commandant said in a June statement: "I would hate to see a premature demise of the battleships ... without a suitable replacement on station. In my personal experience in combat, the battleship is the most effective naval fire support platform in the history of naval warfare."

I would like to see the source for this PX quote. Because if he actually said that, then he is being misleading (at best) or down right lying.

According to his official Bio
http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Hi.../Kelley_PX.htm

He did not serve in Korea from 1951 or 1953 so he did not experence "Battleship fire support" there.

He did not serve in vietnam from Sept 68 to Apr 69 so he didn't get it there either.

So where is this "Personal combat experence"?

Or could this be another Steerman "Myth" like the "The North Vietnamese so feared the ship that they cited her as a roadblock to the Paris peace talks."

DefCon before jump Steerman is quoted as a source in this article. Which can also be found here

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...05/177720.html

[Gun Grape]

Actually on tank.net some military officer pointed out the obvious, that the pacific war involved tremendous amphibious landings and beach invasions. Something we won't see unless we go to the point of total war. In which case M21 is exactly right.

And who will we be fighting in this war?

Furthermore, missiles are interceptable. A seawolf missile is perfectly capable of intercepting a tomahawk missile for instance. Eventually shells will be the most effective device of use. Eventually we will have rail guns which will do for the gun what guidance did for the missile.

Shells are interceptable also. The Army did it in 02. Also seawolf has demonstratd hitting a 4.5in shell and one of the Arrow PIP demonstrators was knocking down 155 rds with ease. Shall we get rid of all them bullets too?

Point has been and still is, that so far you haven't made much of an arguement against battleships. I would advise you to make a thesis statement similar to what I've done in the past. Give maybe four examples to support your thesis and lets get on with it.

Point is, This thread was started by you, to give the reasons for having a battleship. And you ain't done that yet

[Defcon 6]

And who will we be fighting in this war?

hopefully not us because evidently everybody is simply looking for an easy war

Shells are interceptable also. The Army did it in 02. Also seawolf has demonstratd hitting a 4.5in shell and one of the Arrow PIP demonstrators was knocking down 155 rds with ease. Shall we get rid of all them bullets too?

That information was on deagle. Furthermore I did indeed point out that SeaWolf Block 2 was capable of intercepting 5" shells (4.5" intecepted in demonstration) so that is not new news to me. If you want to look and see when I cited that example look in either this thread or the old battleship thread. I think it was in response to smitty. This is the main reason I cited that rail guns will do the shell what guidance did for the missile. Also, a 4.5" shell may be a prime target for a seawolf, but again, shells are inexpensive compared to most missiles, and take up less space, and can be reloaded and fired more quickly. So they have a higher volume of fire (although not in comparison to quick launching missiles and VLS) nevertheless...But for instance the 130mm artillery system on the Kirov battlecruiser is totally automated and can fire a relatively large number of shells per minute. So in my opinion, shells are indeed a better alternative in some cases, and are best if used in conjunction with missile salvo's. Point being that shells are indeed harder to intercept than a missile. So a SeaWolf Block 2 can intercept a 4.5" shell, hitting a large missile would be like hitting a brick in comparison.

Point is, This thread was started by you, to give the reasons for having a battleship. And you ain't done that yet

Sure I have, I gave the statistic about how the Navy is going to have to spend nearly twice what it's spending now to achieve it's 313 ship plan including the DD(X) and CG(X) ships, not to mention the DDG(X).

I cited the mission gaps.

I gave my examples about new munitions being needed. I've done plenty, you just got to look for it.