Ballguy

Whats the point of battleships if we have antiship missiles?

__________________
The Ball Mall, LLC: Your Central Ohio Source for Used and Recovered Golf Balls.

Anon

By that logic: What's the point of any ship then?

Ballguy

Everyone seems to believe that the 16 inch guns on battleships would be useful. When was the last time they were used in ship to ship combat? fifty years ago? The range on them is not nearly as long as a cruise missile. Besides, how much would it cost to refit our battleships when we have cruisers?

Anon

Afghanistan is the first war or major combat op the US has been involved in EVER where the BB's guns would not be a useful combat asset.

Talk about cherry picking.

As far as the Iowa's compliment of 32 ABL TLAMs, they are useless now. All the ABL TLAMs were converted to VLS models about a decade ago. There are no ABL compatible TLAMs in the entire USN inventory.

Finally, Defcon, i would point out that Gun Grape is a real life no-shiit Artillery expert, with years of hands on experience on all manner of artillery systems. Do not make the mistake of thinking you're talking to a novice. He's forgotten more about artillery and FO procedures and capabilities than you'll ever learn in your entire life unless you follow in HIS footsteps. I consider myself to be very well informed when it comes to these systems, and i also have several years of hands on experience on both mortar systems and am(or was) fully proficient in most FO procedures, but between the two of us i'd definitely say he knows more about this stuff than me. Probably a lot more.

Remember that when you talk to GG about big guns, you are talking to an expert.

Ballguy

[quote=M21Sniper]Afghanistan is the first war or major combat op the US has been involved in EVER where the BB's guns would not be a useful combat asset.

Battleships were last useful as the primary naval weapon pre world war two. Our enemies have no equivalent to our air power or naval power. Adding battleships to our arsenal is a waste of money. Sure, the 16 inch guns scare the living crap out of people, but how effective are they at hitting targets that can be hit by a bomb?

Anon

BBs could carry weapons in such numbers, and with such a level of protection that no cruiser could ever, ever hope to match.

BB primary guns were last used in ship to ship combat in 1945, but during the Vietnam war US BB's did use their 5" batteries against small NV craft on a couple occasions. I would theorize the only reason 16" guns have not been used since 45 against a ship(they've been used for shore bombardment literally hundreds of times since 45 in four major conflicts) is because no ship is stupid enough to come over the horizon against an Iowa. That would be a good way to end up dead REALLY fast.

Regardless, the full potential of the 16" gun system has NEVER been tapped, nor have we even come close. Remember, these are circa 1942 gun systems, with circa 1942 munitions.

The potential of modernized 16" rifles is to me...again, speaking as someone very familiar with the effectiveness and effect of all modern US arty/mortar systems from 60-203mm, and precision guided artillery(PGA) such as the Copperhead...absolutely mouth watering.

The reason the two BBs are not still active is very, very simple.

They cost a LOT of money to run, man, and support(and supported 2 vs 4 platforms makes things a lot more compi-cated, lol). But hey, you get what you pay for....

Anon

[quote=Ballguy]A SAM cannot shoot down a 16" shell. A 16" shell doesn't have a highly trained expensive pilot, and doesn't cost 50 million dollars. A PGM costs at least 50k each, and a paveway costs several hundred thousand bucks.

For what a battleship is good at, NOTHING else even comes close. But like all systems, it DOES have limitations.

TopHatter

Tell that to the aircrews of the more than 50 aircraft lost attacking the Dragon’s Jaw Bridge at Than Hoa. The Dragon’s Jaw was struck by almost seven hundred aircraft with more than 10,000 tons of ordnance between 1965-1968 without success. In 1965 alone, the Air Force and the Navy sent more than 800 sorties against the Dragon’s Jaw and lost 11 aircraft in the process.


SEVEN YEARS LATER...

In 1972, during Linebacker, Air Force F-4s dropped the Dragon’s Jaw Bridge with 24 laser guided bombs.

USS New Jersey could have dropped that bridge and levelled everything around it with a day's work.

Primary weapons system or not, the aerial bomb took another 30 years from your "pre world war II" date to bring itself on par with the battleship's firepower and accuracy.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Ballguy

Now, why would we NEED one in todays world? There is a reason there aren't being used.

Anon

Agreed.

And with modern technology and munitions applied, inside it's 16" gun systems operational radius the BB would achieve a level of accuracy that would compare favorably to any PGM dropped from an aircraft.

TopHatter

I could make the exact same case for the 4 Ohio SSGN conversions.

Personally I don't see the battleships ever being brought back. But neither did I subscribe to the "battleships have absolutely no place in modern warfare/are totally vulnerable/can't do anything that other weapons systems can do better" philosophy.

Anon

Yeah, money.

We don't 'need' B-52s or B-1s either, but we have those too.

The USAF is just a lot better about spending it's money WISELY than the USN is.

Ballguy

Could one not claim that we don't "need" a military at all?

TopHatter

Sure, I guess if he really wanted to. But why take it to such a ridiculous extreme?

Ballguy

Because I have nothing better to do.