Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 212

Thread: Are battleships obsolete?

  1. #16
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    ROFLMAO. I'll take the C4I capabilties of the Blue Ridge over the firepower of ALL the Iowas any day.

    *Manning is manning these are two completly different ships. One that points the finger and one that eliminates the target the finger points at.

    *Ok just dont be on Blue Ridge or any Burke or other class destroyer when a missle or mine or explosives laden boat slams into it and youll be fine where as take one on the Iowas and then smile and prepare to return fire at will.

    The 1500 people on Blue Ridge is only when she is stood up as a Joint Theater Command Ship. And that includes members of every branch, not just the Navy.

    As a Fleet Command Ship, she normally carries about 850.

    *So using not even twice that amount to man an Iowa battleship something that actually stands offshore for weeks and takes whatever is thrown at it and does its job every single time it is sortied is a bad ratio?

    The DDs may not be able to do the R3 you mentioned but they can strike further, and conduct AAW, ASW, ASuW and the last group of Burkes can do limited MCM. 1 ship with the crew of about 1 turret on an Iowa. I'll take the Burke.

    What recon assets do the Iowas have that no other ship in the fleet has?
    *I didnt say no other ships have recon arrangments like the Iowas. Destroyers sure have plenty of sensors and radar and some kind of recon suite among its many radar suites. The Iowas on the other hand use unmanned drones for spotting at intell on gunfire accuracy and some radar upgrades have been implemented. Helo's are shared through out the Navy for recon so that puts that out.

    *As far as striking further the Iowas are exactly helpless mind you outside Iowas guns the Toms on the Iowa's pending which version Anti ship (TASM), Land Attack (TLAM-C), and (TLAM-N) TLAM-N range capability is 1500 miles. As well the Harp systems vary in range pending its use 64nm/85nm. And as well have plenty of room for upgraded systems to be adapted and integrated. The room is there were just not using it and filling the space with excuses about manning them.

    *Lets also keep in mind that Burke is also many of years younger then the Iowas
    and constantly updated as the Iowas were always treated as bastard children until the Navy needed them and then gave them minimal upgrades enough for the mission and then back to mothballs time and time again.[/HTML]

    Bottom line a Burke could never replace an Iowa two differnt ships two different purposes.

    * The Iowas have already proven they stand the test of time with minimal upgrades (63 years and still afloat and ready). The Burkes are constanly upgraded and have only lived 15 years and undergo constant upgrade.

    I'd take an updated Iowa.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 Jun 06, at 14:57.

  2. #17
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship
    Your first name isn't Max is it? If so, have you laminated and displayed those 11X17 drawings I did for you on the ammo arrangements of turret II?
    No sir, Im not Max however I will check to see if the drawings are posted by turrent II and get back to you.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Swift Sword's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Oct 05
    Location
    Carl Perkins' Cadillac
    Posts
    1,040
    I think the ultimate commetary on battleship obsolence is probably the fact that the only Royal Navy battlecruiser ever speced to carry 18 inch guns was completed as a carrier, served with distinction in the First World War, converted to a flat top and used to launch airstrikes against battleships during the Second World War.
    Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    25 Apr 06
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift Sword
    I think the ultimate commetary on battleship obsolence is probably the fact that the only Royal Navy battlecruiser ever speced to carry 18 inch guns was completed as a carrier, served with distinction in the First World War, converted to a flat top and used to launch airstrikes against battleships during the Second World War.
    Ah, HMS Furious. Actually, AFAIK she wasnt really never a battlecruiser but classed as a "large, light cruiser" with two, single mount 18 inch guns. She lacked the armour of a classic battlecruiser.

    She was converted quite early, and the hull couldnt cope with the firing of the single gun that she had left so they took that off as well. And she participated in the attempts to sink the Tirpitz, but mostly hunted subs...

    http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/s...-f/furis-6.htm
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

    "They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan


  5. #20
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Jun 06
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought
    Well, for starters nothing can match their armor and survivability even today 63 years after the Iowa's were built.

    *You cannot shoot down a "dumb" 2700 lb. AP shell with any missle created thus far so in that case destruction is eminent upon its target.

    * Their shells are far cheaper then any other missle /bomb fired at your enemies and are accurate (New Jersey) to approx. 23 nautical miles out keeping it offshore.

    *They were designed to have newer more integrated systems adapted if need be later in their life span and have had such integrations in the past.

    * The are on station in all weather conditions regardless.

    * They can refuel/resupply and pending the severity of damage incurred by their escorts repair them while underway.

    * They are the most stationary weapons platforms afloat even by today's standards they are designed for all ocean sailing (Atlantic, Pacific etc.)

    *Bottom line they are already paid for three times over so why waste the support they bring to the table when their effects can be felt after a brief 6 month work up.

    Hows that for starters.
    http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/u.../bb/bb61cl.htm
    1.) As for armor, you don't need to match the IOWA. Modern guided munitions are accurate enough to disable an IOWA with just one bomb. One JDAM through the smoke stack will mobility kill the IOWA.

    2.) If the SM-2 can shoot down supersonic seaskimmers and ballistic missiles, dumb 16 inch shells traveling on a balistic profile are not that hard.

    3.) Shells may be cheaper to build, but to rebuild the manufacturing base for 16inch shells and powder bags are expensive. 23 m range is too short for the tempo of modern combat.

    4.) The next five points can be done by newer warships that are much much cheaper to man.

  6. #21
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,397
    Quote Originally Posted by IDonT
    2.) If the SM-2 can shoot down supersonic seaskimmers and ballistic missiles, dumb 16 inch shells traveling on a balistic profile are not that hard.
    Once again somebody is confusing the vulnerability of a relatively delicate and flimsy missile with a 16-inch projectile.

  7. #22
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728

    Post

    1. Get close enough to one to get it down the smokestack. Cmon man were not talking moored ships in Pearl Harbor here. That shot is one in 5 million and thats provided you get through her escorts and a manuvering ship capable of defending itself which I doubt will give you the chance to hit her in the stack much less past her escorts. NEXXXXXXXTTTTTTTTT!

    2) Has yet to ever be done Got proof it can be done? We have yet to see anything of the kind. Especially when 9 come at you at once GOOD LUCK! And we'll be back later to pick up your pieces.

    3) They never destroyed or rendered inoperable their shell making capacity nor storage facilities. On top of that their are thousands left over from previous conflicts and with missles that are atleast 1/2 mil-1 mil to even buy the cost savings easily presents itself. The biggest cost is the powder propellent and her fuel at 2.4 million gallons diethel.

    4) Yes it can be done by other ships. Many other ships. These other ships dont normally travel with a battle group and outside that why send several ships to do the job one can under its own protection no less. Can these other ships protect itself at the same time? If not then you need still further ships to watch over them.

    Sorry but not that great an argument.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 Jun 06, at 17:02.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    25 Apr 06
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter
    Once again somebody is confusing the vulnerability of a relatively delicate and flimsy missile with a 16-inch projectile.
    A hit-to-kill (like the Aster) might not explode an AP shell but surely knock it off-target?

    Anyway, (putting that to one-side) as said earlier in the thread, it would take a helluva lot of missiles to defend a ship against the magazine of an IOWA. rapid salvo firing would easily overwhelm most (if not all) current missile defence systems...

    I'm sure Rusty_Battleship talked about the potential of sub-calibre, extended range rounds in an earlier thread, give those babies terminal guidance and you suddenly don't really need Harpoon ranged missiles quite so badly...
    Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

    "They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan


  9. #24
    Patron Sea Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Jan 06
    Posts
    225
    As I recall a few Japanese aircraft sank HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. Other battleships were sunk during World War II, the Japanese did a very good job sinking several at Pearl Harbor with aircraft. Why keep obsolete battleships when they have to be escorted by destroyers? Wouldn't it be better to have more destroyers?

    Several ships are more survivable than one ship, no matter how large. The Navy has enough problems maintaining the escorts for 11 aircraft carriers, why add to that burden?

  10. #25
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Toby
    As I recall a few Japanese aircraft sank HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. Other battleships were sunk during World War II, the Japanese did a very good job sinking several at Pearl Harbor with aircraft. Why keep obsolete battleships when they have to be escorted by destroyers? Wouldn't it be better to have more destroyers?

    Several ships are more survivable than one ship, no matter how large. The Navy has enough problems maintaining the escorts for 11 aircraft carriers, why add to that burden?
    The Repulse was sunk no doubt by skilled avaitors. The Prince was still working up and still had yard workers aboard when called into service. Her first confrontation with the Bizmark in company with the Hood lamented this. A large amount of her machinery wasnt even functional at that time. The Prince of Wales bridge was hit directly resulting in all killed on the bridge Helmsman, Captain etc. They also had no air cover whereas the Japanese kept throwing torpedo bomber at her. After the bridge was hit she became a "dead stick" and an easy target for the bombers to finish her off.

    *To date no U.S. battleship has been sunk while manuvering under its own power.

    The question of keeping obsolete battleships when they require destroyer escort is the same as asking why keep destroyers with an aircraft carrier for screening when the carriers airwing and its defensive suite is there for its own defence.

    *Several escort ships primarly dont have the endurance the battlewagons have and make easy targets for cheap missles. As well not one escort alone can offer the resources the battleships can.

  11. #26
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,397
    Quote Originally Posted by PubFather
    A hit-to-kill (like the Aster) might not explode an AP shell but surely knock it off-target?
    I suppose it's possible, if the Aster made a direct hit as you say. I can't really say one way or the other.

    The Aster is 680 lbs and moves at 1000 mps, while a 16-inch AP is 2,700 lbs and is fired at a muzzle velocity of around 700 mps if that tells us anything.

  12. #27
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Jun 06
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought
    1. Get close enough to one to get it down the smokestack. Cmon man were not talking moored ships in Pearl Harbor here. That shot is one in 5 million and thats provided you get through her escorts and a manuvering ship capable of defending itself which I doubt will give you the chance to hit her in the stack much less past her escorts. NEXXXXXXXTTTTTTTTT!

    2) Has yet to ever be done Got proof it can be done? We have yet to see anything of the kind. Especially when 9 come at you at once GOOD LUCK! And we'll be back later to pick up your pieces.

    3) They never destroyed or rendered inoperable their shell making capacity nor storage facilities. On top of that their are thousands left over from previous conflicts and with missles that are atleast 1/2 mil-1 mil to even buy the cost savings easily presents itself. The biggest cost is the powder propellent and her fuel at 2.4 million gallons diethel.

    4) Yes it can be done by other ships. Many other ships. These other ships dont normally travel with a battle group and outside that why send several ships to do the job one can under its own protection no less. Can these other ships protect itself at the same time? If not then you need still further ships to watch over them.

    Sorry but not that great an argument.
    1.) This is 2006, not 1941. The Iowa by itself cannot defend adequately against top of the line fighter bomber. It takes one laser guided bomb, painted by an aircraft, guided thorugh the smoke stack, to mobility kill an IOWA. Yes you can argue about escorts, but those cost more money, in addition to manning costs, for a single mission vessel.

    2.) You have a point. But here is my point. Its about tactics and reality. If you are a ship captain facing a BB, why would close in on gun range. Furthermore, the US has many platforms for ASuW plus they have an added bonus of being cheaper and already there.

    3.) That may be so, but that is poor allocation of money so you can arm 2 ships. A SM-2 missile can be fitted on all the US surface combatant, why would you spend money just for 2.

    4.) Each ship in a battle group brings a capability to it that is not duplicated. An Aegis Cruiser can be task for AAW or ASW or both, a carrier can be task for air superiority, strike, AAW, ect, an Aegis destroyer can be task for AAW or ASW. What can a BB be task? Surface warfare, carrier can do that for much longer range and better. AAW or ASW? I don't think so. That is a lot of combat power you are allocating just to guard one single mission vessel.

  13. #28
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Jun 06
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought
    *To date no U.S. battleship has been sunk while manuvering under its own power.

    The question of keeping obsolete battleships when they require destroyer escort is the same as asking why keep destroyers with an aircraft carrier for screening when the carriers airwing and its defensive suite is there for its own defence.

    *Several escort ships primarly dont have the endurance the battlewagons have and make easy targets for cheap missles. As well not one escort alone can offer the resources the battleships can.
    The reason why no US battleships has ever been sunk or maneuvering was because the Japanese attack planes were blunted by US carrier planes. Send all 4 Iowas without aircover near Japan in early 1944 and they will be as effective as the Yamato and Musashi against a carrier group.

    Carriers are protected by an escort because for every aircraft task to defend it is one less aircraft task to attack. There is a very limited amount of planes that can be fitted on a carrier. Why send 40 when you can send 80 planes?

    Ship endurance is not such a hinderance as you are trying to paint. That is why the US constantly practices underway replinishment. Secondly, those "thin skinned" escorts have active defenses that the IOWA does not have.

  14. #29
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by IDonT
    1.) This is 2006, not 1941. The Iowa by itself cannot defend adequately against top of the line fighter bomber. It takes one laser guided bomb, painted by an aircraft, guided thorugh the smoke stack, to mobility kill an IOWA. Yes you can argue about escorts, but those cost more money, in addition to manning costs, for a single mission vessel.

    2.) You have a point. But here is my point. Its about tactics and reality. If you are a ship captain facing a BB, why would close in on gun range. Furthermore, the US has many platforms for ASuW plus they have an added bonus of being cheaper and already there.

    3.) That may be so, but that is poor allocation of money so you can arm 2 ships. A SM-2 missile can be fitted on all the US surface combatant, why would you spend money just for 2.

    4.) Each ship in a battle group brings a capability to it that is not duplicated. An Aegis Cruiser can be task for AAW or ASW or both, a carrier can be task for air superiority, strike, AAW, ect, an Aegis destroyer can be task for AAW or ASW. What can a BB be task? Surface warfare, carrier can do that for much longer range and better. AAW or ASW? I don't think so. That is a lot of combat power you are allocating just to guard one single mission vessel.

    1) Remember an Iowa class hasnt seen an upgrade in atleast 15 years. Technology is much farther advanced then those days. Those changes could readily be integrated and perhaps prolong her refit period but certainly not impossible.
    Any place an Iowa goes it had destroyer escort and by order these days would
    probably have an Aegis equipted destroyer or frigate with it.

    2) No need to use an Iowa outside its projected job..shore/land installation bombardment. Leave the guided missle ships (destroyers) to surface contacts. It has yet to be proven that it cannot accomplish its job even close to shore. The cost of missles each and per aircraft/pilot losses are preventable and 16" shells are by far cheaper then loosing a jet and its pilot on foreign soil. You spend the money either way by refitiing an Iowa or arming a jet with those missles and for alot of jobs the missles and bombs are used for are a huge waste of money compared to 16" shells which have been paid for over and over.

    3) The U.S. currently lacks Naval Gunfire Support and will for years to come unless something is done about it. Done meaning not sitting around waiting for the DDX pet projects to surface and then be shot down because they are too expensive per ship 10 years after their design and before their inception into the active Navy.

    4) Ships in a battlegroup do share some redundant services. That way if one is lost or forced to go to port for repairs the other takes up the slack in certain duties but mind you not all cases but yes it does happen. If one breaks the Navy doesnt say STOP and the mission is over, they carry on and take up the slack with another qualified ship.

    *Keep in mind the Iowas were disigned to screen the Carriers and their specialty was AA fire outside of the big guns in those days. While they have not kept up with technology it can be integrated if designed well.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 Jun 06, at 19:36.

  15. #30
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by IDonT
    The reason why no US battleships has ever been sunk or maneuvering was because the Japanese attack planes were blunted by US carrier planes. Send all 4 Iowas without aircover near Japan in early 1944 and they will be as effective as the Yamato and Musashi against a carrier group.

    Carriers are protected by an escort because for every aircraft task to defend it is one less aircraft task to attack. There is a very limited amount of planes that can be fitted on a carrier. Why send 40 when you can send 80 planes?

    Ship endurance is not such a hinderance as you are trying to paint. That is why the US constantly practices underway replinishment. Secondly, those "thin skinned" escorts have active defenses that the IOWA does not have.
    *Perhaps maybe you are questioning their AA capabilities? Read more about the battleships and their AA protection and patterns through out WWII and then re read what you have written. Do they need upgrade certainly but prove themselves worthy..they definately have and history has shown it.

    *Ship hinderance is exactly what takes a ship off its station and returning it to port instead of being capable of sustaining itself on station and doing its job the way it should the way it is planned to be.

    *Agree why send 40 when you can send 80. Ok by that same line of thought why spend billions in missles and jets and a CV shooting at some **** hole third rate country thats not worth the price of the missles when you can send 2700 lb bullets that cost merely thousands instead. Take the cost savings and budget it for the pet projects like DDX, Lit ships etc.

    *Plus why risk anywhere between 3000-5000 lives onboard a CV which isint that greatly protected hull wise when you can send a dinosaur thats manned by 1600 and a hull as safe as Fort Knox. Oh and in case of its loss its been well paid for over and over again.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 Jun 06, at 19:39.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Big Battleship Doctrine
    By Defcon 6 in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 17 Apr 08,, 10:58
  2. Battleship History Article
    By rickusn in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17 Jan 07,, 16:16
  3. USN Admiral Responds.....
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20 Jun 05,, 08:36

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •