Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are battleships obsolete?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    During the late 1950s and early 1960s many old heavy and light cruisers were converted into guided missile cruisers. The Navy did this for a reason.

    One light cruiser was sunk by a nuclear powered attack submarine in 1982 with two World War II torpedoes, its 15 6-inch guns never fired a shot.

    Many of our heavy and light cruisers were sunk in the Solomon Islands during World War II, before the bulk of the aircraft carrier task groups were built.

    Take a look at most defense budgets. Around one third of the budget is for payroll, one third for operations, and another third is for new procurement.

    If battleships weren't considered obsolete, surely we would have built new ones during the 1960s when the old ones were decommissioned.

    The Navy has a program currently involving increasing the range of 5-inch and 6-inch gun mounts, these ranges being above the range of a 16-inch shell.

    Manpower assets are a problem with battleships. Way too many!

    Yes, the Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney have large crew requirements too. But they aren't really warships, as much as they are floating GHQs, floating office buildings.

    The heavy cruisers which were acting as fleet flagships were replaced with old amphibious ships. Well, the Blue Ridge adn Mount Whitney can be too.
    Last edited by Sea Toby; 28 Jun 06,, 20:08.

    Comment


    • #32
      Talking about Anti-Aircraft capabilities of a WW II American Battleship, any negative comments about what the South Dakota did one day?
      Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sea Toby
        During the late 1950s and early 1960s many old heavy and light cruisers were converted into guided missile cruisers. The Navy did this for a reason.

        One light cruiser was sunk by a nuclear powered attack submarine in 1982 with two World War II torpedoes, its 15 6-inch guns never fired a shot.

        Many of our heavy and light cruisers were sunk in the Solomon Islands during World War II, before the bulk of the aircraft carrier task groups were built.

        Take a look at most defense budgets. Around one third of the budget is for payroll, one third for operations, and another third is for new procurement.

        If battleships weren't considered obsolete, surely we would have built new ones during the 1960s when the old ones were decommissioned.

        The Navy has a program currently involving increasing the range of 5-inch and 6-inch gun mounts, these ranges being above the range of a 16-inch shell.

        Manpower assets are a problem with battleships. Way too many!

        Yes, the Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney have large crew requirements too. But they aren't really warships, as much as they are floating GHQs, floating office buildings.
        *The battleships werent more important then the amount of carriers the Navy wanted to field in WWII especially after Midway and Guadalcanal were over.

        *The two remaing Iowas (Kentucky & Illinois) that were incomplete (80% Kentucky & 20% Illinois) were halted because the Navy wanted more of the Essex class carriers as major engagments were taking place beyond visual range involving carrier based aircraft.

        *The Iowas were commisioned and decommisioned many times over and where did the Navy turn to everytime...the battleships.

        *Agreed they are working on the scramjet 5" & 6" gps guided shells. But they will never equal the destruction the 16" shells can. Plus with inventory the 16" shells are literally free.

        *The also tested scramjet shells for the 16" as well as nuclear shells for the 16" guns early on.

        *Ok how is it justified that the Blueridge class can carry I believe it was posted 850 sailors, The new CV carry anywhere between 3000-5000 sailors and everybody *****es pisses and moans about the BB's carring 1600 tops when they do their jobs very well and have outlasted all surface combatants the Navy has in inventory? And yet we keep 12 carriers manned with the minimum 3000 sailors on each. Sorry I dont but the manpower arguement here.

        *In addition im sure you have seen a show or movie where a U.S. president walks into a War room and his first question is "Wheres the Carriers"?
        What do you think he asked before the advent of aircraft carriers? Exactly...Wheres the battleships?

        *For the better part of the twentieth century when America wanted to send a meassage to its foes it usally came in the form of an Iowa class battleship of their coast ;)
        Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 Jun 06,, 20:35.
        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RustyBattleship
          Talking about Anti-Aircraft capabilities of a WW II American Battleship, any negative comments about what the South Dakota did one day?
          OH HELL NO! ;)

          Well gents its been a pleasure but Dreads off for 5 days of R&R. Enjoyed the debate much and you all have a good 4th of July and enjoy. :)
          Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 Jun 06,, 20:37.
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • #35
            I beg to differ, but the oldest surface warship in the US inventory is the USS Constitution, a sail frigate, christened in 1798. And by the way, she is still a commissioned ship.

            While a number of 16-inch shells remain in the inventory, most of the rest of Iowa class battleships spare parts aren't. It would take years to regenerate the parts.

            While the ship's steel is cheap, steel isn't what's expensive about new warships. Combat data weapons systems are expensive, up to three fourths of the cost of a new warship. All of these systems would have to be acquired anew for the Iowa class, plus regenerating spare parts, one might as well as build a new one from scratch.

            Comment


            • #36
              Battleship with guns is past, WW2 prove it. but I am thinking about something else.

              Could we remove turrets on Iowa and put Tomahawks or some kind of US sunburn instead like Kirov?

              That ship I would call missile battleship (it will have exelent armor and long distance attack) Also it will get better sensors and couple of unmaned recon drones with ability to land vertical.

              Less weight(turrets and guns) can be use in adding more protection deck and hull armor on important parts of ship. Iowa could have second sensor conteiner hiden for attack so it will not be blind after salvo attack from enemy.
              Also it can get better air defence.
              What you think?

              P.S. I talk about today's tehnology, so I dont count of fance screamjet projectiles for 16" (range could be couple times better)
              Last edited by SRB; 28 Jun 06,, 22:21.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by SRB
                Battleship with guns is past, WW2 prove it. but I am thinking about something else.

                Could we remove turrets on Iowa and put Tomahawks or some kind of US sunburn instead like Kirov?

                That ship I would call missile battleship (it will have exelent armor and long distance attack) Also it will get better sensors and couple of unmaned recon drones with ability to land vertical.

                Less weight(turrets and guns) can be use in adding more protection deck and hull armor on important parts of ship. Iowa could have second sensor conteiner hiden for attack so it will not be blind after salvo attack from enemy.
                Also it can get better air defence.
                What you think?

                P.S. I talk about today's tehnology, so I dont count of fance screamjet projectiles for 16" (range could be couple times better)
                Technologically, yes. We can easily dismantle any ship and use the hull for something else. But it wouldn't be worth it.

                There's a reason the US navy doesn't have the Russian type cruise missiles. We don't need them.

                The old Soviet Union couldn't figure out how to match our carrier battle groups fast enough. So they substituded fighter jets with cruise missiles the size of fighter jets. Their mission was to sink the carriers by salvos of these cruise missiles.

                What is USN's mission today? Power projection. Manned jets with bombs launched from carriers are better at this job than salvos of Sunburns. Our carriers can stay on station for 3 months, launching fighters every day. A battleship with a few dozen Sunburns need to be replenished once they are fired. These missiles are rather large to be replenished at sea.
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Many of the electronics on the Iowa class are of the vacuum tube variety. Many of the other systems are 60 years in age.

                  One of the problems with old equipment is finding spare parts. During the Falklands war Argentina had 200 aircraft, but half of them were sitting on the tarmac stripped for parts.

                  My power plant, which is only 25 years in age, 15 years ago bought extra turbines of the same model. Currently the utility is buying new turbines to replace the old ones, as we have used up a significant amount of the parts from the extras. We have already replaced the inverters.

                  Yes, we could keep the hulls and rebuild the Iowa class into a monster missile magazine. But as I recall the extra turbines and other machinery were used to provide the propulsion for the first two Sacramento class AOEs. There aren't any extra parts available, that is why the Iowa's are decommissioned. Have any Americans ever attempted to find a spare part for a 1966 Opel? Good luck!

                  One of the reasons why Norwegian Cruise Lines sold their MS Norway was they couldn't find another boiler to replace the old that caught fire. The propulsion plant was obsolete, in every sense of the word. The Norway was twenty years newer than the Iowas. You'll never find the spare parts necessary to keep them up to snuff without going through the long and expensive process of building them from scratch. There is a reason why the Navy ditched them, and Congress allowed them to do so.

                  If you are going to strip the battleships down to their steel hulls in rebuilding them, you might as well as start anew with new steel hulls. Steel is relatively cheap compared to combat data weapon systems.

                  Recommissioning the Iowa class is a pipe dream, there is no sound argument to recommission them whatsoever.
                  Last edited by Sea Toby; 29 Jun 06,, 00:57.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by gunnut
                    Technologically, yes. We can easily dismantle any ship and use the hull for something else. But it wouldn't be worth it.

                    There's a reason the US navy doesn't have the Russian type cruise missiles. We don't need them.

                    The old Soviet Union couldn't figure out how to match our carrier battle groups fast enough. So they substituded fighter jets with cruise missiles the size of fighter jets. Their mission was to sink the carriers by salvos of these cruise missiles.

                    What is USN's mission today? Power projection. Manned jets with bombs launched from carriers are better at this job than salvos of Sunburns. Our carriers can stay on station for 3 months, launching fighters every day. A battleship with a few dozen Sunburns need to be replenished once they are fired. These missiles are rather large to be replenished at sea.
                    How much of a threat were those sunburns?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                      How much of a threat were those sunburns?
                      The Chinese kiddies from various forums seem to think these are the answer to our CBGs.

                      We built the Aegis, SM2, ESSM, and RAM to deal with these when and if the launch vehicle gets through our fighter screen.

                      They probably pose a credible threat. But we seem to have enough counters in place already.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.
                        Yes you can, the Sea Wolf Missile block 2. It's capable of intercepting 5 in. shells.

                        * 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.
                        Yes but they lack accuracy. It's a nice addition but you'd need PGM to offset that negative.



                        My opinion is pro-reactivation.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sea Toby
                          One light cruiser was sunk by a nuclear powered attack submarine in 1982 with two World War II torpedoes, its 15 6-inch guns never fired a shot.
                          So what? That was a pre-World War II cruiser, ex-USS Phoenix. (A Pearl Harbor veteran in fact)

                          If a nuclear-power attack submarine couldn't do the job on a relatively thin-skinned and poorly ASW-escorted pre-WWII light cruiser, then it's time to reevaluate your SSN program.
                          Attached Files
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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.
                            No.

                            You'd have to get within range first, so your example is useless and unrealistic. And the ship WOULD have escorts just as a carrier has escorts. DDG-51's don't cost that much comparatively to use as escorts.

                            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.
                            You don't understand the reality of what you're discussing. Iowa's are for NFS, and yes they can fight through AShW but they would use their Harpoon's for that mission.

                            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.
                            Because no more than 2 are needed.

                            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.
                            No, wrongo, incorrect.

                            CVBG:
                            ASW, AShW, AAW, CAS

                            DDG-51:
                            AShW, AAW, ASW

                            Iowa Class with upgrade:
                            ASW, AAW, NFS-NSFS

                            All you need for ASW is sonar and a helo and the systems to do it. Besides, the Iowa's would have escorts in the form of a DDG-51.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.
                              Iowa's do too carry active defenses.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TopHatter
                                So what? That was a pre-World War II cruiser, ex-USS Phoenix. (A Pearl Harbor veteran in fact)

                                If a nuclear-power attack submarine couldn't do the job on a relatively thin-skinned and poorly ASW-escorted pre-WWII light cruiser, then it's time to reevaluate your SSN program.
                                Ah, the Belgrano... how typical of the UK to sink with it with WWII stock torpedoes. We will risk a precious nuke sub (HMS Conqueror) to get close enough to use them, but dont want to use expensive homing torps.

                                Personally, we should have sunk every Argentinian warship in the ocean or the littoral before the task force got there... just to get the message across...

                                Anyways - on the battleship issue, they have a romance all their own and I've always been sad that Vanguard was paid off so early.

                                I've always wondered, if we want NFS and battleships are too old/expensive/manpower intensive, why not use an older system - the Monitor?

                                It could justifiably be a single use platform, be much smaller and cheaper than either a battleship or a DDX. It could mount several AGS systems, or a more conventional gun with extended range ammo. It could have a comparatively shallow draft for the littoral.
                                Give it a basic self-defence (RAM), a couple of 20mm for those pesky small boats and some comms.

                                Then Bob is your mother's brother... :)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X