Are battleships obsolete?

[gunnut]

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.

I think she was alone, without escorts, that's why the Conqueror went in with straight runners.

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... :)

I was thinking about that monitor concept. But what use does it really serve? It's relatively slow, single purpose, and saps escort resources from other assets.

Do we really need NFS? With precision munitions we have today and how effective fighter-bombers are, I would rather get a few more strike fighters than a single-mission ship.

There's nothing more fearsome than a broadside from a battleship, but is it still a practical weapon platform? Is NFS still needed?

[PubFather]

I think she was alone, without escorts, that's why the Conqueror went in with straight runners.

AFAIK she had two destroyer escorts, one of whom was supposedly struck by a dud - but against a nuke sub she might as well have been unescorted I suppose...

I was thinking about that monitor concept. But what use does it really serve? It's relatively slow, single purpose, and saps escort resources from other assets.

Do we really need NFS? With precision munitions we have today and how effective fighter-bombers are, I would rather get a few more strike fighters than a single-mission ship.

There's nothing more fearsome than a broadside from a battleship, but is it still a practical weapon platform? Is NFS still needed?

I'm not all that convinced about NFS myself - and I think I argued that earlier in thread before I got distracted. I do think of NFS as being something of a hangover from earlier conflicts, and also something of a "sacred cow" for the USMC.

The other alternative to the monitor concept is better ammo on the DDs and CGs to allow them to fill the gap left by the semi-cancellation of the DDX. You dont necessarily need the fully fledged AGS to do this. It gives you more NFS capable platforms and thus a helluva lot more flexibility..

[TopHatter]

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.

If I am not mistaken, there was a rather terrible reliability problem with the Tigerfish torpedoes that HMS Conqueror was carrying.

CMR Wreford-Brown used his tried and true Mark 8's and came home flying the Jolly Roger.

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...

Problematic from a "legal" standpoint but yeah, it would have been eminently satisfying to see the Veinticinco de Mayo go down as well.
Ultimately though, her airwing still inflicted losses on the RN task force even without being carrierborne.

[PubFather]

If I am not mistaken, there was a rather terrible reliability problem with the Tigerfish torpedoes that HMS Conqueror was carrying.

I have heard something to that effect - Tigerfish was not a good torp at the time. Spearfish is much better....

Problematic from a "legal" standpoint but yeah, it would have been eminently satisfying to see the Veinticinco de Mayo go down as well.
Ultimately though, her airwing still inflicted losses on the RN task force even without being carrierborne.

Very satisfying...

The irony of the Falklands has always been that Ark Royal (carrying F4's and Buccaneers) was paid off early, 2 years before the conflict.. I doubt the war would have happened had she been in service, not even Galtieri was that stupid.

Not to mention the fact that we were trying to sell Invincible, and Hermes was in the process of de-commissioning... I hope CVF gets built, and steel is cut soon... and those lessons learned are not wasted...

The best ever tabloid headline.. lol

[SRB]

Tomhawks are most important weapons in USN today so idea of big missile carrier isnt stupid.

If Iowa is convert in missile carrier which can be done, it can carry big number of Tomhawk and smaller number of Anti ship missiles (for emergency), istead of AS missiles it can use SM-2 and SM-3 for air defence.

Upgrade will be expensive but USA can afford it. It will be cheaper than building couple of destoriers which will carry same ammount of Tomhawks.

Istead of boilers and turbines you can put strong diesel engines (MAN) which are all ready in use on big cargo ships, this will reduce wieght of ship and make more space (but it will be expensive beacuse it need rebuilding internal parts of ship).
Electronics is easier for upgrade but also most expencive.

So in the end you will get Iowa which is carring more Tomhawks than anyother ship is capable to protect self against other ships on longer ranges than with guns, with superb armor and with bigger cargo space it can resuple other ships(you get space with new engine)

Anyone can estemate how many Tomhawks and other missiles can pack in Iowa if turrets are remove?
My idea is two front turrets for Tomhaks and back turret for SM-2 and SM-3 (or SM-2 and some kind of ramjet antiship missiles).

This ship will be better than modifing 4 Ohaio subs for Tomhawks, because it will support air defence of Carrier group and can even use single in some smaller actions like in past bombing factories in Sudan.

P.S. it can have good number of flying drones for spying.
With battleship armor and SM-2 it can get closer to shore than anyother warship and send Tomhawks deeper in enemy land.

[HistoricalDavid]

If Iowa is convert in missile carrier which can be done, it can carry big number of Tomhawk and smaller number of Anti ship missiles (for emergency), istead of AS missiles it can use SM-2 and SM-3 for air defence.

Upgrade will be expensive but USA can afford it.

To convert it to a missile carrier... it would be GIGANTIC.

It will be cheaper than building couple of destoriers which will carry same ammount of Tomhawks.

Arleigh Burkes can theoretically carry 96 Tomahawks, I think.

(but it will be expensive beacuse it need rebuilding internal parts of ship).

Ha, not an easy thing to do!

So in the end you will get Iowa which is carring more Tomhawks than anyother ship is capable to protect self against other ships on longer ranges than with guns, with superb armor and with bigger cargo space it can resuple other ships(you get space with new engine)

I've got to ask; where do you put these launchers?

You'd be removing the essential point of the battleship, its guns; a lot of firepower very quick.

nyone can estemate how many Tomhawks and other missiles can pack in Iowa if turrets are remove?

A lot, but it would be phenomenally expensive to modify it like that. You're talking shifting about thousands of tons of steel and machinery, pretty much the weight of a good frigate.

y idea is two front turrets for Tomhaks and back turret for SM-2 and SM-3 (or SM-2 and some kind of ramjet antiship missiles).

Dude... money!

P.S. it can have good number of flying drones for spying.

Can do that with present ships.

With battleship armor and SM-2 it can get closer to shore than anyother warship and send Tomhawks deeper in enemy land.

Except for SSNs or the new SSGNs.

[SRB]

In turret holes you put missile launchers
Well turrets and guns are easiest for remove because they arent fix so you only need BIG crane to pull it out, is there crane which can will 2000 tones?

Also I assume it will need cuting of back deck of Iowa to put new MAN diesel engines and pull parts of old engines.As some one said building new ship isnt expencive eletronic is most expencive part of any war machine.

So if Iowa could convert for 1bn $ in missile carrier it will be much better than 4 Ohiao subs each for 500mln $, you will have very fast ship with superb armor and fraction of operation cost.

[gunnut]

We have huge missile carriers already. The first 4 Ohio class boats are converted to carry 154 (!) Tomahawks each. Add those to the ones already on board our other warships...I think we have problems keeping them all filled, let alone have any spares to arm a BBG.

There was a concept of the "arsenal ship." Basically a big hull with minimal crew and a large missile complement.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...senal_ship.htm

It didn't go anywhere.

[Sea Toby]

And this quote from an Admiral:

Second, these ships are logistically unsupportable.
Some "low-lights" of the logistics mess:

* The 1980s commissionings went through the last barrel liners. Additionally, the Navy managed to screw up the remaining powder supplies by blending them into one common set--this destroyed accuracy.

* Maintenance or repair to the 1930s-vintage engineering plant was a nightmare, as the shipyard had to cut through a foot of Class A armored plate.

* The company that manufactured the emergency diesels back in 1941-42 has no record of ever having made diesel engines of any sort, and cannot supply drawings or other spare part documentation. Other subcontractors have long since gone out of business.

* The main battery is not usable in combat, as it is one dopey gunner's mate away from a turret conflagration.

* Training for the ship's systems is unavailable, particularly for the engineering plant and main battery. If you cannot safely steam and shoot, there is no point to having a warship in commission.

* I haven't seen so many vacuum tubes since my family's first television set during the 1950s.

The great ships have passed; we shall not see their kind again.

And the GAO wrote a study: Reactivatiing two of the Iowa class battleships with a proper modernization program would take at least two years and 5-7 billion dollars.

Ain't that the price of one Nimitz class nuclear propelled aircraft carrier.....

Other opponents to bringing the battleships back say:
Detractors say:
Few coastal targets are hardened enough to withstand missile strikes.

Amphibious assault techniques have improved since World War II, rendering obsolete heavy bombardments and mass assaults against built-up chokepoints.

A single round that destroys an enemy command center so the enemy cannot see that the invasion force is landing somewhere else is as effective at protecting troops.

Battleships are disproportionately vulnerable to mine and submarine warfare. During the 1991 Gulf War, mines in Iraq's coastal waters limited the operations of Wisconsin and Missouri. Some of the most effective shore fires from that war were carried out by Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates armed with 76 mm guns.

Adding two 1,500-man battleships would exacerbate the Navy's chronic shortfall of sailors.

[Galrahn]

Is NFS still needed?

For me, that is the best question of the discussion.

Sorry, but I refuse to buy into the talk about high costs, or the the talk about modernization problems, and most particularly the talk about lack of some sort of weapon type on a battleship. Give me a break, a Battleship modernization would be the most popular Naval funding project in decades, no amount of money would piss off a shipbuilder, and touting the vulnerability of a battleship is like touting the firepower of the LCS to me.

But NFS, that is a real topic. I don't know much about the US Army, but I adopted a soldier using the soldiersangels program, and got lucky this last tour. My guy is in the 172nd Stryker Brigade CT. While he doesn't share much, I did get an email from him that was obviously in frustration about combat support. His rant was basically on the continued inefficency of artillary in Iraq, and how he would prefer a mortal platoon or air support over artillary anyday.

I know, 1 guy doesn't mean a thing, but this matches what I have heard in a number of places, and is becoming a common perception within think tanks. I understand the biggest problem from the Stryker perspective is the towed piece vs the mobile piece, but as the USMC is moving towards the EFV, won't that be a problem they face? As I understand it, the USMC doesn't use much artillary in Iraq either, almost never in fact, and since the whole beach assault idea is on the outs in favor of STOM based assaults, is NFS really that important anymore, or is NETFIRES and UAV CAS options a better direction for the Navy?

[gunnut]

Amphibious assault techniques have improved since World War II, rendering obsolete heavy bombardments and mass assaults against built-up chokepoints.

A single round that destroys an enemy command center so the enemy cannot see that the invasion force is landing somewhere else is as effective at protecting troops.

That's exactly my point and my question.

Amphibious assaults have evolved away from massed shore bombardments of WW2 era. Besides, with the speed our forces are capable of moving today, they would be quickly out of the range of battleships parked 1 or 2 miles off shore.

We have precision weapons now. The small diameter bomb packs only 39 lb of explosive, and is expected to destroy most targets. Do we really need to hurl 1900 lb of high explosives at people, without guidance? I know sometimes it would be nice to, but often times that's not needed.

How about the monitor concept, except we use the new 5" and 6" AGS? Just a simple ship, not thing fancy, basic air/sea search radar, ESSM, RAM, 1 helo for support duties, and 2 to 4 gun barrels.

When US military does something, it wants to cram as much high tech gear in a single platform as possible, budgets be damned. We don't design for function and practicality any more. We want wonder weapons.

[Defcon 6]

That's exactly my point and my question.

NFS is valuable.

Amphibious assaults have evolved away from massed shore bombardments of WW2 era. Besides, with the speed our forces are capable of moving today, they would be quickly out of the range of battleships parked 1 or 2 miles off shore.

EX-148 has a range of like...100 Nautical Miles.

We have precision weapons now. The small diameter bomb packs only 39 lb of explosive, and is expected to destroy most targets. Do we really need to hurl 1900 lb of high explosives at people, without guidance? I know sometimes it would be nice to, but often times that's not needed.

Advanced Gun Weapon Systems Technology Program
16/11 Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot

Sabot Diameter 16 in (40.6 cm)
Projectile Diameter 11 in (28 cm)
Range 100 nm
Launch Weight 650 lbs. (295 kg)
Fly Away Weight 525 lbs. (238 kg)
Launch Length 69 in (175 cm)
Payload 175.2 lbs. (79.5 kg)
248 M46 Submunitions
Guidance Modes GPS & INS

When US military does something, it wants to cram as much high tech gear in a single platform as possible, budgets be damned. We don't design for function and practicality any more. We want wonder weapons.

So let's reactivate

[Gun Grape]

NFS is valuable.

EX-148 has a range of like...100 Nautical Miles.

Advanced Gun Weapon Systems Technology Program
16/11 Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot

Sabot Diameter 16 in (40.6 cm)
Projectile Diameter 11 in (28 cm)
Range 100 nm
Launch Weight 650 lbs. (295 kg)
Fly Away Weight 525 lbs. (238 kg)
Launch Length 69 in (175 cm)
Payload 175.2 lbs. (79.5 kg)
248 M46 Submunitions
Guidance Modes GPS & INS

So let's reactivate

How much money will it cost to develop that round?

Because Burkes already carry a weapon that, quite frankly, blows that out of the water.

Tac Tom has a 1,500 mile range, can be programed and shot in 5 min. Can loiter over the target area. reprogramed in flight. Can attack up to 3 targets with the same submunitions you want to use and can provide real time intel and post strike BDA.

We don't need battleships. The Navy and MC don't want BBs. Case closed

[Sea Toby]

The British had their submarines mapped off into zones during the Falklands War. At one point one of their submarines had the Argentine carrier and her escorts in view, but lost them when the carrier group crossed a line on the map it couldn't. While the other submarine was in its box, it was not close enough to continue the surveillance. The British were never to regain contact with the carrier group until they had returned to port.

What's worse is that Admiral Woodward saw it coming and couldn't do anything about it, as the submarines were being directed by London and weren't under his control. Otherwise, both the cruiser and the carrier would have been sunk.

To continue on the battleship's spare parts issue, the two that have been decommissioned have already given up impossible to find parts to keep the other two in reserve. Since the Iowas are so old, I think it's best we turn them all into museums.

[Galrahn]

NFS is valuable.

How? In what way? What are the NFS requirements for the USMC? Why is the USMC developing a platform to land troops 150nm from shore as the established STOM requirement (MV-22 and CH-53K) if the NFS requirement can't support the troops 150nm from shore?

Your statement is made in a bubble. NFS in the form of a BB or DD(X) is a Navy responsibility that doesn't match the direction of USMC doctrine. In many ways, your statement without substance reminds me very much of the exact problems with the Navy today.