Are battleships obsolete?

[Dreadnought]

And here we sit with 4 Iowa hulls ready and willing to go to alteration. All we need is somebody to overlook the fact that they are battleships and can be far more then just retired big guns platforms. With the right designers and a broad vision towards the future of Naval might they could be reconfigured to serve well to our Marines and our Navy possibly a joint force platform offering the Marines the firepower they require to protect them and a place for them to launch or base close shore ops if need be as well as a strike platform for the Navy. But they would have to learn how to play and pay together (budget and manpower) to get what they need until the newer age ships come about. Its a shame those awesome hulls are there for the taking and the first thing that comes to their mind is theyre battleships and obsolete. IMO I think theyre kind of thinking is obsolete. Those hulls are probably the strongest hulls in the Navy to date and can take more of a beating then anything they already have. They're a floating fortress for god sake and what should be more important then protecting our sailors and soldiers lives until they get ashore to do their jobs and afterwards. To write them off because they are battleships is foolish and selfish when they could become so much more and at a far cheaper price then what they propose will do the same job but not for years to come.

*Heres an idea take one of them (preferably Iowa) since she sits idle and start designing a new platform on the current hull. If it fails ok we lost one and still have three for posterity and to please all the BB haters then you can have her for a Sinkex exercise to play with. But if it doesnt fail then you have what you need for the time that you need it. They were the right tool for the right time there is no reason why they cannot be again with moderization.

* Every idea can be extrapolated upon if you have the right people and a positive attitude. And god forbid save taxpayers some money put yards back to work and the military their budgets for future soldierless armament purposes where there lives will be in even less danger as the future unfolds.

[Shipwreck]

Every idea can be extrapolated upon if you have the right people and a positive attitude.

Right people with a positive attitude :




And the idea being extrapolated upon :

[B.Smitty]

And here we sit with 4 Iowa hulls ready and willing to go to alteration.

Or we can take advantage of 60+ years of naval shipbuilding advances and start from scratch.

Or even better, we can take a step back, evaluate the problem (and if there really is a problem), and see if we can't take any far less expensive measures to address it.

I still like my palletized MLRS on LCSs idea.

[PubFather]

Or we can take advantage of 60+ years of naval shipbuilding advances and start from scratch.

Or even better, we can take a step back, evaluate the problem (and if there really is a problem), and see if we can't take any far less expensive measures to address it.

I still like my palletized MLRS on LCSs idea.

As much as I am suspect of the LCS - MRLS on them sounds so much more cost effective than the BB's. The BB's look great - but their job can be done as well as, and cheaper by other platforms.... USN has VLS tubes to spare - it doesn't need another platform for them - no matter how well armoured...

[ArmchairGeneral]

I've been trying to figure out why the army and marines have decided that MLRS is the best choice for long range artillery, but the navy MUST use guns. I like guns, and they definitely have advantages over rockets, but when rockets work better, why not use rockets?

[HistoricalDavid]

I've been trying to figure out why the army and marines have decided that MLRS is the best choice for long range artillery, but the navy MUST use guns.

I suppose it's because it's much easier to drag around big 5-inch guns on ships than it is in C-5s and C-17s, where the arrangement leaves a lot of 'dead space' - refer to Gun Grape's explanation in another thread, can't remember where, about the vagaries of logistics.

[ArmchairGeneral]

I'm not questioning the use of guns on ships; I for one think that every surface ship shoud have a big caliber gun, if only because they don't look right w/out a gun, and you need one fire a shot across the bow. Also the simplicity of a gun appeals to me.

But what I'm looking at is NFS. The 5's are good, as far as they go, but it seems like we need something longer ranged and harder hitting to supplement the Mk 45. At least that's what I'm seeing on this board. My question is, why does it have to be a gun, when the same mission requirements when land based are met by MLRS? I'm sure that guns offer some advantages over MLRS, but are they enought to outweigh the obvious cost and time advantages of a proven system? Navalisation cannot be that hard.

[HistoricalDavid]

My question is, why does it have to be a gun, when the same mission requirements when land based are met by MLRS?

As I said, logistics.

But missile-based NFS is beginning to be developed - sure, the LASM was cancelled, but I've heard overtures about NTACMS - as the name might suggest, navalised ATACMS - and ESSMs being converted to land attack for the LCS. Land-attack Harpoons and Tomahawks are also notable, though perhaps too expensive for NFS.

Also, the size of warships allows for even better exploitation of a gun's big advantage - magazine capacity.

[ArmchairGeneral]

As I said, logistics.

But missile-based NFS is beginning to be developed - sure, the LASM was cancelled, but I've heard overtures about NTACMS - as the name might suggest, navalised ATACMS - and ESSMs being converted to land attack for the LCS. Land-attack Harpoons and Tomahawks are also notable, though perhaps too expensive for NFS.

Also, the size of warships allows for even better exploitation of a gun's big advantage - magazine capacity.

Hm. IIRC, the logistics issue was between the Crusader and MLRS, that is, MLRS is easier to transport. Doesn't really apply on a ship, although I suppose the converse argument is that since army uses MLRS because it's easier to transport, and the navy doesn't have that problem so much, the advantages of a gun have greater weight.

The magazine capacity issue is a good point. But then, an extended range 5 inch round is pretty darn big, from what I've seen. Didn't look to me like there was that much of an advantage. I would assume that the same applies to a system like AGS.

NATACMS sounds good, but that's a big guided missile. Seems like it wouldn't have the same advantages of cost/round and sustainable fire that guns and MLRS have. And if you had navalised MLRS, seems like you could have NATACMS in the same package. More flexibility is always a good thing, if you ask me.

[Gun Grape]

Or we can take advantage of 60+ years of naval shipbuilding advances and start from scratch.

Or even better, we can take a step back, evaluate the problem (and if there really is a problem), and see if we can't take any far less expensive measures to address it.

I still like my palletized MLRS on LCSs idea.

If you fill them with GMLRS and NATACMs I'll take a dozen:)

[Gun Grape]

I've been trying to figure out why the army and marines have decided that MLRS is the best choice for long range artillery, but the navy MUST use guns. I like guns, and they definitely have advantages over rockets, but when rockets work better, why not use rockets?

Its like the one I try to figure out.

If 81mm, 120mm and 155mm are the standard fire support weapons in the Army and MC. One that we seem to be pleased with.

Why do the detractors always declare that the 5" guns(127mm) are "Puny" and "Inadequate" to get the job done?

We seemed to get the job done with 75mm and 105mm in WW2.

[B.Smitty]

Most surface combatants are going to need a gun regardless. So it makes sense to keep 5" & 155mm AGSs on them.

I like MLRS on LCSs for a number of reasons:

• Mature system & munitions (MLRS, GMLRS and ATACMS with unitary, BROACH, DPICM, BAT developed but not fielded, or AT2 mines)
• Tested, but not fielded range extensions to 100km for GMLRS and fielded 270km-ranged ATACMS.
• Non-VLS MLRS and ATACMS would be easier to replenish at sea.
• The MLRS or HIMARS launcher would seem to be amenable to palletization. (some degree of stabilization would probably be required)
• The reconfigurable nature of the LCS means it has large areas on the flight deck and below for attaching one or more MLRS pallets and storing reloads.
• The LCS's high speed means it could dash in close to shore, rapidly fire off its mission and dash back out. It's speed would also allow it to quickly transit to and from the Sea Base or offshore rearming point.
• We're already planning to buy some number of LCSs, so only minimal additional manning would be required (for the module).
• Both LCS variants would seem to have large enough flight decks to carry one or two MLRS pallets and still have enough room to launch and recover helos or Fire Scouts. Fire Scouts especially could be used as organic NSFS spotters.
• GMLRS rounds aren't much (if any) more expensive than ERGM/LRLAP.
• The development & production cost of a full MLRS module (launcher, fire control, ammo handling, munition marinization) shouldn't break the bank.

[ArmchairGeneral]

My only question with AGS is whether it's really necessary. I like the long range capability and rapid fire, but it seems like MLRS has similar capabilities at a lower price. A question: does the DP capability of the 5" guns have any importance anymore? Seems like they would be pretty useless against any modern airborne threat. AA capability seems to be the only advantage of the 5" over AGS, besides the obvious fact that it's a proven weapon.

[Gun Grape]

My only question with AGS is whether it's really necessary. I like the long range capability and rapid fire, but it seems like MLRS has similar capabilities at a lower price. A question: does the DP capability of the 5" guns have any importance anymore? Seems like they would be pretty useless against any modern airborne threat. AA capability seems to be the only advantage of the 5" over AGS, besides the obvious fact that it's a proven weapon.

There is a place for guns on Navy ships. Both in the antisurface role and the NGFS role.

When they get the bugs worked out of AGS, I bet it becomes the standard that the
Mk45 is now.

[ArmchairGeneral]

There is a place for guns on Navy ships. Both in the antisurface role and the NGFS role.

When they get the bugs worked out of AGS, I bet it becomes the standard that the
Mk45 is now.

So then the AA capability of the Mk45 isn't really important? The AGS sure seems to outclass the Mk45 in all other areas. I agree that naval guns are still important, I'm just wondering whether a combo of Mk 45 and MLRS would give the Navy what it needs without the expense of AGS. But the capabilities of AGS would really be nice. Perhaps AGS as the standard naval gun and MLRS as a supplement, maybe for the LCS like B.Smitty said.