StarDestroyer.Net BBS

1. Cheap ammo. Battleship shells are less expensive than missiles, and there are huge stockpiles of them.
2. Heavy armour. A battleship can easily survive direct hits from many weapons which would devastate a modern warship.

1. Manpower costs. A battleship requires a rather large crew. Battleships became prohibitively expensive to operate in the post Cold War era, as recruitment began to decline.
2. Limited use. For the shore bombardment role, its power is unmatched. However, that is just one role. Is it worth it to have a warship that uses such a large crew and does only one thing well?

Mr. B wrote:I read somewhere that the Navy wants to build ships that are similar to battleships but are armed with missles and rockets to perform the anti-ship and land bombardment.

Azeron wrote:granted aircraft were a great inovation, but does that mean that battleships are obsolete.

Battleships can sustain firepower in any weather for days on end. Aircraft have to go back and refuel/reload.

the marine corp points out that battleships are the only thing in the US arsenal that is caplable of meeting thier force needs for disrupting enemy positions in landings.

In the vietnam war, over 80% of all targerts were in the range of battleships, but were not extensively used even though they proved to be the only thing the US had that could take out hardened targets short of nukes.

With new armour tech we can build battleships that can take anything a plane could throw at them.

Next we have emp missles that are about to enter service that can take out an entire wing of fighter or bombers before they can even get into firing range.

then there are missles and energy weapons that can be fitted onto a battleship as well, to intercept incoming ordinance/planes.

with its speed it could close in on a carrier and blow it to kingdon come.

Considering that 70% of the population now lives within the range of an iowa class battleships guns,

and battleships are relavtively cheap to build and operate,

Large artillery guns like on the Iowa class with its 16 inches can if firing a new sabot class round, leave nearly any fortification destroyed within a 100 mile radius. With modern technology in Armour, we can presently build a battleship completely imperious to nay attack say nuclear.

As for the 4 Iowa class ships that were briefly reintroduced in the 80's, The Russians realized what a threat they represented. No non nuclear weapon they havd in thier arsenel was sufficent to destroy these shipos. Apparently since the world's powers had begun to develop light armour ships, munitions such as missles had far less power than they used to have and focused on purpulsion and guidence systems. This worried them so much, adn to quote

Soviet/Russian Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov Paraphrased:

"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four Battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then when we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

but as the marine corp points out that battleships are the only thing in the US arsenal that is caplable of meeting thier force needs for disrupting enemy positions in landings. In the vietnam war, over 80% of all targerts were in the rang of battleships, but were not extensively used even though they proved to be the only thing the US had that could take out hardened targets short of nukes. [/Quote[

Both of those statements are complete Lies. The US marine Crops has in reality sated it has NO desire to see the Iowa's return to service, because they meet NONE of there fire support requirements.

Hardened targets? Plenty of massively fortified and dug in tunnel complexes were crushed by Arc light strikes and artillery barrages. In fact, the biggest complexes, those just north of Sagion, were never fired on and out of range of Iowa fire.

Yet all were destroyed.

Considering that 70% of the population now lives within the range of an iowa class battleships guns, and battleships are relavtively cheap to build and operate, I could terrorize 70% of the world into submission for just a few billion dollars a year. really quite a bargin for an imperialist

RayCav of ASVS wrote:Take an old OHP hull, and replace the helicopter facilities with an MLRS launcher. Those things fire the equivilent of an Iowa shell at just about the same range. Alternatively, replace the missile launcher with this system too (or have a dual system. Either way, remove the missile launch and helicopter facilities).

Azeron wrote:You know I have been reading some vary convincing articles about how the Battleship as a weapons type platform was unfairly dissmissed. right now the US navy has no direct gun support evxcept for some puny sub 200 mm guns. not nearly enough to give proper support to landing operation.

There are two types of 127 mm guns in service.

Large artilery guns like on the iwoa class with its 16 inchers can if firing a new sabot class round, leave nearly any fortification destroyed within a 100 mile radius. With modern technology in armour, we can presently build a battleship completely imperious to nay attck say nuclear.

It is only on the drawing board.With the money necessary to build them you could buy guided shells for the 127 mm guns and LASMs.Which can be deployed on a large number of new ships,instead of four manpower intensive units with roughly 15 years of life left.

As for the 4 Iowa class ships that were breifly reintroduced in the 80's, The Russians realized what a threat they repreesented. No non nuclear weapon they havd in thier arsenel was sufficent to destroy these shipos. Apparently since the world's powers had begun to develop light armour ships, munitions such as missles had far less power than they used to have and focused on purpulsion and guidence systems. This worried them so much, adn to quote.

The hull of a battleship,like the Nagato showed at Bikini,can survive the blast of a nuclear bomb.But she will be mission killed(radars damaged, electronics probably fried and so on).Then if you think that a shipwreck missile would not harm a battleship you should make a little more research.

Soviet/Russian Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov Paraphrased:

"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four Battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then when we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

The Iowa class battleship air defence consists only of four phalanx cannons.
Even a carrier has a much better air defence.
Without escorts she will be dead meat against the big russian missiles.
It can carry twice the harpoon load of a destroyer and,in theory, up to 32 TASMs,four times the theoretical load of a Spruance in the eighties(when they were equipped with the ABLs).This is all.If Gorshkov really said this,then this means that he was dead drunk.

http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/fsao/fsao10.htm



perhaps this is a useful tech that was dissmissed way before its time.

And yes the Leopard 2A6 is inferior to the M1A2 SEP

Darth Wong wrote:A battleship has two advantages over a missile:

1. Cheap ammo. Battleship shells are less expensive than missiles, and there are huge stockpiles of them.
   
   Battleships shells are less expensive than missiles.However unlike the missiles,you need to to fire a lot of them to keep the crews trained.Once you calculate this and others factors,they are not much cheaper than missiles.
2. Heavy armour. A battleship can easily survive direct hits from many weapons which would devastate a modern warship.
   
   This is an heatly debate subject.However a battleship will probably survive thanks to her size,compartimentalization and redundance.The belts and the armored deck will not probably help that much.A carrier will survive for the same reasons.And to a lesser extent even a big oil tanker filled with water(ballast) will be a hard target.
   
   People are saying that the navy needs a good dedicated fire-support platform which can deliver massive sustained firepower, unlike fancy guided-missile cruisers which piss away a million dollars every time they fire and are empty after a few dozen shots. That sounds reasonable, but the fact that the battleship does a good job in this role doesn't mean they can't design something better.

Enlightenment wrote:

RayCav of ASVS wrote:Take an old OHP hull, and replace the helicopter facilities with an MLRS launcher. Those things fire the equivilent of an Iowa shell at just about the same range. Alternatively, replace the missile launcher with this system too (or have a dual system. Either way, remove the missile launch and helicopter facilities).

MLRS rounds aren't guided. They can't be launched from a pitching/rolling platform (such as a ship) without a stabalized launcher. That kind of equipment is both expensive and very likely too heavy to mount on an OHP.

Alright, so you dismiss it on the grounds that there isn't a working version availiable (because it has not been developed) than the merits of the idea or the soundness of the concept, or any experimental data collected about advanced artiliery design? Sounds more like a religous beleif than an actual argument.

No, I dismiss it becasue the plan was rejected 17 years ago, and because no one even knows what it would look like or if the small amount of work behind it is even sound.

Alright so say we built and armoured a new battlebatleship design say with similar armour we put on a tank, except a few feet thick on a tramarian hull design. Youi think that its going to be able to sail right through it? In reality it would just bounce right off. As for the hull, are there no modern materials, or plating we can use to reinforce the hull against a torpedeo attack? We can't design a Battleship to be a sub hunter killer as well? Or are all these tasks to be reserved for the aegis class ship?

Few feet thick? Thats going to put you into the 250,000 ton level already. It laso wont offer enough protection. Note, a 6 pound shaped charge can pentrate 31 inches of tank armor already. A Styx has a 1000 pound shaped charge. Other have up to 2000 pounds.

It also dives onto the deck, like most missiles, rather then fly into the side. Putting the 5 YARDS of armor needed on the deck would give you a ship of several million tons.

"Actually, the Russians have, and have had missiles since 1954 that can destroy an Iowa. And torpedoes have existed since the 1930s that could cripple or sink an Iowa with one hit. Take a look at the North Carolina when she was torpedoed in 1942, a single side hit flooded her forward magazines and sent her limping back to the sates for months. "

Yes I have seen clips of those missles. really huge, no longer in service anymore. Even more deadly against a carrier than a battleship. I don't think that becasue a ship is vulnerable to attack that it is outdated or useless. By that reasoning, since all navy craft escpeically carriers are vulnerable to attack we shouldn't have any ships? Reember the USS cole was almost sunk with relatviely small load of explosives. It wouldn't have scratched an Iowa class ship. Shouldn't we ahve a ship capable of delivering a steady stream of devestating fire, and capable of mixing it up with shore defenses it, giving and taking rather than let them have thier way with landing craft? Capable of tacking care of the mines as well without going to the button of the sea.

This whole paragage is one big lie. You clearly have no idea what your talking about. The Styx and its Chinese clone the Slikworm are in service with more then twenty five nations, and still in limited prodcution with several thousnads already on hand. They can be fitted to boats as small as 200 tons.

Cole never came close to sinking, and had over 1000 pounds of HE set off next to it.

Carriers are still useful because they can effective protect them selfs with there air group and stand off outside of the rnage of shore defences.

Mix it up with the shore defences? Better to bomb them and then stand off out of range and use small rapid fire guns and cheep missiles like POLAR to kill them.

Landing craft? Current doctrine calls for troops to land by HELOCOPTER. Those troops then caputre the shore defences and clear the way for more men in APCs to land.

Beaching craft are only used for Logistics.

A big problem I see into todays force balance model is that there is almost no armour on ships anymore. How are we supposed to bring our present artilery supportt in littoral waters without adequate armour? Are we just going to fire multimillion dollar missles for a task thats better suited to artilery? takr the arsenal ship, it cost more to arm the dam thing than the ships costs. 1 hit on its hull from a light missle will send it to the button of the sea.

No one armors ships anymore because armor is not effect aginst today's weapons. Why do you think we stopped armoring ships in the first place, or rather back in the late 1940s when weapons where less powerful?

The missiles being tested for naval fire support cost in the tens of thousnads of dollars, have point point accuracy and several times the explosive load of a 16 inch round.

A artillery is already in the works for low value targets, using a 155mm gun.

The NGFS requires call for fire equal to two batteries of M198 155mm guns. This can easil be meet with a pair of automatice 6.1 inch guns, and thats the plan.

As for being manpower intensive, we can design artilery systems that are ciompletely automated, hence does not need constant live fire excerises instead of computer simulation.

The USN is already devoloping one, the 155m AGS. It will meet every requirement for naval gun fire support, and fit on larger numbers of smaller hulls.

Current plans call for 64 guns to join the fleet on 32 DD-21's.

next We can alss shield a battleship against radiation form a nuclear blast, and insulate it from an EMP attack. No carrier deisgn would be able to do that, due to operational neccisity to keep lots of equipment exposed out in the open including extreemely expensive planes.

Planes and carriers since the early 80s are already hardened.

"And for 15 million, I could buy missiles and mobile launchers that can cripple your battleship in fifteen minutes, using technology from the 1950s. For a few million more I could get a couple Russian MRL systems that could destroy a battleships sensors and pitaful point defences as well.

For 328 million I could have a flight of F/A-18E's that could cripple your batleship with HARM's, then sink her with a BLU-109 into the magazines.

The number of mines some one could for the 200 million dollars needed simply to get an Iowa seaworthy is staggering.. "

hmm maybe if we ignored logistic expenses that would be a valuable comparison, but all your proposals require platofrms that cost signifaicantly more to operate than a battleship. SO that flight of F/A-18's really cost the money to buy and operate a carrier as well as well as train a crew which is billions more than a battleship.

And might I add the carrier is just as vulnerable to the same breed of attack. Last year a russian flanker overflew a aircraft carrier during refueling. if it had been armed, itr would have destroyed the carrier in one shot. Deos that mean we should scrap carriers? of course not. its still very useful.

Never mind that battleships can be armed with missles and could be designed with highly advanced point defense weapons such as solid state lasers, especially effective since we can put refigerating units on them and sustain fire for greater periods of time..
this is not tommorrows technology, this is stuff that we already can do.

Will EMP missles be very useful in the future in dsiabling planes, yes, does that mean that we should get rid of planes right now? no.
Are drones really useful? Yes, does that mean we get rid of all pilots? no.
Are Aegis Class Missle crusiers more effective than frigates? yes Do we get rid of frigates? No (but we are anyways for some strange reason)

Spend a billion dollars on a ship, and you hgave to take it out of harms way whenever a liightly armed foe comes along. thats not true for a battleship. It can go places missle destroyers simply can't beacuse its too dangerous givien its armour.

This reminds me of trhe earliest carrier designs, they were so focused on attack, that the ships were made of a great deal of wood, so they could put more planes on them. In ww2 if an enemy plane sneezed at one, it would have to go to port for repairs.

As for sicily there was very little resistance going on shore, there was a great deal of resistance inland, and sent the alies reeling. It was artilery fire that produced the area denial, that blunted thier attack, area denial we cannot match today. Planes come and go, but artilery in many cases on the ground an sea are still useful.

its like modern designers have decided they all what ships that can fire at an opponent, but not take any punishment, does that make any sense?

I think its really weird that people think that missles are wonderful thing, which indeed they are, but make the leap and say they are the best for every situation. When in fact srtilery is indeed very useful.

Maybe the fire support aassoctiation is biased on artilery, maybe its becasue they see a useful place for it in todays world.

Azeron wrote:Alright so say we built and armoured a new battlebatleship design say with similar armour we put on a tank, except a few feet thick on a tramarian hull design.

As for the hull, are there no modern materials, or plating we can use to reinforce the hull against a torpedeo attack?

We can't design a Battleship to be a sub hunter killer as well?

Why should we? That'd greatly add to the cost of it since you have to put a bunch of extra equipment on, and it'd likely be no better than a much smaller (and more maneuverable) ship.

Or are all these tasks to be reserved for the aegis class ship?

Aegis -equipped ships are not supposed to go sub-hunting (though their helicopters may). They are intended for the air-defense role. The Spruances, OHPs and SSNs do that mission.

Yes I have seen clips of those missles. really huge, no longer in service anymore. Even more deadly against a carrier than a battleship. I don't think that becasue a ship is vulnerable to attack that it is outdated or useless. By that reasoning, since all navy craft escpeically carriers are vulnerable to attack we shouldn't have any ships?

Carriers, on the other hand, have better defense than a battleship with their flight wing, which can engage incoming missiles at range or sink opposing platforms at longer range than any battleship can (with ASM or no ASMs).

Reember the USS cole was almost sunk with relatviely small load of explosives.

'Almost sunk'? Hardly. Damaged, yes, but not sunk.

It wouldn't have scratched an Iowa class ship.

It may have done damage, I don't recall where the armor belt is on it. And there was a lot of explosive on that boat.

Shouldn't we ahve a ship capable of delivering a steady stream of devestating fire,

DDX with its 155mm AGS will help with that. But we don't need a 16" gun.

and capable of mixing it up with shore defenses it, giving and taking rather than let them have thier way with landing craft?

Why are the Marines landing on a hostile beach? Their doctrine is to avoid the most built-up ones (IIRC) or pummel it first.

Capable of tacking care of the mines as well without going to the button of the sea.

A Ticonderoga-class CG can take a mine hit without going to the bottom (USS Princeton). It's not unique to battleships, and a mine would damage one anyways.

A big problem I see into todays force balance model is that there is almost no armour on ships anymore.

There's a reason for that. First of all, you cannot protect sensors with armor - no sensors, and you're mission-killed. Secondly, no armor scheme is going to protect you from large anti-ship missiles, especially those that hit the deck rather than the sides of the ship.

How are we supposed to bring our present artilery supportt in littoral waters without adequate armour?

By silencing the opposition first.

Are we just going to fire multimillion dollar missles for a task thats better suited to artilery?

If you can fire a TLAM from 1500km away without risk or use NGFS from 40km, I know what the brass will be choosing.

takr the arsenal ship, it cost more to arm the dam thing than the ships costs.

Which is why it was cancelled.

1 hit on its hull from a light missle will send it to the button of the sea.

This assumes, of course, that the missile will break through the defensive screen, and light missiles are unlikely to do that.

As for being manpower intensive, we can design artilery systems that are ciompletely automated, hence does not need constant live fire excerises instead of computer simulation.

LOL! Sure, you could autoload it, but you still need live-fire excercies to train the fire-control crew. The computer cannot anticipate every atmospheric condition - the crews need to be able to correct fire.

Next We can alss shield a battleship against radiation form a nuclear blast, and insulate it from an EMP attack.

Yes, you can. A nuclear strike is also unlikely in today's environment, and furthermore such a strike would probably be in the form of an anti-ship missile hitting it.

No carrier deisgn would be able to do that, due to operational neccisity to keep lots of equipment exposed out in the open including extreemely expensive planes.

You can shield it from EMP, regardless of if there are planes on the deck or not as well as from radiation.

hmm maybe if we ignored logistic expenses that would be a valuable comparison, but all your proposals require platofrms that cost signifaicantly more to operate than a battleship. SO that flight of F/A-18's really cost the money to buy and operate a carrier as well as well as train a crew which is billions more than a battleship.

Nope. The carriers have under-strength flight wings anyways so no new carrier is needed. Furthermore, their crew is going to be less than a new battleship - which will require training as well.

And might I add the carrier is just as vulnerable to the same breed of attack. Last year a russian flanker overflew a aircraft carrier during refueling.

I read otherwise (ie the Russians were embellishing).

if it had been armed, itr would have destroyed the carrier in one shot. Deos that mean we should scrap carriers? of course not. its still very useful.

If we were at war, it'd never get that close, since it'd have to somehow get through the CAP, the SM2, NSSM/ESSM and Phalanx mounts.

Never mind that battleships can be armed with missles and could be designed with highly advanced point defense weapons such as solid state lasers, especially effective since we can put refigerating units on them and sustain fire for greater periods of time..
this is not tommorrows technology, this is stuff that we already can do.

The solid-state version of THEL is still years away (for your hypothetical N-THEL). It'll be able to protect ships against ASMs quite well, but then why do you need a battleship with all of its armor?

Will EMP missles be very useful in the future in dsiabling planes, yes, does that mean that we should get rid of planes right now? no.[/quote[

Aircraft are shielded against EMP.
What? Drones are used for reconnaisance and such. They cannot be used for air superiority, CAS or other missions for now (though maybe the air-superiority role could be taken over by drones).
Yes, but Aegis-equipped CGs and DDGs are also far more expensive than frigates, which were intended for convoy-duty in the North Atlantic. OTOH, many were upset about the fact that the Navy even bought them rather than the Spruances.
It also is highly vulnerable to air, sea and subsurface attack. A DDG at least has the ability to defend itself from such attacks. warships are designed to go into harm's way - don't be foolish and say they'd have to be withdrawn.
Wrong. The decision for the armored deck versus the unarmored deck was done for a completely different reason. Furthermore: "Off Okinawa, the resistance of the British carriers seemed impressive but in reality the damage they took was severe. Having the hangar inside the hull girder made the hull structure weak and the ships were deformed by comparatively minor damage. Note how quickly nearly all the armored carriers were scrapped postwar - surveys showed they had irreparable hull damage. In contrast, the Essex's, which suffered much more severe damage, lasted for decades. " - Stuart Slade.

An article on this very subject is available here: http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-030.htm
And inland the NGFS was useless simply because they couldn't reach that far inland.