Are battleships really obsolete

[Azeron]

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.

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.

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

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."

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

[Master of Ossus]

No, I don't think so. They have the ability to deliver an incredible amount of firepower with excellent accuracy. They are obsolete in the sense that they no longer form the backbone of fleets, and they no longer are necessary for protecting carriers from surface ships. Their primary issue is that they do not have the range to match aircraft carriers, but they can maintain a continuous bombardment of coastal facilities like no other weapon on the planet.

[Wicked Pilot]

There is no longer any need for battleships. Their anti surface role is better filled by missile cruisers, and their use in shore bombardment is better suited for aircraft with specialized quided munitions.
The battleships were awesome vessels in their prime, but their time is over. Just like the sail, the jeep, and the sword, let the battleship rest in peace.

[Azeron]

granted aircraft were a great inovation, but does that mean that battleships are obsolete. I have always have had this question but never really gave much thought to it. Battleships can sustain firepower in any whether for days on end. Aircraft have to go back and refuel/reload. 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.

You know I am starting to think that the teshnolgical pendulum may have shifted to the battleshkps away from aircraft. 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. than ther 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, I could terrorize 70% of the world into submission for just a few billion dollars a year. really quite a bargin for an imperialist.

[Mr. B]

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.

[Darth Wong]

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.
2. Heavy armour. A battleship can easily survive direct hits from many weapons which would devastate a modern warship.

However, it also has two disadvantages:

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?

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.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

If Battleships could be refitted with longer-range weapons, and a dual purpose, they would still be useful. Of course, I'm no naval officer.

[phongn]

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.

If you were referring to the Arsenal Ship, that project is long gone.

Anyways, the Navy's DDX program is supposed to help fufill the shore-bombardment role with a 155mm gun in addition to various missiles.

[Wicked Pilot]

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

The battleship, as an anti-surface weapon, is obselete. Get over it.

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

A carrier air wing can sustain firepower in any weather for days on end, but from much farther ranges.

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.

I doubt that. Fixed fortifications like those in Normandy are obselete along with the battleship. Moreover, in the Battle of Iwo Jima, the island was bombarded for days by battleships, yet when the Marines landed, they still took thousands of casualities. A battleship shell is inferior to a "bunker buster" when it comes to taking out hardened targets, especially those protected by earth.

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.

100% of Vietnam was accessable to airpower. Same with Cambodia and Laos. Also, what hard targets are you talking about? The Air Force's B-52s easily brought the Vietnamese to the negociation table after Linebacker II.

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

Even a two thousand pound bomb?

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.

Where did you hear this?

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

What energy weapons? Besides, the Iowa's were refitted with Sea Sparrows and Phalanx CIWS. But they were still obselete.

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

If the aircraft, submarines, and cruisers don't get it first

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

100% are in range of aircraft.

and battleships are relavtively cheap to build and operate,

They are incredably expensive to build and operate. That is the primary reason they were finally decommissioned. They are simply too expensive for the very limited role they play.

Seriousily, give it up. I too am a battleship fan. I've toured the USS Alabama, and the USS Texas and found them to be very awesome. Maybe one of these days, if I ever get to go to Hawaii, I will make sure to visit the Missouri and the Arizona Memorial. I love battleships, but I realize they are obselete, and have let them go. You should too.

[RayCav of ASVS]

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).

When I was aboard the Winsconsin (as a partial museum ship in mothballs), I suggested this idea to the Honor Guard and they actually liked it.

[Azeron]

"A carrier air wing can sustain firepower in any weather for days on end, but from much farther ranges."

1) they can only sustain intermittent firepower. drop bomb, fly back for a hour or more, reuel rearm, fly to hour more, drop bomb. repeat
Battleship keeps going till there is nothing left. And it can devlier consistant precise heavy ordience.

2) despite avaitation propaganda, all whether operations are more of a myth than reality. They rarely launch planes in bad whether or rain, fog, snow, sleet, and espeically frezzing rian.

Get over it. planes aint the be all to end all.

"The battleship, as an anti-surface weapon, is obselete. Get over it. "

Not according to the GAO, which calls the battleship the most cost effective waepon for many operations. especially with several key missions, including reducing fortifications to rubble.

"I doubt that. Fixed fortifications like those in Normandy are obselete along with the battleship. Moreover, in the Battle of Iwo Jima, the island was bombarded for days by battleships, yet when the Marines landed, they still took thousands of casualities. A battleship shell is inferior to a "bunker buster" when it comes to taking out hardened targets, especially those protected by earth."

Actually the newest in artilery ordiance for 16'' guns are superior to bunker busters. what can't be nailed in one shot can be followed by several other if need be. As for fixed fortifications, it depends on the level of technology between offense and defense, and that seems to change with time. To call foritications forever obsolete would probably be a mistatement. It appears that modern techology is putting fortifications back on the map for viability.

New artilery pieces including rounds designed specically to pierce targets and operate faster than the speed of sound. As a matter of fact a battleship was able to destry an earthworks defence with sseveral rounds what a fleet of b52 couy'dn't do in a year in vietnam. The North refused to negotiate peace until the USS new jersey left the pacfic. funny how the 4 aircraft carriers weren't a hinderence to the peace proccess, but the lone battleship was.

Next air crews are put into jeapordy everytime we send them out. no such concern for shells. Allot pilots would still be with us here if the 80% of tragets in vietnam were taken out with the battleship than planes.

"Even a two thousand pound bomb?"

Although I think bombing ww2 style with ships is out of style, with moredn armour tech, we should be able to design ships to withstand much more than 2000lb bombs. thats if you get close enough., we rack it up with missles aegis style, adios ameigos. Armour has come along way since ww2.

Exocet and sunburn missles are completely useless against an Iowa class battleship. Amrour is too think. Maybe tomahawks as well, I am not sure.

see above quote from soviet admiral above.

As for energy weapons like lasers, if we designed a new ship with a modern nuclear reactor core, it would be feasible to mount extremely powerful lasers on board. the ones currently planned by the airforce are using chemically stored energy and will be able to shoot down missles. I think nuclear powered lasers could shoot down missles and airplanes with great ease.

"Where did you hear this? "
Why do you think the navy is so desperate to develope EMP missles? it was a navy briefing held on tv earlier this year, or late last year.
What do you think is going to happen to all those wonderful electronics when an emp pulse hits your plane?

"What energy weapons? Besides, the Iowa's were refitted with Sea Sparrows and Phalanx CIWS. But they were still obselete. "

We could load them up with 128 missles of various sorts and load up with more anti missle defenses making them pretty deadly pound for pound than anything on the sea.
http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/fsao/fsao10.htm

"100% are in range of aircraft. "
now thats news to me. could you please refer me to the resource which points out how planes can reach every point on the planet. Even with refueling, we need a base to operate refueling with. even then its intermittent bombing. I am not saying that a battleship is good in every instance, but even with 1940's ships the missle upgrages make it far more leathal and effiecnet and many jobs aircraft can't perform adequately like providing support for troops in an amphibous assualt.

"They are incredably expensive to build and operate. That is the primary reason they were finally decommissioned. They are simply too expensive for the very limited role they play. "

Compared to million dollar missles to fire every time no matter how much more sense artilerly makes? Compared to man intensive aircraft carriers? They are cheap by comparison, and give you more bang for your buck in many situations. With the new ordience, it brings the battleship into a whole new era of effectiveness, being able to precisely hit targets 100 miles away with its main guns (GPS enabled smart munition), and missles beyond that.

look at the missle crusiers it would send at it. it would go toe to toe with a missle enable battleship, which has much more armour and is faster than anything else the navy has (in capital class that is) modern ships are dsiabled by rather small explosions, (USS Cole).

I have friends in the marines, and even relatives, the one thing they want when doing an amphibious operation is battleshipos. they don't trust aircraft with a hardened enemy. they want somethign thats going to keep on delivering massive hurt and not fly away and not sea them for an hour or more.

I would also like to point out that the planes also pounded Iwo Jima as well as battleships, but the General in command of the japs was only afraid of the Battleships.

But the question is, do you beleive it becasue the evidence exists of thier inapropriateness in this modern age, or is it some idealogy that you heard over and over again and developed a bias. When I look at the battleahip's history of effecitveness over the past 50 years, I don't see failure, I see success, and the admiration of the people who have some to rely on them, and the fear of the enemy that only a devestating weapon can bring. Granted the aricraft carrier did a wonderful job in ww2, and did prove its worth, I don;t think the battleship should totally give way in the mixed force balance.

All a battleship is a weapons platofrm, 16 inch gun weapon's platform. Thats got to count for something.

[Sea Skimmer]

Proper support? Take a look a Sicily, not a single battleship or 8-inch cruiser fired in support of those landings. There were the whole of FOUR guns over 6 inches to cover eight divisions landing at once.

And all counter attacks were defeated, and the beachheads were rapidly exploited. Then we have Salrno, here once again other then some old 15 inch guns on two monitors all support was 6 and 5 inch. One monitor soon struck a mine and had to withdraw.

Yet these hips provided all the fire support, and stopped the Germans six-division counter attack. By the time battleships arrived, the German commanders had already halted the counter attack, because of the damaged caused by US Army artillery and naval gunfire, at that time the only monitor on hand fired just 59 rounds, all in the British sector which was not under heavy attack. The Warspite fired the whole of 29 rounds before being crippled and the Valiant perhaps twice that.

I can name another TWO DOZEN invasions which where launched and seceded against heavy opposition without anything over 8 inches in support, some with nothing over 5 inch but that would be a waste of time.

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.

Yes the all mighty 16/11 sabot round. The one that no plans exist for, was never studied and in fact exists only as a set of slides for a single presentation? Yes that shell? That round is a pipe dream, I doubt the slides could even be found, its been 17 years.

Imperious? Even if we built a 250,000 ton ship existing missiles would still put a HEAT jet through one side and out the other. And armor can not offer any protection against torpedo strikes.

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

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.

Iowas TDS is little better.

And of cours modern torpedos can have up to three times the explosive force, which is normaly an under the keel detonation.

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."

I've seen much that says that quotes a fraud. And given the heavy biased agenda of USNFAS, and the out right lies in 95% of the stuff on there site, I'm inclined to disregard it.

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

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..




hey RayCav, Your idea already exists in one form. POLAR was devoloped and tested, but never funded for pecurment just like LASM. Basicly its a pack of four MRLS missiles which fit into a VLS cell.

They have boosters for added range, but otherwise are standard bomblet rounds.


Currently the USN has more then twice as many VLS cells as it has missiles to put in them, so i dont think it would be pointful to spend money modfying ships to carry even MORE missiles.

Better to work on filling those already on hand. Evn with only 1/3 of the fleet ever needing a load out, there are still shortages. Most Ticos only have about 50-70 weapons on board dispte having 128 cells.

That’s the glory of Clinton. Expend weapons already in short supply and don’t replace them..

[Enlightenment]

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.

[Admiral Piett]

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

[Admiral Piett]

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.

[Doomriser]

Sure a battleship can bombard the shore more cheaply than a guided missile cruiser...
...BUT...
A battleship needs just as many escorts as a carrier. In fact, since it goes closer to shore, it is even more vulnerable to attack. Therefore, it is more cost effective to have a carrier 200km away than a battleship 50km away. So it costs at least as much to deploy a BB in enemy waters as a carrier. But a carrier is multi-role. The carrier is more cost-effective in the long run.

[Azeron]

"Yes the all mighty 16/11 sabot round. The one that no plans exist for, was never studied and in fact exists only as a set of slides for a single presentation? Yes that shell? That round is a pipe dream, I doubt the slides could even be found, its been 17 years. "

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.

In yugoslavia, the serbs made wooden replicas of tanks to fool bombers, which were very effective, since very few tanks were in hit in the kososvo conflict. Does that mean planes are useless?

"Imperious? Even if we built a 250,000 ton ship existing missiles would still put a HEAT jet through one side and out the other. And armor can not offer any protection against torpedo strikes."

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

[RayCav of ASVS]

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.

Battleship rounds aren't guided too. I'm sure a stablized launcher could be developed. It's just an idea anyway.

[Sea Skimmer]

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.

Not If I land base my F/A-18s, I was talkign about shore defences not carriers. For the 180odd million needed to keep one Iowa going each year I could support several squadrons worth of F/A-18s, and in reality I'd only need two planes total to take care of one. Four if it has an escort.

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.

Not it would not have. Somthing often ignored is that three escorts had radar locks on the over flying aircraft. Had there been thought to be a threat of attack, they would have been splashed.

Indeed, the ROE in force would have allowed those planes to be shot down anyway. No one fired because people know the Russians are sane.

The Carrier its self could have done it with its Sea Sparrows or RAM BTW.

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 first laser systems are not being deployed till 2006, and currently are still in testing and are not mobile. As for naval use, corrosive and blooming effects of sea spray make there use quite limited.

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)

The USN only got new frigates in the 1970s because of the need for lots of cheep open ocean ASW escorts. Current plans call for NO new frigates for several decades at least, and the replacement of the existing ones by DD-21.

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.

Bull shit plane and simple.

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.

More bull shit. In the whole of WW2 carrier armor stopped just ONE bomb, and it was just 50 kilograms.

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.

So you call a Pazner division and an Italian Armored Brigade against infantry with no shore based artillery or armor very little resistance? More bull once again.

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?

In the Falklands unarmored UK destroyer and frigates kept fighting after hits that sank cruisers in WW2.

Armor can no offer protection against modern threats. Modern designers have opt for active defences and stronger construction. This has worked out very well as the Falklands and Gulf proved dozens of times.

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.

Artillery is quite useful and I am not claiming other wise. However armor and very heavy guns such as those found on battleships are not.

Few armys have any artillery over 155mm, and none anything over 8 inch, with most discarding such guns. They have found that anything bigger is not useful. That is why modern naval gunfire support os going for a mix of 155mm and 127mm fire, rather then 16 inch guns on battleship.

[RadiO]

The Iowas had a last moment of glory in the 80s, but really their time has passed. They were reactivated as fast, heavy surface combatants to face down the threats of the large Soviet cruisers with their heavy anti-ship missile batteries and (in the case of the old Serdlov class) 6-inch guns. The refitted BBs carried a then-heavy loadout of 32 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons. However, the Iowas' tenure as the USN's premier heavy surface strike platform was fairly short; the four-round Tomahawk Armoured Box Launchers carried by the Iowas were soon superceded by the 32 or 64 round Vertical Launch System, which allows a single Spruance class destroyer to theoretically carry twice the Tomahawk loadout of an Iowa. You could refit an Iowa with VLS, but the problem there is that it would involve cutting into the ship's decks and making massive internal modifications; the ABL seems to have been a relatively simple external mount.
The heavy armour that could reportedly shrug off hits from light ASMs like the Harpoon and Exocet would be severely tested by heavier ASMs used in force by the Soviets, as well as a newer generation of missiles capable of making pop-up attacks - plus, of course, the impact of any ASM might cause enough damage to sensors, antennas and the Iowa's new weapons to mission-kill the ship.
There really isn't much in the world now that honestly requires the touch of the 16-inch main battery that is the Iowas' only remaining USP. If there is still a need for a heavy shore bombardment capability, maybe they could resurrect the monitor concept. That one role doesn't really justify the speed, heavy armour or massive manpower that even a single Iowa requires. I suspect building a new lightly armoured hull, fitted with modern automated machinery and a triple 16-inch turret would still be cheaper in the long run. The age of having a big fuck-off surface combatant, running around the oceans vanquishing enemies with heavy guns and large missile batteries are really gone in these days of saturation ASM attacks. Nobody else has anything at sea that a Spruance or a Burke can't beat down, so what would a battleship really be to the USN other than an expensive liabilty to be escorted by ships that are probably of equal combat power?

[phongn]

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.

The displacement of that ship would be extraordinary, and could still be crippled by even something as small as HARM. If you knock out the sensors on it it becomes combat ineffective - it'll be blind to any attack incoming and you can't armor a ship to reject an incoming airstrike with 2000-lb penetrators.

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

Torpedos do not strike the hull of ships. They detonate underneath ships, breaking the keel. Ever see the results of a torpedo hit?

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.

No, they understood that increasing armor on a ship was a losing proposition and decided to go for active defenses, such as aircraft and SAMs (guns are not very effective for CIWS and are being replaced by PDMS).

[Admiral Piett]

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.

Money,money,money.Why would you spend money for a round that can be fired only from the guns of four ships with not all that much service life left while instead you could spend it for system that could be deployed on large numbers of current and future ships?

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.

It cannot be done,or at least it is highly impractical.The weight,without speaking about the cost,of the armor needed is too much.If you think that it is already difficult to protect a frontal section of a tank from small antitank missiles,to protect a modern battleship from much larger antiship missiles (many of them have a shaped charge warhead) is simply not worth,if it is not impossible.
The best thing is avoiding of being hit.If hit,containing the damage with damage control system,antisplinters armor and redundancy is the best thing to do.

You 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?

Wrong.Modern torpedoes do not open a hole in the hull.They explode under the keel.They create with explosion a gas bubble that will leave the hull,damaged by the initial blast, without support from the water,causing horrendous structural damage.Small ships literally break in two.Armor does not help.Actually it makes things worse.

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

Probably it will be inefficient.The propulsion systems for a ship of that size will make too much noise for the sonar to work well.

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

Yes

"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.

Shore defenses are often equipped with antiship missiles batteries,which will be a danger for your battleship like for every other ship.Minehunters are better suited for the minehunting job.


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?

Armour against what?
Mines?Armor does not help.
SSKs?Again armor does not help.
Antiship missiles batteries?Armor does not help much.
A 155 mm battery?Mmm... What about eliminating it with a LASM?

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.

I am glad to inform you that the project is gone.

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 development cost of a fully automated 16 inches gun system will be prohibitive.

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

To insulate a battleship against an EMP attack you will need electronic circuitry impervious to EMP.And with that you can build EMP impervious aircrafts and carriers.

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.

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.

Probably a laser is just a little better than a RAM.

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)

The Perry class frigates decommissioned are replaced by destroyers.A destroyer is a multimission ship and it is felt that its flexibility is more useful than larger number of specialized frigates.

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.

Armor does not help much.Besides a battleship is an expensive capital ship.
Are you going to risk it to some stupid mine?I doubt.You will send a destroyer in anyway.

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.

British carriers armored decks were not considered a success either.Wooden decks can be patched easily in anyway.

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.

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.

For this reasons they are working on the ERGM for the 127 mm gun.

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

Yes like when they said that battleships would have been very useful for the war against terror.Maybe they could have put tracks under them in order to use them in Afghanistan...

Sorry,artillery IS useful.But a battleship is NOT.Her spectrum of missions is limited and its costs are high.You can field equivalent systems for an inferior cost.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

If a BB can only shore bombardment, it's worthless. They cost a hell of alot, missles will be made to kill them

[LordChaos]

There are only a few areas wehre Battleships such as the Iowas still maintain an advantage over anything else.

1 - fire support. While the ERGM and DD-21 are the wave of the future, they are the future, not the present. Between now and their going active in numbers, there's no other fire support platform even nearing the capabilites of a BB. For you avaiation fans, yes, carrier air power can do some, but not as much, as fast, as constantly, or as quickly (response time).

2 - replenishment/repair/refurbish. The machine shop on the Iowas is only equalled/bested by that of dedicated refurbishment ships and land based shops. Their fuel bunkerage is only matched or exceeded by dedicated tankers.

There are also, IIRC, some CiC facilites on the Iowas that are only matched by dedicated flagship vessels.

Additionaly, a BB is an unequaled "show the flag" vessel. You don't want CVs that close in possible danger areas, current cruisers and lesser ships aren't nearly as impressive (and, to be honest, nether is a CV even), and subs are best kept hidden. A BB is a visible pressence, and one that anyone who can see it isn't going to ignore.

However, the negitives of BBs are also bit. They are manpower intensive (only CVs require more personal). They are expensive finacialy as well. They are limited in uses, making it hard to justify the expense. Some of their equipment is hard to find qualified individuals to run (though none of it is unique yet).

Overall, at this time, their negitives outweigh their possitives. But that may not remain the case forever.

[His Divine Shadow]

Hopefully in time, with new tech and such, refitted batleships or new vessels based somewhat on the battleships might be feasible.

They are cool though