I read somewhere online about someone's suggestion to bring back the Iowa's again. I think its time to let the Iowa's go they were great in their time but they are over 60 years old. However I do see the need for a new class of battleship. The best argument made in the article was the fact the almost all current and planned ships are soft (i.e. unarmored) and that a battleship would be able to shrug off blows from numerous missiles. Also the sheer power of the 16 inch guns is a great psycological weapon. Another part of the article suggests creating a small landing pad for F-35B VSTOL aircraft and ASW helicopters on the Iowa's. I think all of these are great ideas but doing all this on 60 year old hulls which require a crew of 2,000 to operate is too much. I would love to see a whole new class of battleships designed for the 21st century. They would be heavily armored, be built around 9 16 inch guns, be stealthy. be highly automated, have a large supply of missiles, be eqipped with the aegis system, and be able to operate 3-4 ASW and AEW helicopters. I bet the marines would love to have a ship like this. I don't see this necessarily as a replacement to the DD(X) but I think it would be just as effective , even more lethal and much less vulnerable. Especially if the 155mm guns being prepared for the DD(X) were designed to fit the BB(X) as secondary armament.
Battleships BB(x)
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
This suggestion got a very complete going over on a number of threads a couple of months ago. The point made then appears relavant, why bother wiht the mass and expense of 16" gus when the current systems and missiles will do. In the 30's it took up to 10 years to manufacture the guns for a battleship and they were tooled up for it.fylr71 said:
The biggest 'modern' system developed was the prototype 203mm (8") system of the 70's tested on the USS Hull and that was not proceeded with due to cost considerations. This mount was a pretty big unit due to need to automate the laoding;
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-h/dd945-l.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm
Successfully automating a system capable of handling a 16" round would be a real deveolmental nightmare both in cost and complexity not to meantion the weight impact upon the vessel. The breach block on a 16" gun alone is about 1400 pounds.
The 155mm offers economies of scale and interoperability in ammunition production noting it s a NATO standard round in land based arty and looks like be adopte at sea by a number of Western navys. This is probably the reason it has been selected for DDX but more informed people than me would know for sure.
The 203mm looks like an impressive weapon and was apparently successful, the fact that it has not been developed for DDX suggests the 155mm is considered sufficient.
abramsteve
New Member
Bring em back! They're real warships not like the plastic toy boats of modern navies!
Sorry Im a great Iowa lover! Back to reality though, isnt the cost of a 16inch shell cheaper than that of a land attack Tomahawk, or any type of JDAM? Granted the possibility for collateral damage is increased massivley by an unguided high yield shell, but what of this talk of guided munitions of this kind? Then again my previous argument of cost may backfire if that were the case.
I wouldnt have though weight would be that great an issue if the ship was designed with this type of main weapons system in mind from the keel up. 5inch guns have all ways seemed a little pathetic to me, 6inch not that much better but imagine the psycholgical affects if, for example, when the HMAS Anzac had fired in support ground forces(im not sure whose) during the last Gulf War, she had been firing 12inch rounds...
Sorry Im a great Iowa lover! Back to reality though, isnt the cost of a 16inch shell cheaper than that of a land attack Tomahawk, or any type of JDAM? Granted the possibility for collateral damage is increased massivley by an unguided high yield shell, but what of this talk of guided munitions of this kind? Then again my previous argument of cost may backfire if that were the case.
I wouldnt have though weight would be that great an issue if the ship was designed with this type of main weapons system in mind from the keel up. 5inch guns have all ways seemed a little pathetic to me, 6inch not that much better but imagine the psycholgical affects if, for example, when the HMAS Anzac had fired in support ground forces(im not sure whose) during the last Gulf War, she had been firing 12inch rounds...
Weight is a hugh issue if you intend to carry the armour and the guns. Regarless of what you may have heard the IOWA class were not as well armoured as contemporares in an effort to improve range and speed. The KGV class were very well armoured but had short legs and a speed of only 28 knots.
Any addition to mass involves a significant increase in power requried to achieve a particular speed and the realtionship is logrithmic for higher speeds. this equates to massive increase in operating costs for a given waterplane area. An armoured automatic 16" system is likley to weight more than the original so we will be looking at a hull in the order of 60000 plus tonnes for 9 guns and the other systems. It will probably need nuclear propulsion (i.e billions in cost) and for that money I would rather buy another aircarft carrier.
It is possible a 'guided' 16" sheel may be cheaper than tomahawk but it is also highly that the cost of devealoping the delivery system, intergrating it in a hull with the desired speed and range and then operating that vessel would end up costing you more overall than a large purchase of tomahawks.
if we want to go up a knotch why not look at the Mk 71 8", at least the development work is done and it can fit on a DDG size hull.
Any addition to mass involves a significant increase in power requried to achieve a particular speed and the realtionship is logrithmic for higher speeds. this equates to massive increase in operating costs for a given waterplane area. An armoured automatic 16" system is likley to weight more than the original so we will be looking at a hull in the order of 60000 plus tonnes for 9 guns and the other systems. It will probably need nuclear propulsion (i.e billions in cost) and for that money I would rather buy another aircarft carrier.
It is possible a 'guided' 16" sheel may be cheaper than tomahawk but it is also highly that the cost of devealoping the delivery system, intergrating it in a hull with the desired speed and range and then operating that vessel would end up costing you more overall than a large purchase of tomahawks.
if we want to go up a knotch why not look at the Mk 71 8", at least the development work is done and it can fit on a DDG size hull.
abramsteve
New Member
The Iowa's were designed as 'fast' battle wagons to accompany carrier groups if I remember correctly. The real tough girls were to be the Montana class which unfortunatley (IMO anyways) never built.
My original thinking was based on the fact that the Missouri survived a direct Kamikaze hit on the starboard (I think) side of her lower superstructure. I figured if she could take a hit like that with little damage, she could take a hit from a missile as well. Looking back I wont even try to compare the variable in the difference of explosive force between the two, so I understand that my thinking was flawed!
I also forgot about the weight issues associated with automatic load
All the images I have seen of the DDX show her to have only two, single mount guns (Im not sure of the size). What ever happened to dual mounts? What are some of the reasons they have fallen out of favor? Two, dual 8 inchers would be impressive, and would solve some fire support issues....
My original thinking was based on the fact that the Missouri survived a direct Kamikaze hit on the starboard (I think) side of her lower superstructure. I figured if she could take a hit like that with little damage, she could take a hit from a missile as well. Looking back I wont even try to compare the variable in the difference of explosive force between the two, so I understand that my thinking was flawed!
I also forgot about the weight issues associated with automatic load All the images I have seen of the DDX show her to have only two, single mount guns (Im not sure of the size). What ever happened to dual mounts? What are some of the reasons they have fallen out of favor? Two, dual 8 inchers would be impressive, and would solve some fire support issues....
Here are couple of threads about this topic that may help with the discussion:
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
I wasn't aware the 203 was navalized I think that would be a great idea to mount them on some type of hybrid between DD(X) and the Iowa's. We need something that is sleek and stealthy like DD(X) but still has the huge firepower of the Iowa's. Reactivating the Iowa's which are 60 year old hulls is a stopgap measure to the need for a new type of ship.
The British armoured aircarft carriers of WWII (illusrious and co) could also take a direct Kamikaze hit and still operate with very limited damage. It comes down to the pentaring effect of the aircraft and its load.abramsteve said:My original thinking was based on the fact that the Missouri survived a direct Kamikaze hit on the starboard (I think) side of her lower superstructure. I figured if she could take a hit like that with little damage, she could take a hit from a missile as well. Looking back I wont even try to compare the variable in the difference of explosive force between the two, so I understand that my thinking was flawed!
All the images I have seen of the DDX show her to have only two, single mount guns (Im not sure of the size). What ever happened to dual mounts? What are some of the reasons they have fallen out of favor? Two, dual 8 inchers would be impressive, and would solve some fire support issues....
Multi barrel mounts are harder to automate and have the problem of an off centre throw due tothe recoil forces being off center in relation to the pivot point of the mount. Given the rate of fire and accuracy of the new mounts (guided mutions etc) it seems unnecessary to have the added mass and complexity of a twin barrel.
When the battleships were brought back during the 1980s, a number of issues appeared. For starters, the powder was accidently mixed, ruining the powder. New powder bags had to be made, because the old bags were ragged. The last of the barrel liners were used. There was no detailed information whatsoever for the backup diesel generators. The company that made them claimed they never did. To repair one of the boilers, they had to cut through 3 feet of armour to reach it. The new CIC was place in the officers wardroom, the only room air conditioned, which taxed the old electric plant. Many of the secondary electronics remained with vaccum tubes, the newer electronics installed were analog, not digital. During their second life equipment breakdowns were record breaking. They are simply to expensive to man and to keep functional.
While there are 15,000 16-inch shells in storage, not much of any other part is. Most of the equipment onboard were made by subcontractors that don't exist today. Admiral Clark, the previous CNO is quoted as saying the Iowa class battleships are "logistically unsupportable." The ships are like bringing back two WWII Mustangs to replace two modern F-15 Eagles. Its best we preserve them as museum artifacts, as they are rare and obsolete in every sense.
In the two wars they were in service during their second life, they were not used for an amphibious assault. In fact, the 5-inch and 3-inch guns of our destroyers and frigates were used considerably, the 16-inch guns weren't. The Marine Corps do not do frontal beach assaults today, there is no reason to bring them back.
The weapon used were their tomahawk missiles, an item that cruisers and destroyers carry more of. And the aircraft from the carriers expended much more missiles and guided bombs than the battleships.
1500 crew of one battleship is equivalent to the crews of 5 Arleigh Burke destroyers. The Navy would rather have 5 Arleigh Burke destroyers in the fleet than one oboslete and difficult to maintain expensive battleship. Its really that simple.
The Navy did test an automatic 8-inch gun during the 1980s, and are testing an automatic 6-inch gun today.
Yes, 16-inch guns are impressive, but they have long been replaced.
While there are 15,000 16-inch shells in storage, not much of any other part is. Most of the equipment onboard were made by subcontractors that don't exist today. Admiral Clark, the previous CNO is quoted as saying the Iowa class battleships are "logistically unsupportable." The ships are like bringing back two WWII Mustangs to replace two modern F-15 Eagles. Its best we preserve them as museum artifacts, as they are rare and obsolete in every sense.
In the two wars they were in service during their second life, they were not used for an amphibious assault. In fact, the 5-inch and 3-inch guns of our destroyers and frigates were used considerably, the 16-inch guns weren't. The Marine Corps do not do frontal beach assaults today, there is no reason to bring them back.
The weapon used were their tomahawk missiles, an item that cruisers and destroyers carry more of. And the aircraft from the carriers expended much more missiles and guided bombs than the battleships.
1500 crew of one battleship is equivalent to the crews of 5 Arleigh Burke destroyers. The Navy would rather have 5 Arleigh Burke destroyers in the fleet than one oboslete and difficult to maintain expensive battleship. Its really that simple.
The Navy did test an automatic 8-inch gun during the 1980s, and are testing an automatic 6-inch gun today.
Yes, 16-inch guns are impressive, but they have long been replaced.
abramsteve
New Member
I hope you havent got the wrong idea from one of my previous posts.Sea Toby said:
I actually dont see the logic of returning the Iowa's to service, mainly for the reasons you have stated above. Just have an unhealthy love of them. However I do see the need for heavier calibre guns on future naval vessels, hence my interest in this topic. I believe that effective naval fire support requires heavier ordanance (based purely on my opinion). I dont believe in the all/only missile armed warship. If guided munitions are cheaper than missiles, and can provide the same level of support, then I am currious to know why there are not more guns mounted on modern warships? The two mounts on the DDX seems suggest that perhaps there is some value in naval artillery.
Another question though. The littoral combat ship, to me, seems to be an ideal platform for mounting multiple guns... 6 inchers maybe.... surley they would be usefull when operating close to a hostile coast?
meatball88
New Member
Some thoughts
The massive firepower and the thick armour are all good in a battleship but these would mean that it is big, very big. Being big has many downsides. One of which is the difficulty in trying to make it look smaller on an enemy radar. In a time of war, this would surely be an invitation for a dozen, perhaps more, anti-ship missiles to come for purposes other than a social call.
Though I do admit that in times of peace (which is most of the time, I hope) this would be a very good show for power for the navy.
The massive firepower and the thick armour are all good in a battleship but these would mean that it is big, very big. Being big has many downsides. One of which is the difficulty in trying to make it look smaller on an enemy radar. In a time of war, this would surely be an invitation for a dozen, perhaps more, anti-ship missiles to come for purposes other than a social call.
Though I do admit that in times of peace (which is most of the time, I hope) this would be a very good show for power for the navy.
I also doubt that you are able to protect a ship against the impact of half a dozen russian made AS-missiles like shipwreck, sandbox or sunburn with their heavy loads and pop-up-attacks. Those missiles were build to penetrate the deck of CV(N)s and you would for sure get a mission kill if you hit a new battleship from above. And a mission kill is enough. After it is crippled you could kill it with LGBs or torpedos if it is near enough or just fullfill your mission without being disturbed by the battleship.
With a battleship you have a very spezialised unit with a small window of possible operations which is very expensive and not easy to maintain.
With a battleship you have a very spezialised unit with a small window of possible operations which is very expensive and not easy to maintain.
abramsteve
New Member
Meatball and Waylander, the size of a 'new' battleship would not make it any more or less a target than an aircraft carrier. As such it has the same chance of survival, if not more, should it be attacked by enemy missiles (of any make). I doubt it would be a 'go it alone' vessel and therefore be protected by a similar size battlegroup as a carrier.
However I think Waylander has hit the critical argument against such ships. They wouldnt be very multi-purpose, thus decreasing their worth to most modern navies.
Then again it depends on what would be classified as a modern battleship. Are we talking about a 45,000tonn Iowa type ship, 9x 16inchers and 20x 5inchers....
Or could a modern battleship be simillar in size to a crusier with more and heavier guns along with a variety of missiles.... Could it be a multi role combat vessel, equaly well equiped to deal with ASW AAW and a significant land attack capability????
However I think Waylander has hit the critical argument against such ships. They wouldnt be very multi-purpose, thus decreasing their worth to most modern navies.
Then again it depends on what would be classified as a modern battleship. Are we talking about a 45,000tonn Iowa type ship, 9x 16inchers and 20x 5inchers....
Or could a modern battleship be simillar in size to a crusier with more and heavier guns along with a variety of missiles.... Could it be a multi role combat vessel, equaly well equiped to deal with ASW AAW and a significant land attack capability????
In the past 60 years new generations of explosives have been brought forward, I wonder whether we need the throw weight of a 16-inch shell. The Army appears to be happy with 6-inch shells and the MLRS missiles.
Besides, the Marines have helicopters today, and can easily land up to 150 miles inland. I doubt whether the 20 mile range of the 16-inch guns will be more useful than the 10 mile range of a 5-inch gun.
Bringing back battleships seems to me to be a waste of money and effort. During the Lebanon campaign the extended range of the big guns were not useful because of the terrain, hitting targets on the other side of a hill or mountain.
Besides, the Marines have helicopters today, and can easily land up to 150 miles inland. I doubt whether the 20 mile range of the 16-inch guns will be more useful than the 10 mile range of a 5-inch gun.
Bringing back battleships seems to me to be a waste of money and effort. During the Lebanon campaign the extended range of the big guns were not useful because of the terrain, hitting targets on the other side of a hill or mountain.
I never said anything about the size making it a special target. I said that it is to easy to inflict a mission kill with modern weapons even with heavy armor.
I navalize 155mm and MLRS is the right way. It looks like we are going to do this with our new F125 class.
These systems have enough range and many different types of ammo. And if you want, you can also produce an old style steel rain with them.
I navalize 155mm and MLRS is the right way. It looks like we are going to do this with our new F125 class.
These systems have enough range and many different types of ammo. And if you want, you can also produce an old style steel rain with them.
contedicavour
New Member
Can't we just say that modern artillery has sufficient range and speed to generate one hell of a covering fire onshore ... so no need to bring back to service the 406-mm guns.
The Italian-Dutch "Vulcano/Strales" programme for example shoots 25 rounds a minute of 127-mm up to 70 km AND these rounds are guided ammunition !
I can however understand the fascination those wonderful Iowa battleships can inspire since I did visit the Missouri in 1991
cheers
The Italian-Dutch "Vulcano/Strales" programme for example shoots 25 rounds a minute of 127-mm up to 70 km AND these rounds are guided ammunition !
I can however understand the fascination those wonderful Iowa battleships can inspire since I did visit the Missouri in 1991
cheers
abramsteve
New Member
Sorry I was trying to make a point on both yours and meatball's arguments! Didnt quite turn out right! Sorry bout that mate!Waylander said:
I hate all of you for bringing up a BB thread... let em R.I.P.! The day of the BB was over in 1941. They were only left in service so long b/c of the expense it took to build them and their practicallity of naval bombardment. Reagans decision to rearm in response to Kirov BCs was a waste IMO of funds. The cost to maintain these huge ships is ridiculous. In these times of reduced manpower the BB eats up this to the max, accept a Nimitz but thats outta the ballpark in firepower. There is no way your going to get a 16' shell to go 80-100nm. Putting rocket assistance on these shells would make them ICBMs :lol3. I noticed the armor argument... do you think she can stop the penetration of torpedoes exploding under the keel? Do you think she can withstand many hits of 750kg shipwreck missiles? If we put these monsters to sea the enemy will just make bigger warheads to get whatever armor we put on them. The future of surface warfare is not bigger guns, heavier missiles and thicker armor... It's EM-Railguns,(which will never be strong enough for BB reqs) ABM lasers and stealth... all of which big gun ships cannot fill.
Hey don't hate me on this one. I have being trying to throw cold water of the idea of a big gun armoured BB(x) in this and the preivous threads.Big-E said:
The big gun system mass just done not add up if you want a balanced platform and, as I said, if you want to add armour you would probably end up wiht a 60000 tonne plus monster that needs nuclear propulsion to be effective not to mention the considerabel cost of tryng to automate a large calibre gun.
Nup, spend the money on aircarft carriers, modern low footprint (RCS, noise signature etc) combatants and submarines. Sadly the big gunned armoured BB is where it belongs ..... in, or as, a museam.
Interesting thought, but...
As I read this thread, another thought comes to mind. Iowa Class battleships, as tough and nasty as they are, were built over 60 years ago. That was back when a dollar bought something like 10 or 20 times what it does today. It was also a time when we had the heavy industrial base to support that kind of **massive** construction project.
Building a ship the size of the Iowas, with that kind of heavy armor, today, would mean that "modern weapons" within that hull would be **cheap** compared to the cost of the hull itself! Building a ship with hull armor proof against 16" "naval rifles" is simply too expensive a proposition in today's overpriced world...which is one reason why we have never undertaken to build a "modernized" Iowa.
The other is that we simply lack the manufacturing and foundary base to get the job done: we probably don't even have the skilled work force which would have the expertise to do the job - most of the old shipyard workers with those skills are long since retired...if not long since pushing up the daisies. Heck, my own father was born in 1925, which means he was 17 when he was drafted in 1942, right out of high school, and he's been dead for almost 30 years, now!
As I read this thread, another thought comes to mind. Iowa Class battleships, as tough and nasty as they are, were built over 60 years ago. That was back when a dollar bought something like 10 or 20 times what it does today. It was also a time when we had the heavy industrial base to support that kind of **massive** construction project.
Building a ship the size of the Iowas, with that kind of heavy armor, today, would mean that "modern weapons" within that hull would be **cheap** compared to the cost of the hull itself! Building a ship with hull armor proof against 16" "naval rifles" is simply too expensive a proposition in today's overpriced world...which is one reason why we have never undertaken to build a "modernized" Iowa.
The other is that we simply lack the manufacturing and foundary base to get the job done: we probably don't even have the skilled work force which would have the expertise to do the job - most of the old shipyard workers with those skills are long since retired...if not long since pushing up the daisies. Heck, my own father was born in 1925, which means he was 17 when he was drafted in 1942, right out of high school, and he's been dead for almost 30 years, now!