Of course it is, it would also be a damn sight cheaper than the Zumwalts they're procuring now, even with only a single mount of 2x 8 inch naval guns (1970's era Major Caliber Light Weight Gun programme) you could put the equivalant of 24 small diameter bombs anywhere within 30km or so per minute (probably even further with modernised rounds and charges), I doubt an entire carrier air group could keep pace with that, and with the size that the USN is building it's boats at, and it's new Pro-Nuke doctrine it wouldn't take much effort to put a decent sized gun back on the high seas
Return of the battleship.
- Thread starter Tankcrewman2008
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battleship cannon guns ship weapons
- Status
Return of the battleships
Well, renovating a battleship costs less than building a new FFG So we will be saving money, but we only have about 16 spare barrles and about 20,000 shells left. But the unlimited industral capacity of the US of A can fix that. Call me an oldie but Guns are better than missles.
Well, renovating a battleship costs less than building a new FFG So we will be saving money, but we only have about 16 spare barrles and about 20,000 shells left. But the unlimited industral capacity of the US of A can fix that. Call me an oldie but Guns are better than missles.
That 1980's refit that "cost less than an FFG" was very limited in nature, it was basically enough to get the ships operational with some upgraded comms gear, ABL Tomahawks (the real reason they were brought back, they could carry more Tomahawks than any pre-VLS ship in service or in reserve), Phalanx and Harpoon. There were plans that if the reactivation ran over budget to leave the 16 inch guns in an inactive status. As soon as a decent number of VLS ships were commissioned or converted the Iowa's were again tossed back into reserves, they should of been broken up years ago and saved the USN the money wasted keeping them around.
Any reactivation of those relics would require the recreation of all the engineering schools that haven't existed for at least 15 years, which won't be cheap. The same issue would exist for the guns and the fire control system. Good luck finding quality sailors that are willing to go work on old boilers or mechanical computers.
Right now the USN is cutting manpower where possible, adding 4 VERY limited use ships that each require 1,800 men doesn't make sense. These are ships that are not suited for the modern maritime environment, they have only the most basic of defenses and need escorts. The armor belts may not protect against ASM's that hit differently than WW2 era gun fire, even if by some chance they do a missile that hits will still destroy radars, waveguides, antenna, directors and other exposed equipment resulting in a mission kill (making the ship useless), the torpedo protection installed won't help against modern ones that crack a ships keel. All that armor is a hindrance in a damage control situation, it is just dead weight when dealing with flooding.
The 16 inch guns themselves are not very good for fire support. They have a large danger fire radius and are too inaccurate to be used close to friendly troops. History shows that the best fire support comes from the 5-8 inch range, not large caliber naval guns.
John Sansom
New Member
There are few things finer than the sight of a battlewagon at flank speed...but it really does present a huge and very inviting target to an enemy adequately equipped with missiles of whatever variety (all anti-missile capabilities notwithstanding).
Being darned near 100-percent ignorant in this area, I'd sure appreciate some further opinion on this.
Being darned near 100-percent ignorant in this area, I'd sure appreciate some further opinion on this.
Well, it might be doable if the ships weapons were modular, ala the Danish Stanflex 300 ships. They are theoretically capable of carrying up to 4 5-Inch/54-caliber (Mk 45) lightweight guns. Granted, they have to ditch all other weapons systems and they'd have very limited traverse.
A ship designed around this concept can perform highly specialized missions and still be useful for other missions. (Swap the guns for VLS modules)
There is no Stanflex-mounted Mk45. The Mk45 on the Absalons doesn't use a Stanflex Gun Module, but a regular mountpoint. The Stanflex gun modules only come with a OTO 76mm or alternatively a 35mm Millenium Gun, and are not compatible with the "standard" Stanflex pallets anyway.
I doesn't? Goes to show how much I know. That aside, it doesn't disprove the concept though.
In an era when the Chinese are messing with ballistic missiles to strike aircraft carrier task groups, with several hundred ks of range, we are in the missile age. With the improvements with guided shells, much like guided bombs, a five inch gun has the capability to reach further than a legacy 16 inch gun.
I agree with AegisFC, the battlewagons are early twentieth century technology in the twenty-first century. OBSOLETE! Consume too much manpower. Sensors are totally unsupportable.
The Zumwalt program was a naval attempt to address amphibious gunfire support. Do we need larger ships that can carry more than 100 land attack cruise missiles? The US Navy has close to 100 ships which can do so if necessary already. Congress doesn't think we need anymore Zumwalts, that is why they decided to build more Burke class destroyers.
What the government wants is to build many less expensive LCSs. Ships capable of influencing the littoral environment better than the FFG-7s, and maintain an ocean escort ASW role as well.
I understand the glory capital ships represent, but its the McHale's navy that wins wars.
I agree with AegisFC, the battlewagons are early twentieth century technology in the twenty-first century. OBSOLETE! Consume too much manpower. Sensors are totally unsupportable.
The Zumwalt program was a naval attempt to address amphibious gunfire support. Do we need larger ships that can carry more than 100 land attack cruise missiles? The US Navy has close to 100 ships which can do so if necessary already. Congress doesn't think we need anymore Zumwalts, that is why they decided to build more Burke class destroyers.
What the government wants is to build many less expensive LCSs. Ships capable of influencing the littoral environment better than the FFG-7s, and maintain an ocean escort ASW role as well.
I understand the glory capital ships represent, but its the McHale's navy that wins wars.
i didn't read this whole thing so im sorry if i repeat what others have already said, but basically what you would get if you tried to reincarnate a battleship: a bigger slower and much more expensive cruiser. modern cruisers look lightly armored because it uses 5 inches of kevlar armor instead of steel, making its resistance level up there with the big boys. Also the former method of repelling torpedoes wouldn't work because of an key evolution in torpedo technology. torpedoes used to swim relatively close to the surface and hit warships at a point slightly below water level on the ship. to counter this WWII era ships had a ring of heavy army running around the ship, designed to be basically where torpedoes would hit. modern wire guided and electronically guided torpedoes do not function in the same way, mainly to allow submarines to be able to fire torpedoes from deeper depths and increase killing power. instead of hitting at about water level they aim for the bottom of the ships hull to "break its back" this would make the old method of protection completely obsolete. you also couldent add the armor to the bottom where modern torpedoes hit because the ship would become slow and its maneuverability would be extremely low. so you really wouldent even have to bother with an bigger badder ASM you could just put a torpedo in her back.
I agree completely, and so does the U.S. Marine Corp, but so far, no joy. All the Iowa class battleships are outfitted to take an Admiral and his Command Staff (old saying, an Admiral weighs 50 tons), negating the need for seperate command ships. U.S. Naval institute Proceedings had a series of articles on just that subject back in the late 90's.
Pull off the remaining 5 inch 38's, replace the ones on deck with 76mm Oto Melaras, and the superstructure mounted ones with Goalkeeper, replace the forward two engine rooms with unneeded nuclear reactors from the Sea Wolf program, and add two more Tomohawk launchers per side.
Nothing, not even a Kitchen, will penetrate the multiple layers of hull, armor belt, fuel/water tankage, and interior armor belt between the primary deck and the waterline, the superstructure is far too compartmentalized to be put out of action in less than 10 or 20 hits, and big missles like the Kitchen are just too easy to shoot down.
Especially easy for a ship with 9 16 inch (420 mm) guns. An airburst from a single 16 inch projectile leaves a hole in the universe 200 meters wide. Multiply that by 9, and the main battery becomes the most lethal AntiAircraftArtillery on the planet. With modified fusing it becomes a savagely effective anti-submarine weapon also, at ranges out to 45 kilometers.
Strap on a $1,500 dollar rocket booster to a $500 dollar shell, and a projectile as effective in most cases as a Tomahawk missle can be thrown almost 200 kilometers for 15% of the cost.
It has been fought by various members of the aerospace industry and their Congressional representatives, but it's an idea that won't go away, and it may happen yet. It is still the single most cost effective support vessel for Marine Corp amphibious landings in the world.
And the Iowa class ships aren't rusting hulks, but well maintained weapons that could put to sea as soon as a crew was found for them, a matter of a few weeks at most. Two of them have been fully modernized and outfitted with missle launchers and state of the art communications systems. Their fire controll systems can be linked with escorting AEGIS cruisers and Burke class destroyers.
I wouldn't hold my breath, but the possibility is still there, and the ships have at least another 20 years of usefull steaming in them.
If they could get there sure. But even if they did, an Iowa would last longer than any other ship afloat, and also protect (with heavy hydrogen liners) better against a neutron bomb than anything else afloat.
Also, at the Bikini Atoll test blast, the aircraft carrier Saratoga had an atom bomb chained to her hull 400 meters away and underwater where the shock wave would be dramatically magnified.
With no damage control, it took her almost a day to sink, and she started life as only a heavy cruiser, not a battleship.
Bottom line, no non-nuclear missle flying has more energy than a battleship's shell, and no American battleship was ever sunk when fully manned and underway. With dramatically inferior damage control compared to an American vessel, the Japanese battleship Yamato absorbed more than a hundred armor piercing bombs and 18 torpedos before she went under.
The primary reason the Iowas were reactivated was bombardment of the Iraqi desert positions in Desert Storm. The U.S. Navy put a bomb, missle, or battleship shell every 500 meters, every 45 minutes, for several weeks, before engaging the Iraqis. A battle hardened army, fresh off a hard fought victory against Iran in a war that lasted for years, was so shaken they surrendered in tears, begging for the explosions to stop. Most of the ordinance that landed within 40 kilometers of the ocean was 16 inch shells, at $500 dollars each.
And you wonder why the Marine Corp is desperately trying to get two battleships back in action?
Your battleship however is a huge target, and would require escorts. So it's not just a matter of updating the sensors, and getting a crew (which in itself is pricey) but also a matter of putting together an escort group for ASW and AAW. The battleship itself could hardly stop a single volley from a Kirovs 20 Shipwrecks. And the technology in those missiles is already decades old (meaning even relatively third world countries could get their hands on something not too far from it). In other words we end up with something that takes a lot of money. Not something useless, or crappy, but something that requires a lot of money to get operating. The question now is whether the capability it provides justifies taking money away from other things in the budget and spending it on reactivating the Iowas.
The Iowa class battleships are obsolete. Very few of the companies that built her parts still exist, finding any blueprints of those parts will most likely be impossible. They are electronic analog ships in a digital world. During their last operations twenty years ago some efforts were made to upgrade some of their electronics, but not nearly enough. Anyone recall vacuum tubes?
Every system is obsolete, including their human waste systems. Attempting to upgrade these systems will lead to the discovery of abestos. Zumwalt class destroyers are being built with guns that have more range than the Iowas. Learn to live with the Zumwalts.
Every system is obsolete, including their human waste systems. Attempting to upgrade these systems will lead to the discovery of abestos. Zumwalt class destroyers are being built with guns that have more range than the Iowas. Learn to live with the Zumwalts.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Don't you mean overpriced barrel launched missiles? If you are targeting something 100nm or so inland, you'd get a faster response from the shore based artillery that is most likely closer to the target.
Its for this reason i like the proposed RN 155mm gun better then the AGS.
I second the emotion brought forth by my esteemed colleague. However
the cost of the improvements would be really expensive and the over a
long distance the "air burst " would dissipate and be a useless waste
of money, The tomahawk replacements would also be a waste because the
shells+rocket boosters would be too large for the lifts and it would
take a couple to sink a ship due to targets CWIS because they would be
moving slower than tomahawks. Again to the air-bursts would not go far
enough into the water to sink a sub seeing as they operate sometimes
miles below the surface. Its a good idea but with many holes and too
costly for the Navy/United States budget.
the cost of the improvements would be really expensive and the over a
long distance the "air burst " would dissipate and be a useless waste
of money, The tomahawk replacements would also be a waste because the
shells+rocket boosters would be too large for the lifts and it would
take a couple to sink a ship due to targets CWIS because they would be
moving slower than tomahawks. Again to the air-bursts would not go far
enough into the water to sink a sub seeing as they operate sometimes
miles below the surface. Its a good idea but with many holes and too
costly for the Navy/United States budget.
Air bursts? What are these 16 inch airburst shells that you and your esteemed colleague Ewan55 referring to? There were only a couple of shells developed (HE, APC and Nuclear Mk 23) for these guns and none were what you'd call an airburst design like the Bofors AHEAD et al.
- Status