Future of the Battleship

[Marc 1]

I thought the US was moving away from the idea of contested landings Iwo Jima style?

Isn't that the reason they were moving toward LCAC and EFV (? the now cancelled planing APC) - so that they culd sit far enough offshore (beyond the horizon) and launch at a massive length of coast - crossing at the most uncontested spot.

OR...Airborne assault beyond the beaches enabled by V-22, CH-53K and its nearly doubled capacity to heavy lift.

Maybe the need isn't there?

 

[Lostfleet]

One of the questions we have to ask is how likely is there going to be an amphibious assault in the near future? Most of the recent operations always included a nearby or neighbour country acting as a staging post.

I think closest to an amphibious assault would happen in the terms of larger special operations rather than full scale invasion groups as Marc1 indicated.

Also to justify the battleship as a cruise missile carrying platform is not neccessary as you already have Ohio conversions as a perfect invisible cruise missile carrier.

As for the big guns, well next week the movie Battleship comes to theaters and lets see if the big guns can do damage to aliens or not, then we can decide if we need them

 

[PO2GRV]

I thought the US was moving away from the idea of contested landings Iwo Jima style? . . . Maybe the need isn't there?

it is certainly an interesting question. We assume that all operations in the present and near term will occur with complete air superiority (as they have for the US for the past 50 years?) which doesn't create an uncontested space but truly reduces the risk of casualties.

Will that always be the case though? Let's assume a hypothetical scenario of war with China or Russia strictly for the purposes of illustration. Both have capable air forces and robust anti-air defenses. How long can other operations, including ground forces, wait before air superiority is achieved? What if it isn't in the way the US has enjoyed for the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but I am actually puzzled by this question. Will the US concede to make a contested landing, and if not like D-Day or Iwo Jima with machinegun nests and bunkers (and antivehicular missiles in this day and age) then atleast with enemy air forces harrying the landing force and/or mobile ground forces launching a counteroffensive just inland? Or will the US continue the fight at arms length, surgically reducing the enemy war fighting capability and not committing anything to the ground until freedom of movement and control of the skies has been achieved, no matter how long it took?

If the answer is the first, then something survivable that can provide cheap, long-range, accurate, and devastating continuous fire on the enemy would be prudent, whether it was a battleship or not. If the second, then no you don't need battleships except for those bad summer action flicks

 

[Belesari]

I think they have found it simply doesnt make sense.

The Idea was to be back 50nm from shore and send in troops. This has proven to be all but impossible and really irrelevent. Most missiles Land/naval are capable of ranges far in excess of 50nm. That doesnt include aircraft etc.

Second at that range its gonna take over a hr to get to the shore which is plenty of time for the enemy to reposition his forces.

Effectively they would still know your destination except you wouldnt have the door kickers that the battelships, heavy cruisers, etc have provided in the past.

The EFV was simply WAY to ambitious and WAY WAY over priced. Basicly like all the other key projects of the last 20 or so years

The thing about the enemy is he gets a vote too. And sometimes a bigger vote.
We have pretty much explained to the world that the US can take any shore in the world for decades. So no one contest that. Move to where we cant? They will move to deny us amphib access.

There is a need for both air based and sea based amphibious ops.

I thought the US was moving away from the idea of contested landings Iwo Jima style?

Isn't that the reason they were moving toward LCAC and EFV (? the now cancelled planing APC) - so that they culd sit far enough offshore (beyond the horizon) and launch at a massive length of coast - crossing at the most uncontested spot.

OR...Airborne assault beyond the beaches enabled by V-22, CH-53K and its nearly doubled capacity to heavy lift.

Maybe the need isn't there?

 

[Belesari]

Lets not talk about that abortion of a movie.

it is certainly an interesting question. We assume that all operations in the present and near term will occur with complete air superiority (as they have for the US for the past 50 years?) which doesn't create an uncontested space but truly reduces the risk of casualties.

Will that always be the case though? Let's assume a hypothetical scenario of war with China or Russia strictly for the purposes of illustration. Both have capable air forces and robust anti-air defenses. How long can other operations, including ground forces, wait before air superiority is achieved? What if it isn't in the way the US has enjoyed for the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but I am actually puzzled by this question. Will the US concede to make a contested landing, and if not like D-Day or Iwo Jima with machinegun nests and bunkers (and antivehicular missiles in this day and age) then atleast with enemy air forces harrying the landing force and/or mobile ground forces launching a counteroffensive just inland? Or will the US continue the fight at arms length, surgically reducing the enemy war fighting capability and not committing anything to the ground until freedom of movement and control of the skies has been achieved, no matter how long it took?

If the answer is the first, then something survivable that can provide cheap, long-range, accurate, and devastating continuous fire on the enemy would be prudent, whether it was a battleship or not. If the second, then no you don't need battleships except for those bad summer action flicks

 

[colay]

Amphibious operations doctrine is evolving and the Marines-Navy team are at the forefront of exploring how new technologies and concepts can be used to their advantage. The emphasis is on maneuver warfare and the ability to quickly project force over far larger geographical areas, complicating an enemy's planning and forcing him to stretch his resources. The following is a good read for those who are interested in learning how future amphibious operations are likely to be conducted. It's important to not be fixated on just what happens on the beach as it's not even a given that amphibious landings will be required in all instances. And in those cases where landings are called for, the proper strategies and measures will be taken to shape the battle space in the most advantageous manner to favor the attacker.

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bold-Alligator-2012-Special-Report.pdf

 

[Wolf_of_Siberia]

Of course you need more than one type of weapon. Circumstance dictates the weapon to be used.

For an amphibious assault, nothing keeps the bad guys head down better than a continuous barrage of shell fire that is unceasing as the landing craft approach. It also does a great job of detonating mines placed in the area of the assault. You cannot do that with a cruise missile. You can, however, destroy fixed fortifications and radar emplacements further back from the front lines with them without endangering your more expensive (and manned) aircraft. Aircraft are most effective against ground targets when enemy air defenses have been reduced and air superiority has been achieved. Then the fly boys can concentrate on close air support for the Marines sprinting across the sand to victory

There hasn't been a landing like this since Vietnam. Battleships are good for one thing though, they are cheap, relatively speaking. The cost of a 16inch shell is much less than that of a Tomahawk missile. Battleships would be useful in conflicts like the recent one in Libya, were a lot of the targets could have been engaged by Naval shellfire. If range is an issue, why not invest a some money and develop a sub-caliber projectile like the one that is going to be used by the AGS. That could dramatically up range and accuracy.

 

[Belesari]

The AGS and its rounds are ready the problem is the firepower of said rounds is very low. Plus i think the flight times go up to 9min in some cases which is insane to me.

Something i still find interesting was the original AGS idea. The gun was entirely internal. The rounds were fired and were advanced guided rounds. I believe the Gun was supposed to be 8in or more. However the Navy wanted it to be able to fire unguided rounds so it was axed. Funny thing is though the AGS is entirely guided rounds. So the reason to disqualify the internal configuration out now.

There hasn't been a landing like this since Vietnam. Battleships are good for one thing though, they are cheap, relatively speaking. The cost of a 16inch shell is much less than that of a Tomahawk missile. Battleships would be useful in conflicts like the recent one in Libya, were a lot of the targets could have been engaged by Naval shellfire. If range is an issue, why not invest a some money and develop a sub-caliber projectile like the one that is going to be used by the AGS. That could dramatically up range and accuracy.

 

[My2Cents]

Something i still find interesting was the original AGS idea. The gun was entirely internal. The rounds were fired and were advanced guided rounds. I believe the Gun was supposed to be 8in or more. However the Navy wanted it to be able to fire unguided rounds so it was axed. Funny thing is though the AGS is entirely guided rounds. So the reason to disqualify the internal configuration out now.

Nope, same 6” gun barrel and breach, they just put it in a turret so it could engage targets at ranges LESS than 30 miles.

I really like the concept of the original design.

• It forced the ship to stay over the horizon. None of those crazy duels with shore batteries.
• Because there was no traverse and elevation mechanisms to deal with just about everything about the design was dirt simple and with few volume or mass limits easily over built, i.e. extremely reliable and low maintenance.
• No ready magazine on the mount to reload, every round in the main magazine (200+ rounds!) was immediately available.
• 2 barrels close spaced side by side at 47 degrees elevation directly over the keel firing on the axis of the ship. It could be installed in a hull as small as 2500 tons, instead of a 14,000 ton monster. They probably would have built cheap dedicated ships just for them, with lots of extra storage for shells. Fire support can be far more effective when you don’t have to worry about running out of ammo.

 

[Marc 1]

There hasn't been a landing like this since Vietnam. Battleships are good for one thing though, they are cheap, relatively speaking. The cost of a 16inch shell is much less than that of a Tomahawk missile. Battleships would be useful in conflicts like the recent one in Libya, were a lot of the targets could have been engaged by Naval shellfire. If range is an issue, why not invest a some money and develop a sub-caliber projectile like the one that is going to be used by the AGS. That could dramatically up range and accuracy.

Yes, the cost of a 16 inch shell (particularly if using existing stocks) is low. But, the cost of the gun carriage (56,000 tonne battleship beneath) isn't at all cheap to man or run. New 16 inch shells (particularly if a guided projectile capability is needed) will be expensive. And finally, gun barrels wear and need replacement - if you think a Tomahawk is expensive, try getting a quote for a 108 tonne 50 calibre 16 inch barrel.

 

[Belesari]

If they had wanted a gun to fire at targets under 30 mi why didnt they just install a 5in gun like on the rest of the fleet.

OK found this on the AGS wiki.

"There has been research on extending the range of naval gunfire for many years. Gerald Bull and Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head tested an 11 inch sub-calibre saboted long-range round[2] in a stretched 16"/45 Mark 6 battleship gun in 1967.[3] The Advanced Gun Weapon System Technology Program (AGWSTP) evaluated a similar projectile with longer range in the 1980s.[2] After the battleships were decommissioned in 1992, the AGWSTP became a 5" gun with an intended range of 180 kilometres (110 mi), which then led to the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS). The original DD-21 was designed around this "vertical gun", but the project ran into serious technology/cost problems and was radically scaled back to a more conventional 6.1 inch Advanced Gun System (AGS). One advantage of this move was that the gun was no longer restricted to guided munitions"

Still think the MK-71 8in would have been better for a teypical turreted design. More power. Probably longer range.

They system is so big the entire ship needs to be designed around it......so in the end why not just build a big gun cruiser or destroyer?

Nope, same 6” gun barrel and breach, they just put it in a turret so it could engage targets at ranges LESS than 30 miles.

I really like the concept of the original design.

• It forced the ship to stay over the horizon. None of those crazy duels with shore batteries.
• Because there was no traverse and elevation mechanisms to deal with just about everything about the design was dirt simple and with few volume or mass limits easily over built, i.e. extremely reliable and low maintenance.
• No ready magazine on the mount to reload, every round in the main magazine (200+ rounds!) was immediately available.
• 2 barrels close spaced side by side at 47 degrees elevation directly over the keel firing on the axis of the ship. It could be installed in a hull as small as 2500 tons, instead of a 14,000 ton monster. They probably would have built cheap dedicated ships just for them, with lots of extra storage for shells. Fire support can be far more effective when you don’t have to worry about running out of ammo.

 

[Belesari]

Yes but hundreds of rounds could be sent down a tube before it wore out. A tomahawk cost in the millions. so your not saving that much.

The ships dont need to be the same as the Iowa's. 4-6 guns only. Room for say 80-120 VLS cells. for tomahawks, etc. Nuclear powered/standard. Helipad.

You could go the typical battleship route. One thing i think alot of people dont remember is that battleships are Captial ships. They would have escorts or would be incorperated into the MEU's. They dont need the massive crews of ww2. A modern battleship barring the flagship role could probably get away with 400-600 crew at the right levels. Most of the savings comes from the lack of all the AA. Look at the crews of the old battleships in the pacific.....there were Dozens of anti aircraft guns.

And the zummwalts at over 14,000t are freaking huge. Infact were their superstructures werent so lightly built they would be hundreds if not more tons more.

Yes, the cost of a 16 inch shell (particularly if using existing stocks) is low. But, the cost of the gun carriage (56,000 tonne battleship beneath) isn't at all cheap to man or run. New 16 inch shells (particularly if a guided projectile capability is needed) will be expensive. And finally, gun barrels wear and need replacement - if you think a Tomahawk is expensive, try getting a quote for a 108 tonne 50 calibre 16 inch barrel.

 

[My2Cents]

try getting a quote for a 108 tonne 50 calibre 16 inch barrel.

I think I once saw an article that they scrapped the only facility that could make them. So the cost would have to include building a new one.

Now that is expensive.

 

[My2Cents]

"There has been research on extending the range of naval gunfire for many years. Gerald Bull and Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head tested an 11 inch sub-calibre saboted long-range round[2] in a stretched 16"/45 Mark 6 battleship gun in 1967.[3] The Advanced Gun Weapon System Technology Program (AGWSTP) evaluated a similar projectile with longer range in the 1980s.[2] After the battleships were decommissioned in 1992, the AGWSTP became a 5" gun with an intended range of 180 kilometres (110 mi), which then led to the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS). The original DD-21 was designed around this "vertical gun", but the project ran into serious technology/cost problems and was radically scaled back to a more conventional 6.1 inch Advanced Gun System (AGS). One advantage of this move was that the gun was no longer restricted to guided munitions"

The problem was with the guided shell, the program ran into a lot of problems (ALL the guided rounds have) driving the cost way up, not the gun. I believe they have dropped the 6” guided round completely now, and are using saboted versions of the 5” round.

Still think the MK-71 8in would have been better for a teypical turreted design. More power. Probably longer range.

With conventional ammo.
8”/55 Mk-71 Maximum range 29.3 km.
5”/54 Mk-45 Maximum range 23.1 km.
5”/62 Mk-45 mod.4 Maximum range 25.9 km.

There was also a proposal to use the 175mm M113 gun in the Mk-71 for a range of 34km (later extended to 50km with new full bore projectiles and propellant charges design by by Gerald Bull for the israeli’s). The 2 guns are apparently very similar in mounting requirements.

 

[Wolf_of_Siberia]

Yes but hundreds of rounds could be sent down a tube before it wore out. A tomahawk cost in the millions. so your not saving that much.

The ships dont need to be the same as the Iowa's. 4-6 guns only. Room for say 80-120 VLS cells. for tomahawks, etc. Nuclear powered/standard. Helipad.

You could go the typical battleship route. One thing i think alot of people dont remember is that battleships are Captial ships. They would have escorts or would be incorperated into the MEU's. They dont need the massive crews of ww2. A modern battleship barring the flagship role could probably get away with 400-600 crew at the right levels. Most of the savings comes from the lack of all the AA. Look at the crews of the old battleships in the pacific.....there were Dozens of anti aircraft guns.

And the zummwalts at over 14,000t are freaking huge. Infact were their superstructures werent so lightly built they would be hundreds if not more tons more.

The original reason that the Iowa's were put back into storage was because they were too expensive to operate and that was after they had been refitted with modern automated anti-aircraft weapons. Here's a suggestion, take the two Iowas that are part of the mothball fleet, remove the 16inch main batteries, and replace them AGS's. You get the benefit of a further reduction in crew, and you save money because you don't have to build an entirely new ship.

 

[AegisFC]

The original reason that the Iowa's were put back into storage was because they were too expensive to operate and that was after they had been refitted with modern automated anti-aircraft weapons. Here's a suggestion, take the two Iowas that are part of the mothball fleet, remove the 16inch main batteries, and replace them AGS's. You get the benefit of a further reduction in crew, and you save money because you don't have to build an entirely new ship.

They were put back into storage because the Iowas were a stop gap to get as many Tomahawk missiles to sea until enough MK-41 VLS ships were either converted or commissioned.
The armored box launcher were the only real reason why the Iowas were recommissioned in the 80's. At the time they were the only ships in the reserve fleet in decent condition that could cheaply take more than a handful of ABL's. The refits were very limited in scope and the plan was if the project ran over budget was to leave the main battery in a decommissioned state. Once enough Mk-41 ships were commissioned or modified the Iowa's were once again thrown back into mothballs.

Four Phalanx is hardly a comprehensive AAW suite and is pretty much a last ditch line of defense.

The Iowas are not coming back, ever. The schools don't exist, the spare parts don't exist, the logistical system to support them does not exist, and three out of four are not museums. Not to mention it is an inefficient 1930's hull form weighed down with an armor system designed before modern weapons.

 

[Belesari]

Not to mention they were treated as stop gap ships by the navy. They have never really been modernized to the degree they would need to be and woulf require ALOT of TLC.

Again i think more of a heavy cruiser is needed like the Des Moines class was.

They were put back into storage because the Iowas were a stop gap to get as many Tomahawk missiles to sea until enough MK-41 VLS ships were either converted or commissioned.
The armored box launcher were the only real reason why the Iowas were recommissioned in the 80's. At the time they were the only ships in the reserve fleet in decent condition that could cheaply take more than a handful of ABL's. The refits were very limited in scope and the plan was if the project ran over budget was to leave the main battery in a decommissioned state. Once enough Mk-41 ships were commissioned or modified the Iowa's were once again thrown back into mothballs.

Four Phalanx is hardly a comprehensive AAW suite and is pretty much a last ditch line of defense.

The Iowas are not coming back, ever. The schools don't exist, the spare parts don't exist, the logistical system to support them does not exist, and three out of four are not museums. Not to mention it is an inefficient 1930's hull form weighed down with an armor system designed before modern weapons.

 

[PCShogun]

Four Phalanx is hardly a comprehensive AAW suite and is pretty much a last ditch line of defense.

True, but what weapon was going to get through that armor belt? 13 inches at the belt, 11 inches at the bulkheads, 7 inches on the deck. I had read a report that no conventional weapon could damage the armor except for a modern torpedo under the keel.

I agree that the old Battle wagons were too expensive to operate, and the main batteries are obsolete. It requires a lot of personnel to operate, and the machinery is without spares. But dang, they sure were pretty.

 

[Bonza]

True, but what weapon was going to get through that armor belt? 13 inches at the belt, 11 inches at the bulkheads, 7 inches on the deck. I had read a report that no conventional weapon could damage the armor except for a modern torpedo under the keel.

Drop a modern PGM from 20,000 feet on a 7-inch armoured deck, and see what happens. I suspect the report you read was exaggerating...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

True, but what weapon was going to get through that armor belt? 13 inches at the belt, 11 inches at the bulkheads, 7 inches on the deck. I had read a report that no conventional weapon could damage the armor except for a modern torpedo under the keel.

Any anti-ship sized shaped charge warhead would punch through it all like Swiss cheese and inject a spray of molten metal into the highly vulnerable big gun propellant charges causing sympathetic destruction of the ship.

[ame="http://media.photobucket.com/image/mistel%20warhead/genkideskan/montage_mist.jpg"]Mistel warhead image by genkideskan on Photobucket[/ame]

There is a very good reason these ships went out of style.