Let's talk Battleships

[Jim Phaserman 0]

Okay, so the other day, I'm talking with a few friends over some beers, and we get to talking about Navy ships. One of the guys says, "Ya know what the Navy really needs? They need Battleships!" So, with the topic brought up, a lively debate ensues. While I do like the idea, it's not neccissarily a practical matter. Battleships require HUGE monetary investments. They take a long time to build, and they are manpower intensive vessels. Also, like a Carrier, you don't want to send a Battleship ANYWHERE without some support. It's too valuable. the other guys suggested, somewhat, but not entirely accurately that a Battleship would be the hardest naval vessel in the world to sink. True, a Battleship's armored hull (18 inches on an Iowa class Battleship) makes it virtually impervious to modern, sea-skimming Anti-Ship cruise missiles, but they are still vulnerable from the air. Penetrating, air dropped bombs can go through the lighter deck armor and cause massive damage in the Ammunition and powder magazines, engineering spaces, and fuel tankage. THe guy who brought up the subject brings up the Battleship's real shining point: Firepower. a Modern Battleship the same dimensions of the Iowa class wouldn't neccisarily have to carry 9 16" guns. It could do very well with as little as 4 16" guns, replacing the other guns with other weapons' systems. A new-build battleship could also be equiped with the Aegis system. A new-build Iowa redesign could POTENTIALLy carry 4 16" guns (2 in a forward twin turret, two in an aft twin turret), a pair of very large Mk. 41 VLS pads for and aft, 2 twin Mk. 45 Gun turrets, 4 Phalanx CWIS mounts, and perhaps two RIM 116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers. A redesigned superstructure, perhaps a design similar to that on the Ticonderoga class Cruiser or Arliegh Burke class Destroyer, would allow for all of these systems. The problem is the money required to build one, and the crew requirements. The other thing is, do we REALLY need a new battleship? What say you?

[Jim Phaserman 0]

I brought this up with Gary, he suggested a "New Build" could fit the bill more for a Battlecruiser by reducing the Armor from the 16 inch or 18 inch max down to 6 inches. That would still provide plenty of protection against modern Anti-Ship Missiles, but would also cut wieght dramatically. Also, two twin 16" turrets would have a smaller footprint (Probably 30% smaller) than the existing triple turrets.

 

Here's something else: USS Iowa is still in the Reserve Fleet. If needed, she could be brought back to active duty, and during a modernisation process, remove the #2 Gunmount (Damaged in an explosion during the late 80's, and never actually repaired), and replace it with a custom-fitted Mk. 41 pad. I'd have to check the comparative diameters, and obviously you wouldn't get 100% space usage out of it because the space is round, not square, but I am sure you could fit a number of Mk. 41 VLS cells in there...

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I'm not really sure that the modern Navy really needs a Battleship, at least not in terms of the Battleships of the World War II era:

 

 

Of course if one is ever needed we do have several that can be brought out of mothballs, like the one above.

 

I think if they are to build something new it would be best to bring back plans for the Arsenal Ship:

 

[Odie 0]

There are problems with battleships now. To activate them they would require a major overhaul that runs in the billions. The daily operation costs are no longer effective. It run over a million a day to operate, and that is just for the fuel and not the manning which can be more than another million a day cost. I am just basing that on 2 only convention aircraft careers USS Kitty Hawk and USS John F. Kennedy. They are in bad shape and need to be decommissioned. JFK is just slightly worst of than the Kitty. Kitty is the worst ship in the Navy. No one wants to be on board. I would not even ask for orders to the Kitty Hawk.

 

Back on point. Manning is the manning of battleships. It requires too many people to run basic operation of the ship. Navy right now is cutting back on manning every year. Battleships require a large amount of personal, which is the opposite of what the Navy is heading towards. They want a smart ship that requires less manning. Every ship in the Navy is losing manning, but requirements to run the ships have changed not changed at all.

 

Fire Power. Even with all those big guns its still not the direction the Navy wants to go, even though the Marines are in love with that amount of fire power. The Navy uses missiles and doesn't use the guns very much. On a destroyer there is one forward gun, and most of time it is only used for training. The really damage comes from the missiles.

 

The Navy will not activate the battleships. It would take an act of God and Congress for it to happen. I am more towards God than Congress.

Edited March 11, 2006 by Odie

[Jim Phaserman 0]

The missile power of a modern-build BBG would be outragous, but indeed, manning is a problem. Even for a ship that measures 887' X 108' 1" (The dimensions of the Iowa Class), with all the missile and gun technology aboard, and with the computer systems, you are still looking at a potential crew at minimum of 800-900. As Odie said, the cost per day is also very prohibitive, even if it was nuclear powered. the Big Guns, with the use of Extended Range Munitions (IE Rocket Assisted Projectiles) and GPS guidance (A program the Army is working on for it's Paladan SPH), could have a range of nearly 100 klicks, and be nearly pin-point accurate, but Odie is right, Missiles are the way things are going now, and why spend $5 Billion to build a Battleship to carry 150 TLAMs when the Ohio SSGN Conversion can do it for you at a cost of $500 Million (I'm guestimating the cost of the conversion, I haven't actually seen the cost figures). The Marines would love them for the big guns, but that's all they'd be used for, since almost all surface threats faced by the Navy can be handled by the Harpoon, and the 5" Mk. 45 and it's various variants work well enough for shore bombardment.

[Data 0]

Because of the advancements in Subs, battleships are kinda passe.

[Wishfire 2]

Well, I don't know much about battleships, as my only experience with them is the U.S.S. Massachussets, which is retired. (Actually, I heard that it's on permanent reserve, or something like that. But she's an old ship, seeing as she saw active duty during WWII.)

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

 

The bridge in the background is the Braga Bridge (no relation to Brannon Braga :angry:), which span the Taunton River, which is where the Massachusetts has been docked for the past several decades. The Massachusetts is open to the public along with the destroyer Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., the Balao-class submarine Lionfish, and the cruiser Fall River.

 

Anyway, wouldn't it be cost-effecient to build smaller battleships similar to what they have back during WWII, only with modern equipment? I'd think that ships like that would serve the job needed and still pack a good wallop.

[Julie 0]

I may have been just a Corpsmen, but I do know a thing about warships. A smaller, lighter armored Battleship, aka a Battle Cruiser, might be something the Navy considers, like Odie said, the Navy is looking at ships that are MORE capable with LESS Crew and cheaper. Even a Battlecruiser that would, say, be 650 feet OA, 75 Feet Abeam, have two sixteen inch guns, an Aegis System, Mk. 41 VLS, and the various other systems the Navy basically requires for a ship, including Phalanx CWIS, would still cost way too much (I'd estimate around 3 Billion dollars or so.) the Navy wouldn't go with it. Right now, the DOD's priority is the Army and the Marines, not the Navy. If we were in a war with a major naval power, then they might consider a new design of Battleship or Battlecruiser. I've actually heard the Navy is developing a new ship known as the Litoral Combat ship, which is essentially a Light Frigate, from what I've heard. We may see the Navy go more in that direction, and end up being like the Royal Navy, with the focus on Frigates and Destroyers as primary surface combattants (not counting Aircraft Carriers)