Time to Bring Back the Battleships?

[decaro]

from War is Boring:

"Is it time to bring back the battleship? For decades, naval architects have concentrated on building ships that, by the standards of the world wars, are remarkably brittle. These ships can deal punishment at much greater ranges than their early 20th century counterparts, but they can’t take a hit.

"Is it time to reconsider this strategy, and once again build protected ships? This article examines how these trends came about, and what might change in the future...."

https://warisboring.com/is-it-time-to-b ... .qt4bek5bh

[desicat]

Wake homing torpedoes and keel breakers.

[crsutton]

The article significantly overlooks the cost and associated costs of manning a big ship. The return to service of the four Iowa class BBs in the eighties is considered to be a prime example. The ships proved to be of only marginal value and financially a terrible misuse of funds. Due to their age they were expensive to maintain. More important they each required up to 3,000 crew members which in the modern era proved to be a massive waste of money. You have to consider that these days unlike days of old most enlisted personnel are either married or involved with dependents of some sort. This is a multiplier to the costs of manning a ship that was not the case 50 years ago. Admittedly a modern big ship would rely more on electronic systems and have a significantly smaller crew. However, this crew would require much higher skill sets than a crew 30 years ago thus higher pay and more training. Not to mention the possibility of more dependents that in 1985 with higher associated costs.

This stuff matters in a modern military and the author's argument is short sided if he does not take the time to consider this aspect. The idea may be feasible but he needs to make a better case.

As with Japan when they built the two super BBs the cost of building big ships comes at the expense of fewer smaller ships. No national economy especially in peace time is open ended when it comes to defense spending.

[dr.hal]

When I was in the Navy, they brought out the two Iowa's. The talk among black-shoe officers was how to get assigned to one of them! However it soon became evident that they were of little practical use. One was the cost... not in running them so much as manning (personing) them (although running them was very oil intensive as well). Crsutton is right, the cost of a crew far out-weights the benefits of the ship. The second reason is power projection, a major factor in relation to Mahan's theory. The Iowa's reach was limited, certainly the guns were very limited in range, but as a cruise missile platform there were far better machines available (SSNs and CGs for example). This is the age of "smart" munitions and the Iowa's guns would be very difficult to upgrade to such munitions (yes there are "RAP shells" but how to convert a 16 inch shell into that would prove problematic, and RAP shells are not smart, just longer range). My last comment is the guns themselves. There are only a limited number of barrels (tubes) for the main guns. As I recall there was a Proceedings article years ago that traced all the remaining tubes and there were very few left (because very few were produced). There is no ability in the US to manufacture such replacements and I don't know of any facility capable of creating the shells (although that would be less problematic that creating the tubes). So I fear that the Iowa's must remain historical objects to admire, not to use.

[Lokasenna]

I have a novel solution. Build a new ship. Ditch the turrets, add modern weaponry. Done. [:'(]

[mind_messing]

The missile revolution has thrown all the old design paradigms out of the window. The days of the big ships are long gone - the flexibility of the corvette-frigate-destroyer battle group is much superior.

[Dili]

So when explosives are a couple times more powerful than in WW2 that guy wants to bring back battleships!?

This at time that even tanks are going for anti missile systems like Trophy in Israeli tanks and Arena or what is called in Russian ones.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The article significantly overlooks the cost and associated costs of manning a big ship. The return to service of the four Iowa class BBs in the eighties is considered to be a prime example. The ships proved to be of only marginal value and financially a terrible misuse of funds. Due to their age they were expensive to maintain. More important they each required up to 3,000 crew members which in the modern era proved to be a massive waste of money. You have to consider that these days unlike days of old most enlisted personnel are either married or involved with dependents of some sort. This is a multiplier to the costs of manning a ship that was not the case 50 years ago. Admittedly a modern big ship would rely more on electronic systems and have a significantly smaller crew....

If fire control in the turrets were automated, would that make a significant difference in personnel numbers, or is a ship that size just too much to housekeep in a leaner, meaner navy?

[geofflambert]

We have two types of capital ships.  Carriers are one.  Submarines are the other.  Those are our battleships.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The article significantly overlooks the cost and associated costs of manning a big ship. The return to service of the four Iowa class BBs in the eighties is considered to be a prime example. The ships proved to be of only marginal value and financially a terrible misuse of funds. Due to their age they were expensive to maintain. More important they each required up to 3,000 crew members which in the modern era proved to be a massive waste of money. You have to consider that these days unlike days of old most enlisted personnel are either married or involved with dependents of some sort. This is a multiplier to the costs of manning a ship that was not the case 50 years ago. Admittedly a modern big ship would rely more on electronic systems and have a significantly smaller crew....

If fire control in the turrets were automated, would that make a significant difference in personnel numbers, or is a ship that size just too much to housekeep in a leaner, meaner navy?

The real question is why would you bother to automate them?

What can a 16 inch shell do that a missile can't do better? The only thing I can think of is that anti-missile systems might struggle to deal with a 16 inch shell, but that's a moot point considering the range limitations and the problem of accuracy.

The only way that the Iowa's would have been of any real use to the USN would have been if they'd ripped the guns and the superstructure out and replaced it with missile launching systems, turning it into a missile a la Kirov, except with armour. Even then it would have been of limited use. There's simply easier ways of doing things now.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

We have two types of capital ships.  Carriers are one.  Submarines are the other.  Those are our battleships.

Did you mean "... our battle ships"?

[warspite1]

Well I totally agree with the need to bring back battleships (and battlecruisers). I mean sure, they are too expensive, totally impractical and totally unnecessary, but all this reading about Jutland recently has made me yearn for the great names to be used by the Royal Navy once more [8D]

HMS Warspite
HMS Queen Mary
HMS Lion
HMS Thunderer
HMS Princess Royal
HMS Temeraire
HMS Revenge
HMS Royal Oak

Beautiful.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

We have two types of capital ships.  Carriers are one.  Submarines are the other.  Those are our battleships.

Did you mean "... our battle ships"?

An all inclusive "our" meaning Russians, Chinese, French, everybody.

edit: thought you were questioning the "our". No, I meant battleships. Submarines that carry ICBMs or can launch cruise missiles (that could have nuke warheads) are far, far more powerful than any other capital ship ever. Using the ocean as your armor is pretty clever when today's subs can go as deep as they are designed for and they are so stealthy, but every defense can be defeated.

[Zorch]

Along these lines...why not refloat HMS Victory and give her some cruise missiles? She would be incredibly stealthy due to the lack of metal. And she would be un-hackable due to her not having electronics. No need to refuel either.

[Lokasenna]

I approve, provided a method can be devised to prevent the missile exhaust from burning up the rigging.

[desicat]

What can a 16 inch shell do that a missile can't do better? The only thing I can think of is that anti-missile systems might struggle to deal with a 16 inch shell, but that's a moot point considering the range limitations and the problem of accuracy.

The only way that the Iowa's would have been of any real use to the USN would have been if they'd ripped the guns and the superstructure out and replaced it with missile launching systems, turning it into a missile a la Kirov, except with armour. Even then it would have been of limited use. There's simply easier ways of doing things now.

Actually the 16" shells have added some kind of booster assist and GPS to radically improve their range and accuracy - this was all completed in the early 90's. Their actual presence (vs virtual via Sub and cruise missles), lower cost bombardments, and virtual impunity to damage (except vs torpedoes) made the BB's a menacing foe.

Are they manpower cost effective? No, but they do have combat value.

The 16" shells provided a devastating pounding to the poor souls on the other end, and their "non precision" had a value all its own.

[Macclan5]

There exists a realistic possibility that drones with missiles will replace even today's capital ships. Swams of drones launched from much smaller platforms with the capability to deliver devastating strikes.
The slim and only argument for old school less 'tech' war design resides in anecdotal suspicion that the enemy could 'hack your command control' - nowadays. Even then lower tech combat weapons would hav to be able to protect themselves form the same; swarms of drones.
The argument to depend on such ships is a best an argument that you can defend yourself with slings and arrows if all else fails. It is an unwise argument in an environment of scarcity of dollars.

[trojan58]

Bigger targets. Oh goody [:D][:D][:D][:)]

[Orm]

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

There exists a realistic possibility that drones with missiles will replace even today's capital ships. Swams of drones launched from much smaller platforms with the capability to deliver devastating strikes.
The slim and only argument for old school less 'tech' war design resides in anecdotal suspicion that the enemy could 'hack your command control' - nowadays. Even then lower tech combat weapons would hav to be able to protect themselves form the same; swarms of drones.
The argument to depend on such ships is a best an argument that you can defend yourself with slings and arrows if all else fails. It is an unwise argument in an environment of scarcity of dollars.

I would like to see how swarms of drones cope with ECM and jamming before deciding to go all in on their employment.