OT - Bringing back the battleship?

[Mr.Frag]

I've never bought the "can stay on station longer" arguement.

A bunch of Burkes is going to scare me more then 1 Iowa. Remember resupply ships?

Warfare has been reduced to he who shoots first with overwelming firepower wins. You think you are going to have a stealthy BB? Simple math exercise really. The more targets, the higher the survivability. No idea what the costs would be, but you could probably get a 8 or more to 1 ratio. 8+ firing on 1, who do you really think is going to win?

[DrewMatrix]

And (furthering what Frag said) you don't need to sink the BB. Just get a mission kill by shredding its radar/sensors etc.

Anyhow, I do love BBs (and have been on a couple of the Iowa class as a tourist. Heck, I even bought the baseball cap) but they are just too expensive to run compared to the effectiveness of what that many people and dollars could run in other hulls.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I've never bought the "can stay on station longer" arguement.

A bunch of Burkes is going to scare me more then 1 Iowa. Remember resupply ships?

Warfare has been reduced to he who shoots first with overwelming firepower wins. You think you are going to have a stealthy BB? Simple math exercise really. The more targets, the higher the survivability. No idea what the costs would be, but you could probably get a 8 or more to 1 ratio. 8+ firing on 1, who do you really think is going to win?

Well, I agree that the Navy went to DD's as a primary vessel because swarming your opponent is better in terms of survivability. If the ship was a BBN, fuel is out of the equation but then you still have food, ammo, and misc. stuff. You actually can have a stealth BB these days, no joking. Designers have played with the idea but no one will bite. If the US Navy ever goes back to BB's it would be due to a new threat, or a niche role that is needed. Though I guess you could get away with building a ship stylised after the Graff Spee. Something like a 16" gun system fitted to the smallest vessel possible.

On who would win?...dunno luck has a lot to do with victory and defeat. We try to minimize this but it still has a factor, especially when both sides have parity.

Gotta go to class, cya later...[8D]

[Nikademus]

Preventing a hit is definately the best option given today's reliance on modern electronics. However survivability is still important. A mission killed Iowa is still better than 2 sunk Burkes. There is also the question of survival when it comes to command/control. A Fleet commander and his staff have a better chance of surviving in an Iowa than in any other ship type. (assuming a hit is scored)

[byron13]

My two cents:

Without addressing the costs and other downsides to reactivating the glorious BB's, my gut reaction is to have at least one around. Those that argue technology is the answer make me nervous. Rumsfeld is the ultimate advocate for an all high-tech military. But his shock and awe campaign nearly failed because he forgot some simple truths that high-tech has not yet solved: it takes grunts on the ground to secure and occupy a country. Our gee-whiz weaponry is subject to countermeasures, but we haven't faced an opponent able to employ them. GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil. Unless they bugger things up, China is the next superpower. I believe their military power will equal if not surpass the U.S. in our lifetime - if not the next twenty years - and they will have an economy and military at least as comfortable with high-tech as ours.

All this goes to one point. The U.S. relies on high-tech, and it works because no one has been wealthy enough to compete with the U.S. in military high-tech since WWII, and the U.S. has always been a step ahead in the high-tech field. That will change. On the other end of the scale, high-tech doesn't always work when your facing not lower-tech but no-tech. High-tech didn't save our bacon in Viet Nam. Hence, I don't want to put all my eggs in the high-tech basket.

The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that. I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried. In addition, the BBs have unique abilities that no other ships possess such as big guns, thick armor, and high survivability. I can't to what uses these capabilities may be put in the future, but I like the idea of having a ship that has strengths and capabilities completely different from any other ship. What's more, it's a weapon system that no one will trump by building a bigger or better one. For my own toolbox, I'd rather have 19 wrenches and 1 screwdriver than 20 wrenches.

[Mr.Frag]

I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried.

That one's funny ... thats just the classic military nonsense. If I manage to pop off a nuke within range of your 16" guns, you're not going to be worried about the guns still being able to fire.

In an EMP environment, you have already gone to nukes ... a BB is not going to make any difference at all.

Bring on the Ohio's, the ULTIMATE survivable BB [:D]

[freeboy]

GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil

A free fall bomb that only is receiving telemtry and adjusting fins is almost undetectable and impossible by most standards to shoot down.. How can you justify this statment?

[Mr.Frag]

The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that.

Sure there is, it's called a submarine and it's also a hell of a lot cheaper to get a fleet of very quiet diesel boats for coastal defence. [;)]

[rtrapasso]

The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell.

Just out of curiosity - the 16" shell moves at something like 1000 mph, which is in the same range as some of the soviet antiship missiles. Could a CIW like Phalanx or Goalkeeper shoot a shell down (or blow it up)?

[freeboy]

not an ap shell I recon

[The Gnome]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

Let one of those 2 BB's into a Chinese invasion TF of Tiawan and watch the the transports sink.

Well, maybe. Assuming they each didn't get hit by several dozen Silkworms armed with shaped-charge warheads. Might be easier to stand out 60 miles and fire Harpoons from fast-movers at the transports.

I dunno - i think they are magnificent, beautiful ships which i would like to see cruising around, but i have my doubts about their usefulness in a modern warfare environment.

Plus I hate to think what a few Los Angeles SSN's would do to an invasion fleet - with torpedos alone, forget the stinking missiles. I wouldn't risk any surface assets against an invasion fleet. Between air and subsurface the aggressor is going to the bottom.

[ChezDaJez]

I've never bought the "can stay on station longer" arguement.

A bunch of Burkes is going to scare me more then 1 Iowa. Remember resupply ships?

I agree with you there.

The "stay on station longer" point is pretty much moot today. Supply ships and forward bases pretty much mean that the Burkes and other Aegis equipped ships don't have to worry much about getting resupplied.

The Arleigh Burkes are a hell of a ship... part cruiser, part destroyer, a hybrid if you will. There isn't a mission short of shore bombardment that they can't do very effectively. An shore bombardment is a form of warfare that is becoming less an option anymore.

Shore bombardment won't work against terrorists. You're not going to bombard the coast of China, Korea or any other country that has a considerable air threat, regardless of how effective that air threat might be.

Between B-52s, Tomahawk missles and other long range weapons systems, it just doesn't make any sense to bring back a weapons systems because of its shore bombardment potential. If they truely did favor bringing these ships back, I would say remove one or more of the turrets and make them massive Tomahawk arsenals but that still overlooks the main problem with them and that is they are too expensive to operate.

The engineering plant is 65 years old and requires substantial fuel oil quantities. Most of today's warships are gas turbine powered, buring JP-4, 5 or 8. Thats basically a kerosene jet fuel. Crew habitality needs considerable revamping. They would need extensive electronic modernization. You could probably operate 8-10 Burkes for what it would cost to operate 1 Iowa.

On the other hand, they are beautiful ships and you can't help but be impressed by their majesticness. Plus their ability to absorb punishment can't be overlooked. I remember an article in the Navy Times newspaper when one of the Iowas was being readied for her Gulf Storm deployment The captain was asked by some reporter what his response would be if a Silkworm missile hit the ship. He replied that he would put a call out over the 1MC system for "Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms!"

Chez

[DeepSix]

ORIGINAL: byron13

My two cents:

Without addressing the costs and other downsides to reactivating the glorious BB's, my gut reaction is to have at least one around. Those that argue technology is the answer make me nervous. Rumsfeld is the ultimate advocate for an all high-tech military. But his shock and awe campaign nearly failed because he forgot some simple truths that high-tech has not yet solved: it takes grunts on the ground to secure and occupy a country. Our gee-whiz weaponry is subject to countermeasures, but we haven't faced an opponent able to employ them. GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil. Unless they bugger things up, China is the next superpower. I believe their military power will equal if not surpass the U.S. in our lifetime - if not the next twenty years - and they will have an economy and military at least as comfortable with high-tech as ours.

All this goes to one point. The U.S. relies on high-tech, and it works because no one has been wealthy enough to compete with the U.S. in military high-tech since WWII, and the U.S. has always been a step ahead in the high-tech field. That will change. On the other end of the scale, high-tech doesn't always work when your facing not lower-tech but no-tech. High-tech didn't save our bacon in Viet Nam. Hence, I don't want to put all my eggs in the high-tech basket.

The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that. I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried. In addition, the BBs have unique abilities that no other ships possess such as big guns, thick armor, and high survivability. I can't to what uses these capabilities may be put in the future, but I like the idea of having a ship that has strengths and capabilities completely different from any other ship. What's more, it's a weapon system that no one will trump by building a bigger or better one. For my own toolbox, I'd rather have 19 wrenches and 1 screwdriver than 20 wrenches.

I tend to agree and am not inclined to trust solely to techno-war. Frag, you don't have to have a nuke to have an EMP weapon. Nevertheless, the real question (to me) seems to be "What is the threat and how do we meet it?" I don't buy the argument that low tech is entirely obsolete (operational costs aside). But would weapons like 16-inchers have no usefulness in a world where a 747 can become a weapon. The only thing high-tech about September 11 was the plan itself, if you'll allow me to put it that way, but for me, the question is, could a BB be a successful part of the equation we now live in (China-Taiwan or India-Pakistan notwithstanding).

[Edited for clarity (I hope)]

[DeepSix]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
...
The captain was asked by some reporter what his response would be if a Silkworm missile hit the ship. He replied that he would put a call out over the 1MC system for "Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms!"

Chez

Love it!

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried.

That one's funny ... thats just the classic military nonsense. If I manage to pop off a nuke within range of your 16" guns, you're not going to be worried about the guns still being able to fire.

In an EMP environment, you have already gone to nukes ... a BB is not going to make any difference at all.

Bring on the Ohio's, the ULTIMATE survivable BB [:D]

A concern in Europe during the bad ole days was a nuke burst high enough that it wouldn't produce blast damage or even real fallout, but close enough to cause EMP damage. Such a strike is also ambiguous when considering whether the battle has gone nuclear. I'm no nuclear technician, but it seems a valid tactic - especially if you are a nuclear power that does not rely as much on electronics.

In a tactical sense, a close-in nuke is not going to sink many ships. Their crews may die within a couple of days, but they would still be expected to fight today's battle. Plus, the affects of radiation is significantly diminished by armor.

Finally, you're assuming that the use of a tactical nuke necessarily leads to use of strategic nukes. That has always been a threat, but never been a given - at least in U.S. thinking. Going strategic may very well be the best option against China, given their huge population, our advantage in the field, and the relative concentration of their industry, but it's silly to assume that one high air burst leads to strategic nukes or even a tactical nuke response.

I've admitted that I know nothing about EMP hardening, but nothing you've said changes my mind about that one issue.

[BraveHome]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

This argument is as old as....well I am (yikes.....)

heh...old enough that i did a Term Paper on the subject when i was in high school back in the 80's (old fart me)

You do a diservice to old farts! I graduated high school in the 60s [:D]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: DeepSix

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
...
The captain was asked by some reporter what his response would be if a Silkworm missile hit the ship. He replied that he would put a call out over the 1MC system for "Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms!"

Chez

Love it!

Doubt that a silkworm with a shaped charge warhead would bounce. Nice quote though.[:D]

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil

A free fall bomb that only is receiving telemtry and adjusting fins is almost undetectable and impossible by most standards to shoot down.. How can you justify this statment?

The countermeasure is not shooting down the bomb, but jamming the GPS signal. Since the bomb is receiving data from GPS satellites that are broadcasting signals 24/7, it should be no problem to jam or otherwise affect the signals locally. Unless the military has the option of turning the signal on and off at will and at a different frequencies, something I'm not aware of, it shouldn't be a problem.

[wild_Willie2]

You do not have to use a nuke to produce an EMP pulse, Anny high explosives with tightly coiled copperwire surrounding it will produce an EMP pulse, just not as powerfull as a Nuclear one. I realy think the US has already a EMP weapon either in devellopment or already in its arsenal, The theory behind it has been arround for deccades...

[Nikademus]

Bah.....forget talking about Silkworms, Nuc's , 16inch shells, and EP.


Just release a bunch of hackers. All the screens on the warships start displaying a DOOM2 cacodemon sprouting out the dreaded AOL line...

"You've got mail!"
"You've got mail!"
"You've got mail"