PDA

View Full Version : OT: Battleships!



IZT
12-13-2004, 09:38 AM
OK yea these beauties!! ahha yep does America still field any of these? I mean yea we now have all the power of them harpoons and 5 inch Guns and of course nothing like a Nimitz Class Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers...but battleships are meant to be CAPITAL ships!!! to be worked with CVN support ahha i think i might be getting carried away ahha. Ok so are any of them battle ships still being fielded since the alst Iowa class battleship was decomissioned in 1991?

I mean come on guys these battleships Do look Good don't they!? ahha

IZT
12-13-2004, 09:38 AM
OK yea these beauties!! ahha yep does America still field any of these? I mean yea we now have all the power of them harpoons and 5 inch Guns and of course nothing like a Nimitz Class Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers...but battleships are meant to be CAPITAL ships!!! to be worked with CVN support ahha i think i might be getting carried away ahha. Ok so are any of them battle ships still being fielded since the alst Iowa class battleship was decomissioned in 1991?

I mean come on guys these battleships Do look Good don't they!? ahha

Sakai9745
12-13-2004, 09:47 AM
Neg, my fellow battlewagon-fan. All four Iowas are laid up in various locations, decommissioned between 1991 and 1992, and stricken from the Navy's list in January of 1995. Such a shame too; while nowhere near as deadly as a carrier and her airwing, it was quite a site watching those monsters let loose with their 16-inchers in person.

DuxCorvan
12-13-2004, 09:55 AM
Ahha! Doo bee doo bee doo! Battleships are not so useful in modern naval war, ahha! Yoopah! They're too big targets, whoops! Easy to detect, yuck, yuck, ahha! And so expensive to build and maintain! Jabbadabbadoo! Since modern naval surface warfare occurs mostly beyond visual contact and range of cannons... gngngn... they favour small fast ships armed with AS missiles, AA systems, ASW stuff, fast guns, potent radar and computer links for better tactical awareness. Even if -waaaaaasap!- Iowa class ships are still formidable weapons, they're too vulnerable and too visible in a modern tactical theatre. Heeeey! Last time they were used as ground support units -due to the range and accuracy of their guns- but only after ensuring air & surface superiority in the area. Yeeeeah! So they're more expensive than useful, now. Yoooopie! Ahha!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

IZT
12-13-2004, 10:13 AM
DuxCorvan u make a Very good point there! ahah but imagine a battlehsip like an Iowa class but mroe advanced with Aegis radars and VLS tubes lots of CWISes Imagine how well it'd b able to defend a carrier!! imagine the amount of weapons it can carry! Anti ship, air, submarine U name it! it'd b a real show of NAVAL POWER...WHEEE!!!

DuxCorvan
12-13-2004, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IZT:
DuxCorvan u make a Very good point there! ahah but imagine a battlehsip like an Iowa class but mroe advanced with Aegis radars and VLS tubes lots of CWISes Imagine how well it'd b able to defend a carrier!! imagine the amount of weapons it can carry! Anti ship, air, submarine U name it! it'd b a real show of NAVAL POWER...WHEEE!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing that can't be done by a pair of frigates at half the cost... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Believe me, those guys aren't stupid, if they have decomissioned it is for some good reason... and I think is efficiency vs. cost.

Dioscur
12-13-2004, 11:16 AM
The trend is clearly towards "Stealth" fleets. A BB will not fit in there. A real problem is also the design of CVs. Landing and starting compromises the stealthiness, even if the other "practical" problems can be solved.

But very interesting development at the moment.

Cheers

Barkhorn1x
12-13-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Believe me, those guys aren't stupid, if they have decomissioned it is for some good reason... and I think is efficiency vs. cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm sure that a 1940's era ship the size of the Iowa would cost a bundle to deploy/maintain - and for what real purpose?

Barkhorn.

VW-IceFire
12-13-2004, 03:26 PM
If you look at the designs for the future navy you've got cruiser size and down for the most part. Only carriers being larger.

The destroyers become a fast attack ship which is pretty low in the water, all angled surfaces, a gun for the necessary short range ability and then lots of missile tubes.

The cruisers become the core of battlegroups...I've read about a design where the main mast is extendable to create different radar signatures (appearing as an oil tanker or appearing as a fishing boat depending on setting). Again, all angled, fairly small, fast, lots of missiles.

Really only the carrier remains large...necessarily so. And then its got its defenses inherent...the carrier air wing (with ranges hundreds of KM), the battlegroup, its own short range defensive abilities.

Battleships are kind of the odd ones out. Too big and too easy a target for a ship killer missile. A few of those and your BB is out of the fight.

The battleship was never really able to come into its own. They were designed largely before WWI (the battleship/dreadnought idea) and by the time they had a chance to fight...the sumbarine had become the new weapon of the day. Then the airplane in WWII. The Yamato and the other japanese Battleships were all damaged, sunk, attacked by aircraft that lead to their doom.

Still...they have a powerful mystique around them. Impressive pieces of engineering.

macd1102
12-13-2004, 03:55 PM
sounds good, but not true, 21 yrs in the navy and still counting, cruisers never where and never will be the focal point of a battle group, they are escorts, which means there escorting something, ie carriers or before pearl harbor it was the battleship, we where forced to utilize carriers because of the tremendous loss of our battleship fleet, as far as current times, the main reason for decomming the battleships was cost, nothing to do with size, cost to operate the battleships was tremendous, the current ships you speak of are agis class, they to are now decomming, slowly but its happening, big waiste, but they made frigates obsolete, only a very few deploy with task forces today, most independent steam on drug ops in the southcom, with a coastguard detachment

VW-IceFire
12-13-2004, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macd1102:
sounds good, but not true, 21 yrs in the navy and still counting, cruisers never where and never will be the focal point of a battle group, they are escorts, which means there escorting something, ie carriers or before pearl harbor it was the battleship, we where forced to utilize carriers because of the tremendous loss of our battleship fleet, as far as current times, the main reason for decomming the battleships was cost, nothing to do with size, cost to operate the battleships was tremendous, the current ships you speak of are agis class, they to are now decomming, slowly but its happening, big waiste, but they made frigates obsolete, only a very few deploy with task forces today, most independent steam on drug ops in the southcom, with a coastguard detachment <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep...escorts for the carrier. They are floating anti-aircraft and anti-missile platforms.

Scen
12-13-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barkhorn1x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Believe me, those guys aren't stupid, if they have decomissioned it is for some good reason... and I think is efficiency vs. cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm sure that a 1940's era ship the size of the Iowa would cost a bundle to deploy/maintain - and for what real purpose?

Barkhorn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be fooled by the age. Yes they are expensive but what purpose you ask?

To project massive firepower. Believe me you don't want a BB sitting of your shore. They also don't travel alone and trying to get one is fairly difficult.

Plus they where designed to slug it out with other battle ships. So they can take a bunch of punishment. The turrets are 13 inches of solid steel.

Cost is the main reason.

Scendore

Galland0
12-13-2004, 05:28 PM
Hello all,

Didn't the Arengtine Navy loose a battleship to a British sub in the Falklans War? I think that might have enflunced the U.S. Navy mothballing the Iowas. Massively impressive broadsides...I always wondered how long it took for the ship to stabilize for another shot in WWII. I would think the Navy could stabilize them now a days the same way an M1 tank keeps it's main gun on target. But as mentioned I think the Navy, like the Air Force is more intrested in not being seen, than being super armoured and massive.

S!

Abbuzze
12-13-2004, 05:38 PM
Modern Torpedos like the sunk Kursk had would destroy such an expansive battleship-carrier group in an incredible short time...
Or do you think a battleship can do something against a 180mph Torpedo... hmm in a real war also carriers are nothing more than big targets with these weapons!

Scen
12-13-2004, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Modern Torpedos like the sunk Kursk had would destroy such an expansive battleship-carrier group in an incredible short time...
Or do you think a battleship can do something against a 180mph Torpedo... hmm in a real war also carriers are nothing more than big targets with these weapons! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't claim to be an expert on Naval Warfare however I do know something about Naval Gunfire.

First a ship or a sub would have to get pretty close to the group to get such a shot off. Before then Battleships are just a part of the picture for a taskforce. They have several surrounding ships with different roles. It would be pretty hard to get close to the group either by air or sea. If it where a ship equiped with a modern 5 inch guns are pretty effective to about 22 kilometers. Then if where attacked by a sub there are usually several sub hunting helicopters within the taskforce so that would be hard. Then not to mention subhunting ships.

In addition a BB can start shooting some 20 miles out which will outrange most smaller caliber weapon systems.

I think if you where to go after such a target it would have to be massive and by air and hopefully something will get by.

Again I don't know Naval Warfare. Maybe someone can explain better.

All I know is in terms of modern Navy's there isn't much that can go toe to toe with battleship. It's a massive projection of power not only from it's 16inch guns but from missle systems and defence systems. It's a very tough ship designed to slug it out with other battleships.

Scendore

NegativeGee
12-13-2004, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Galland0:
Hello all,

Didn't the Arengtine Navy loose a battleship to a British sub in the Falklans War? I think that might have enflunced the U.S. Navy mothballing the Iowas. Massively impressive broadsides...I always wondered how long it took for the ship to stabilize for another shot in WWII. I would think the Navy could stabilize them now a days the same way an M1 tank keeps it's main gun on target. But as mentioned I think the Navy, like the Air Force is more intrested in not being seen, than being super armoured and massive.

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The General Belgrano (formerly the USS Phoenix a survivor of Pearl Harbour) was a Light Crusier not a Battleship, and I'm not sure the circumstances of her loss (surprise engagement by submarine and lack of adequate ASM defences in the Belgrano's group) would have had much bearing on the mothballing of the Iowa's.

It certainly dissuaded the Argentine's from commiting their carrier assets to operations near the Falkland Islands though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mjollnir111675
12-13-2004, 06:32 PM
size of any ship is irrelevant I'll tell ya why:

1) if we really wanted to the U.S. could Frizzle-Frap anything an opposing nation had in ways of anything radar or satellite arrayed.Thus either by gps guided missile/nuke it doesn't matter thus reducing any and all eyes and ears they may have! Make's no diff.Wait n see the next REAL war we have will include ALL sat comm's being reduced to nothing but chipmunk speak. If you have a satelite rest assured we can send a COMMERCIAL business up to destroy it. That all with out having to get the milit'ry involved. So far as nuke subs go yall really need to look into a technology labeled "blue laser".Almost as intriguing as cold fusion.And if ya cant find it git join the Jane's defense net. That'll help with all ya need ta know!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

macd1102
12-13-2004, 07:14 PM
anti submarine warfare is what is utilized, all aircraft on carriers are not fighters s3 viking, and helos provide detection, and also other subs, not counting electronic measures. battleships could launch a shell the size of a small car 20 miles, and with astounding accuracy. its a very interesting life being a sailor, lot of sacrifice, lot more adventure but its well worth it

IZT
12-13-2004, 07:39 PM
whoa nice input pple Thkz! hey Mjollnir111675
whats this Blue alser thingy ure talking about it seems Very interesting i can't seem to find it anywhere though...

Sakai9745
12-13-2004, 09:35 PM
The sailors on the Missouri back in 91 brought up several of the points already mentioned here. Just to elaborate their opinons I took at the time -

Pros
Psychological Value The thought of a BB in shelling range was a huge demoralizer to an enemy force. It was powerful, accurate, and had a funny tendency of staying close by for extended periods of time; at least airpower comes, does it's duty, then vacates the premises.

Armor Being built to take on other ships firing back one ton shells, they could take a massive beating, something most surface ships outside carrier-class simply cannot take. They liked pointing out the Princeton and the Stark, both knocked out of action by single hits.

Cons
Limited Versatility Because of their design and limited weapon refit, any Iowa caught in an all out confrontation as envisioned during the Cold War was heavily reliant of it's escorts. Unlike Aegis cruisers and destroyers, an Iowa could not engage the full spectrum of threats, most notably aircraft and antiship missiles outside CIWS range.

Cost And Upkeep Being a WW2 design, upkeep was costly due to the uniqueness of the parts and ammunition.

WOLFMondo
12-14-2004, 01:20 AM
Why have a Battleship, that needs escorts and its range is limited by its guns when you can have a carrier which combat range is limited to its planes. Makes sense to ditch the Battleships and build carriers. You can project your power over a greater distance. And 1 ton shells? You can mount 1 ton bombs on planes and get them to strike where you want. BB's guns are accurate but they cause collatoral damage. Dropping bombs on the middle of cities is very bad but you can take out individual buildings with laser targetting (or better yet, use a cruise missile). Imagine if a BB tried to do the same. There would be hundreds of civilian deaths.

Skarphol
12-14-2004, 02:34 AM
This is off topic, but the Admiral Belgrano (named USS Phoenix) mentioned above is quite special by the fact that it was in Pearl Harbour when the IJN attacked, and thus started the War in the Pacific. It was also in the Batle of Leyte Gulf which practically whiped out the rest of the IJN, at least broke its back completely. It is also the only naval ship torpedoed after WWII, and the only cruiser sunk after WWII.

Skarphol

Ruy Horta
12-14-2004, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Why have a Battleship, that needs escorts and its range is limited by its guns when you can have a carrier which combat range is limited to its planes. Makes sense to ditch the Battleships and build carriers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

War is a strange thing, you plan for one type of war and get another one.

As a weapon of power projection you don't need Stealth etc on the water. You simply park a current CVN with its escorting vessels and be there, if "police action" is required, up to the levels of the second Iraq war, its more than able to pound away.

If a CVN TF would have had to face a cold war era Soviet attack, it would only take one tac nuke on a cruisemissile to break through to take out the group as an effective weapon.

At sea it would not have taken long before tac. nukes would have been deployed in a cold war grown hot. Its fairly isolated and the effect is limited to military targets. Anti-ship and anti-submarine they increase the kill zone tremendously.

Would 1980-ies defensive weaponry been enough to be 100% effective?

The RN prooved to be fairly disappointing against an enemy that was on average a generation behind. Only the Exocet was modern and the Brits had received all the info they needed by the french makers.

Today the USN is fairly invincible against any conceivable enemy, as long as the conflict is limited. It doesn't need stealth, it doesn't even need much modernization. WW2 BBs with their escorts could roam freely, CVNs would dominate any piece of the ocean they occupy.

Nukes are the great equalizer and we'll certainly see their use in the future.

Ruy Horta
12-14-2004, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Imagine if a BB tried to do the same. There would be hundreds of civilian deaths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, if you ever plan to invade an enemy held beach you'd love to have the hitting power of a couple of BBs. The only thing that comes close is a B-52 carpetbombing strike or tac nukes.

They'll park there and trow in ton after ton of explosives.

We could still improve upon the concept.

The question is one of "state of the the world".

Does the US need to sustain BBs, no...there is no large opposing Navy doing the same.

Does the US need a great number of CVN TFs, no...since there are not enough threats that require that extend of Naval power.

Small navies are the future, as long as there are no navies that start an arms race.

Anyone knows that CVNs are for power politics (show and fighting small wars), the real US Navy looms under the surface. The SSBN are the Battleships of today, the SSNs the cruisers.

macd1102
12-14-2004, 06:14 AM
how do you plan to get your nukes near a task force, with over the horizon radar if a aircraft or missle launches its tracked. the strength of an agis class cruiser or destroyer, it can track and lock on for engagement multiple targets at the same time. nukes are never the answer

WOLFMondo
12-14-2004, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Imagine if a BB tried to do the same. There would be hundreds of civilian deaths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, if you ever plan to invade an enemy held beach you'd love to have the hitting power of a couple of BBs. The only thing that comes close is a B-52 carpetbombing strike or tac nukes.

They'll park there and trow in ton after ton of explosives.

We could still improve upon the concept.

The question is one of "state of the the world".

Does the US need to sustain BBs, no...there is no large opposing Navy doing the same.

Does the US need a great number of CVN TFs, no...since there are not enough threats that require that extend of Naval power.

Small navies are the future, as long as there are no navies that start an arms race.

Anyone knows that CVNs are for power politics (show and fighting small wars), the real US Navy looms under the surface. The SSBN are the Battleships of today, the SSNs the cruisers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree to a point but theres nothing projected air power cannot do that a BB can do and much more precisly. WW2 proved this beyond doubt.

I really cannot see the point of them anymore. Yeah, there impressive but there just a big target with a limited offensive range and nothing a couple of missile frigates couldn't take out from out side its guns range. There also very expensive for what they are, CV's are far more cost effective and can serve a number of roles with all that hanger and deck space. Frigates and destoyers, as floating offensive platforms are also much more effective due to size, cost and man power requirements.

Ruy Horta
12-14-2004, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macd1102:
how do you plan to get your nukes near a task force, with over the horizon radar if a aircraft or missle launches its tracked. the strength of an agis class cruiser or destroyer, it can track and lock on for engagement multiple targets at the same time. nukes are never the answer <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sub launched Cruise missiles, or even nuclear warhead torpedoes.

Nukes have always been part of Nato policy to curb the numerical difference. Tactical nukes would have been deployed fairly early in a WW3 scenario, the limiting factor is purely military targets or not.

Take for instance Anti-Sub warfare with nuclear warheads is many times more effective in terms of killzone. Its also fairly easy to accept.

The US tried to do the same for "low yield bunker busters". Whatever people may think, a true struggle between powerful forces will involve tactical nukes, the tempation is too big.

It does help to prevent that war from happening in the first place. The cost would be too high and the risk of escalation almost 100%.

Small war is something else, the current offset in power guarantees the almost unlimited level of gunboat diplomacy currently being enjoyed.

But the real BATTLEFORCE is beneath the seas, the reast is for show and power projection in small wars. WW2 is teaching us old lessons, the SSN and SSNB has changed that forever, the navy's main task in a big naval war - ASW.

CaptJodan
12-14-2004, 08:59 AM
Certainly in today's world it seems as if the Battleship is far less of an asset than it was previously. With current things going the way they are, with smaller, faster navies, it seems as if the battleship is less useful. Or at least the battleship of old.

The concept of the battleship, however, I think still holds some weight. There's still something to be said, as others have, of naval gunnery fire to the shore. Sure, aircraft have their place in a war, but if gunnery support was truly as obsolete as others suggest, then ground artillary would probably have gone the way of the doedoe (sp) as well. Obviously that couldn't be further from the truth.

Everyone's been comparing the Iowa's to a modern scenario. The Iowa's were built in the 40's to fight a completely different adversary than today's needs require. I know the US has had some research done into the idea of what is referred to as an Arsenal Ship, which is basically just one massive missile battleship, of sorts, a kind of missile version of a battleship, with far less crew requirements.

Another thing to consider is the fact that technology has increased. In the past few years, research has gone into extending the range of the 5 inch gun by a considerable margin. From a gun that had a range of only a few miles to tens of miles and perhaps beyond in the future. If the same level of research was applied to battleship guns, it's possible that their range could also be extended considerably, perhaps reaching over one hundred miles. A 16 inch shell able to reach well inside of an enemy's territory similar to a cruise missile and hit a target accurately, all while being far less expensive than a cruise missile would be a considerable advantage. We'll never really know, though, since no such research was ever conducted.

Aircraft definately have their place, but aircraft aren't the end all and be all of combat. AC may not be able to loiter over a target as long as necessary, and even if they do, they can expend their ordinance in a fairly quick manner. A battleship doesn't have this problem. She can sit off the coast and when the call comes in for artillary, the response will be quick.

As I said, though, in today's world, it's not really an issue. As stated earlier here, in today's world, the US can handle any real small threat that it comes across, and unless we're talking a massive invasion of China (an insane idea anyway), the idea of a battleship is not practical for today's world.

WOLFMondo
12-14-2004, 10:00 AM
Todays adversary doesn't requite a 40 or 50 thousand ton ship to fight it, it requires ships 10 or 20% of that weight to carry cruise missiles. Look at the Gulf, Royal Navy frigates and destroyers chasing high speed gun boats, perfectly easy for small nimble ships. Imagine a BB doing that, it couldn't!

You say a cruise missile is more expensive than a shell, that is true, but factor in a BB with thousands of crew, upkeep and running costs, refitting and repairing very much individual ships compared with that of a Frigate or destroyer. Frigates and Destroyers are built maybe 5 or 6 per batch. Problems are easier to solve and fix on the entire batch, parts easier to replace, standardisation is a massive cost cutter as far as maintenance for obvious reasons.

Also theres far less crew to feed, pay and look after. Theres also things like dry docks to think about, standard classes can use the same dry docks, the same machinery and the staff the same training. Throw a BB in there an it may need its own machinery rooms, supply stocks and buildings, the dock staff need different training. Its highly inefficient. The costs outweight the benefits massivly.

macd1102
12-14-2004, 11:01 AM
i can only speak for the us, but a small fast craft what we call a go fast a frigate cant keep up with, but with the airwing onboard, ie the helo detachment and radar, we maintain contact with a go fast. fir the comment on ssbn, just take a close look at your sub killers, p3 orions, fast attck subs, helo sonars, if its within range [classified] of a task force, which is before you can get close to us we know your there, understand that when a task force deploy, the majority of the time we are not in visual range of each other but we a constantly linked together, what you see, i see, thats what over the horizon visibility is. the purpose of the navy changes with new advisaries, so know we are not the navy of ww2, we are now the navy of 2025

Zarathael
12-14-2004, 09:16 PM
Here's an interesting question. What happens to all these small, fast missile boats, when in about 5-10 years their missiles are rendered obsolete and useless by point-defense laser technology, and the range of guns is increased to well over 100 miles?

Zarathael
12-14-2004, 09:20 PM
And as far as having to have air/surface superiority befor a BB can be used for surface bombardment, well, air and surface superiority can generally be assumed to exhist by default unless the major western powers suddenly decide to have a tiff. (Not discounting Russia, mind you, but it would take a LOT to get Russia involved in warfare right now, they have too many concerns of their own.)

eddiemac0
12-14-2004, 11:04 PM
A modern BB would have to have the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine cababilites of an entire battle group packed into it (which may very well be possible, I don't know) to be effective for its size and radar cross-section (which wouldn't matter because these defenses supposedly can deal with any threat). Re-vamped big guns might be used instead of cruise missiles (if 16-inch gun tech had improved to the level of 5-inch tech, to continue the example, you'd have very powerful and extremely accurate and versatile weapons). A modern BB would be used in situations where aircraft could not get through (this situation does not exist, so BB's no longer exist...), and you were trying to literally level an enemy. A ridiculously high volume of shells could pierce any anti-missile defenses, while expensive cruise missiles (DDs, CGs, airplanes) might not. Basically, if you couldn't use a nuke, but needed to absolutely destroy an area, you'd need naval gunfire (not missiles, remember, no "flying" thing can get through), and only a BB can provide that.

Yes, this is a crazy scenario, and doesn't exist, but if I ran a little corner of the world, I would have a BB, and it would look very cool indeed.

Sakai9745
12-14-2004, 11:17 PM
Big if, but IF a modern-day BB made it into the world, I would imagine it would be sized down version (perhaps btwn the 20-25K ton range) and incorporate VLS and SPY1 radar like the Aegis vessels. Retain the turrents up front.

Ruy Horta
12-15-2004, 04:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macd1102:
fir the comment on ssbn, just take a close look at your sub killers, p3 orions, fast attck subs, helo sonars, if its within range [classified] of a task force, which is before you can get close to us we know your there, understand that when a task force deploy, the majority of the time we are not in visual range of each other but we a constantly linked together, what you see, i see, thats what over the horizon visibility is. the purpose of the navy changes with new advisaries, so know we are not the navy of ww2, we are now the navy of 2025 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Navy might be one for 2025 (whatever that means since it has for the last fifteen years lacked a true adversary), but the majority of people still think of it in terms of WW2, they see Midway and Leyte Gulf as the example of carrier supremacy.

Today the main adversary of SSBNs are SSNs, all those other ASW assets are mainly defensive. The SSN Hunts for the SSBN.

In that full scale war scenario of at the latest the mid 80-ies it would have been a fast and furious conflict. It just takes one warhead to come through, and we know that defensive meassures are still not 100% today, to kill a CVN if tac nukes are used.

It just takes one nuke warhead in anti-sub role in the neighborhood of a sub to take her out.

Today the role of carriers is mainly political and they have proven to be very handy diplomatic tools (modern gunboat diplomacy), they are also very handy in limited wars, since the USN has no current adversary on the surface to take her on.

BUT if the Battleships first role was deterent, that has now been taken over by the SSBN, that is the simple end sum when it comes to full scale war.

Weapons are always a matter of countermeassures. The Soviets were at one stage reverting back to the Battlecruiser concept, if they had, chances would be very high that the west would have deployed a similar class of vessel (or retained the BBs). The USN has large carriers, the Soviets at the last stages of their existence went for the same. Action and reaction.

As large scale Naval conflict (meaning a war between matched powerful adversaries) becomes a thing of memory (the last true clash being WW2 and in modern terms perhaps 1982 Falkland/Malvinas), more and more will the surface fleets become a "police force", indeed with small, fast and most important cheap vessels.

It will be difficult to maintain the number of carrier TFs, a BB is out of the question, but since the main role of other surface vessels is escorting the capital ships - carriers, so will their numbers and size dwindle.

BTW, if the advance of pilotless a/c is continued, the days of the Carrier as we know it are numbered (sure they will last long after they have become a liability).

Perhaps the ideal would become a submarine carrier with VTOL RPV, add cruisemissles and even ICBMs and you have the ultimate mix of SSBN and CVN, its escorts would be SSN.

Now if that thing could fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

macd1102
12-15-2004, 05:22 AM
good argument, but know, understand the foe the navy is, unless other countries allow us access to there bases the airforces hands are tied, look a persian gulf, i was there, the carriers allows us to place aircraft where needed because of it mobility, country doesnt allow access we plot a different course. theres alot more to anti submarine warfare than you know, also if you havent noticed knowones using nukes, your speaking of what if, i speak of what goes on, and we do train and prepare for the what if. carriers are going know where, as we decom one we comission another, 2025 statement means the advance technology, training and preparedness off a ship and its crew, there are few similarities to the navy of ww11 and current navy, if you doubt me, your always welcome to come play with us

ElAurens
12-15-2004, 05:37 AM
Here is a little statistic to chew on.

During the Viet Nam war, 75% of US aircraft losses occured in a area that was inside the gun range of an Iowa class BB.

With the kinds of wars that are being fought these days, I argue that a battleship of modern design would make a lot of sense. A large platform that could deal with shore bombardment in any weather, deploy modern "space age weapons", offload troops, and, deploy it's own small air assets.

WTE_Konigwolf
12-15-2004, 06:21 AM
The Battleship may need air supierority to operate in a modern arena but it did in WWII as well. The Missouri and Wisconsin were both involved in shelling duties during the 1991 Iraqi conflict (I may be wrong but in one of these cases one of the BB's took over the shelling with its 16" guns that a more modern therefore more useful ship couldn't destroy with its 5" guns, bunkers I think, it's not just range but hitting power as well).

As for modern weaponry the BB's were equiped with tomahawks (infact the Mighty Mo was one of the first ships -if not the first- to fire its tomahawks during the first gulf war)(Also if memory serves me right in response to earlier talk about better armed attack subs, SSN's have limited tomahawk use)

But the Battleship also has other than combat roles to fulfill, that of the PR department. In 1996 the Mighty Mo visted Hobart (tasmania, Australia, this made a HUGE impression on a young lad of 12) as both a good will visit and R&R for the crew, this was the first time Hobart had been visited by a US warship in a long time (1975 USS enterprise I think) since then, Hobart has become a regular port of call for US Warships (including CV's) mostly as the last stop on the homeward trip (including being the last stop of the Missouri on her final tour & combat mission in 1991.

Konigwolf

malkuth
12-15-2004, 06:23 AM
They were more expensive to run then most Aircraft carriers. Not a good thing in todays Liberal Wheenie world.

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2004, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zarathael:
Here's an interesting question. What happens to all these small, fast missile boats, when in about 5-10 years their missiles are rendered obsolete and useless by point-defense laser technology, and the range of guns is increased to well over 100 miles? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Missiles are not likely to get "obsoleted" for a LONG time, whether we have lasers or not.

The reasons I think are that sensor technology is limited in range and it's too easy to overwhelm point defense lasers with decoys, submunition swarms, and hardening against laser energy.

Besides, I don't think we have power supplies with the energy storage density needed to support such ubiquitous deployment of high energy weaponry on the horizon yet.

Lasers may become more effective than projectile based point defense in the future, but they won't obsolete missiles.

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2004, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Konigwolf:
The Battleship may need air supierority to operate in a modern arena but it did in WWII as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Battleships were already largely obsoleted by airpower in WWII... at least halfway anyway... They were mostly relegated to nightime ops when aircraft had to stay grounded.

At the time of WWII, there was still a large contingent of leader ship in various navies of the world that held that BB's were still the mainstay of naval power. But by the end of the war I think everyone realised that air power was the future.

The Iowa as I recall required a crew of 5000 to man it. While it carried some Tomahawks (something like 8?) this was supplementary armament at best... not like the Tomahawk complement of a VL Spruance. And it's main guns can only project power along a thin strip of land along the coast... That's a lot of manpower and maintenance sunk into something you can rarely actually find an opportunity to use.

Love for the BB is largely romantic nostalgia (and some awe over THAT much moving steel). But this is not enough to justify the disproportionate chunk of budget that the Iowa sucks up.

woofiedog
12-15-2004, 10:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif There is nothing like lots of Fire Power! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gifLots!
http://www.bluejacket.com/usn/images/sp/bc/bb62_new_jersey__broadside.jpg

http://www.bluejacket.com/usn/images/sp/bc/bb64_wisconsin_gulf.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2004, 12:33 AM
Man, I wonder what it feels like standing on the deck like that when those things are firing...

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2004, 12:35 AM
Wait, wasn't there an obscure variant of the B-25 that mounted one of those guns? B25Z model if I recall correctly...

fordfan25
12-16-2004, 01:13 AM
thing about useing a BB today would be in long wars that last for more than a month the resone i say that is it would be much cheaper to fire those 16 inch guns than a million doller missle. not to mentune that a missle can be jammed by counter messures and shot down but there is not much that can be done about an incomeing shell. well other than puting your head between your legs and kissing your a$$ good by lol. i think if thay were to be redisignd smaller less armmord faster and with up to date systems thay would be very effective and more cost effective in sertean situations. i read some wear that carriers are becomeing the BBs of the new age in that thay are not as cost effective as thay used to be.

fordfan25
12-16-2004, 01:25 AM
guys iv also heard TALK of rail guns being used in the futer. high powerd magnets that run the length of a barrel that propels the shell at even higher speeds than powder can achieve.

ploughman
12-16-2004, 01:58 AM
Some thoughts.

Most of the world is near the sea, and most of the stuff you might want to destoy is near the sea. A monitor like an Iowa class BB would have a lot of potential targets within range of its main armament. I'm not sold on having something like an Iowa as a cruise missile platform. Cruise missiles don't need a crew of thousands or several feet of armoured plate to be fired. 16 inch guns do.

How would you sink one? Most current anti-ship weapons systems assume the target to be essentially unarmoured and aren't designed to defeat the sort of protection offered by an Iowa class BB, so a lot of ASMs would probably just 'bounce off' one. Having said that, an BB would be a sitting duck if it came to a succesfully prosecuted attack by guided munitions designed to penetrate hardened targets such as the BLU-109, or multi-warhead missiles with a similar mission. Most of these weapons are designed for hardened land targets, but a BB would probably be within their capability. Also, you could choose where to hit the BB, with deliberate shots into a magazine or into the engine room space. Alternatively, what would happen if a spread of heavyweight torpedos detonated under the hull? These things are designed to break the backs of modern warships by exploding beneath them and lifting them out of the water. A BB, by virtue of it's mass, would probably not suffer as much damage but the effect on machinery and systems etc, might render the ship ineffective.

Apart from novelty value, what does an Iowa do that nothing else can do? With things like TLAM and precision munitions, increasingly accurate and capable naval gunfire from modern ships, and GPS guided MLRS (not a naval system to be sure)the bombardment niche BBs have lurked in since WWII is being catered for by a plethora of other assets.

A BB's survivability is somewhat comprimised by the fact it is a high value target (always has been), although this is tempered by the fact that a lot of adversaries would be scratching there heads when it came to actually doing something meaningfully belligerent to it. Which pretty much seems to me to be the only arguement for keeping a BB in play - it's survivability, it would be the ace up your sleeve in the event of a very bad day, the one asset that could take punishment that would floor virtually any other surface combatant, shrug it off, and keep fighting.

Alternatively, it would make a lovely museum. I always wished a BB like HMS Nelson was parked up next to Tower Bridge rather than the lovely light cruiser HMS Belfast, could we borrow one of yours?

Mjollnir111675
12-16-2004, 07:28 AM
@ AgentBif:

The deck would move out from under you!! Much like trying to stand on the roof of a Ferrari when it slows from 120 mph. to about 5 mph. in under a sec!!You would be facing the deck without any prior thought of doing so if you were unaware of full battery tests/firing. That is ALL batteries firing broadside at the same time!! Also the whole ship will move between 20 -30 ft. port/starboard depending upon the batteries bearing.
Firing of full broadside batteries has mainly been reserved fer the type of photo you see above.Rarely if ever has it been done in real life.Too much stress on the aging superstructure to be doing it constantly.That is another reason why that particular shot has been seen alot.In all reality they are programmed to not fire in unison either all in one turret or all nine. As well as damge to each of the turret rings,ammo elevators etc. etc..

@Ploughman:

If ya wanna borrow a ship of ours that has more armor and is heavier than the HMS Belfast you can always try our U.S.S. Constitution!! I bet she'd even give the Bel' a run fer her money!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/

OH,WAIT A SEC.... SHE IS STILL in service!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/873935/aVENGE.jpg

WOLFMondo
12-16-2004, 08:00 AM
Like HMS Victory...still listed as in service and I think she's also listed as a flagship!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
Alternatively, it would make a lovely museum. I always wished a BB like HMS Nelson was parked up next to Tower Bridge rather than the lovely light cruiser HMS Belfast, could we borrow one of yours? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that would be a nice sight to see, though Nelson was sure impressive, HMS Warspite would be my choice. Isn't there still a Colossus class carrier in service in a south American country somewhere? If the UK could buy and restore that and park it next to HMS Belfast...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sakai9745
12-16-2004, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
Man, I wonder what it feels like standing on the deck like that when those things are firing... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The blast wave can be clearly felt at a range of 500 yds. I am still trying to locate a picture I took of the Missouri cutting loose with her main battery off the coast of Hawaii back in Nov of 1990.

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
@ AgentBif:

The deck would move out from under you!! Much like trying to stand on the roof of a Ferrari when it slows from 120 mph. to about 5 mph. in under a sec!!You would be facing the deck without any prior thought of doing so if you were unaware of full battery tests/firing. That is ALL batteries firing broadside at the same time!! Also the whole ship will move between 20 -30 ft. port/starboard depending upon the batteries bearing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, it sounds to me like you just pulled all those numbers out of thin air Mjollnir. I was hoping for some information from someone who actually has knowledge of the matter, not gratuitous fabrication.

You are aware that this ship displaces some 60 kilotons? You are aware that the guns likely have massive recoil damping mechanisms?

If the whole ship recoils 20 to 30 ft during a broadside, then practically everyone on board suffers some kind of blunt force trauma and probably not a few sailors end up with serious injuries, broken bones, etc. Furthermore, you'd see a massive shock response in the water on the opposite side of the ship (doesn't show in the image above though).

Gee, I wonder what happened to the photographer who took that picture on the deck?

A 120mph Ferari screeching to 5mph in 1sec is doing 5G's. Applying 5G's over 1sec to something weighing in at 60kt would require the equivalent undamped momentum transfer of something like 400 9-gun volleys of the Iowa's 16" guns... But since the ship displaces water when it recoils, and since the recoil mechanisms and exhaust gases probably bleed a fair bit of momentum from the blast, that number could be a factor of 2 higher perhaps (800 full volleys)?

Jerking that kind of mass 20-30 feet at 5G's (not counting water displacement) would take a ballpark energy equivalent of 84kT of TNT but the total mass of the propellant in a 9-gun volley amounts to only 2.7 tons (metric).

Now I'm really tired right now and maybe I slipped in one or more of my calculations, but something seems mighty fishy about the numbers you just made up.

fordfan25
12-16-2004, 12:48 PM
well most people are thinking of a modern BB as thay were in 1940s. build one today there would be alot more automation and such you could have a rather larg ship with big guns but with todays tech there would be a major reduction in the crew size. i think in todays climet were most wars are more than likely the kind weve seen with ireq aa madern bb would save alot of mony and be very effective. it could carry and oparate atack choppers like the comanche as well as carry long rang missles for distence work also state of the art electronics. and there is no law that says it HAS to be 3 or 4 turrent design remember any current BB would not be built with the mission of takeing on other BBs it would be almost excluse a land bombardment platform. one the carriers provide air suport you can park a few BBs off the cost of were ever you need them and do the rest. it would sertanly not be the king of the sea but in conjuction with other reources it would do the job and for a lot less than a million doller missle. i mean thase tomahwks start to add up after awhile.

Scen
12-16-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
@ AgentBif:

The deck would move out from under you!! Much like trying to stand on the roof of a Ferrari when it slows from 120 mph. to about 5 mph. in under a sec!!You would be facing the deck without any prior thought of doing so if you were unaware of full battery tests/firing. That is ALL batteries firing broadside at the same time!! Also the whole ship will move between 20 -30 ft. port/starboard depending upon the batteries bearing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, it sounds to me like you just pulled all those numbers out of thin air Mjollnir. I was hoping for some information from someone who actually has knowledge of the matter, not gratuitous fabrication.

You are aware that this ship displaces some 60 kilotons? You are aware that the guns likely have massive recoil damping mechanisms?

If the whole ship recoils 20 to 30 ft during a broadside, then practically everyone on board suffers some kind of blunt force trauma and probably not a few sailors end up with serious injuries, broken bones, etc. Furthermore, you'd see a massive shock response in the water on the opposite side of the ship (doesn't show in the image above though).

Gee, I wonder what happened to the photographer who took that picture on the deck?

A 120mph Ferari screeching to 5mph in 1sec is doing 5G's. Applying 5G's over 1sec to something weighing in at 60kt would require the equivalent undamped momentum transfer of something like 400 9-gun volleys of the Iowa's 16" guns... But since the ship displaces water when it recoils, and since the recoil mechanisms and exhaust gases probably bleed a fair bit of momentum from the blast, that number could be a factor of 2 higher perhaps (800 full volleys)?

Jerking that kind of mass 20-30 feet at 5G's (not counting water displacement) would take a ballpark energy equivalent of 84kT of TNT but the total mass of the propellant in a 9-gun volley amounts to only 2.7 tons (metric).

Now I'm really tired right now and maybe I slipped in one or more of my calculations, but something seems mighty fishy about the numbers you just made up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I do know a little something about it cosidering it was my job in the Marine Corps to call in Naval gunfire.

I think his description is a little drastic but he is right the ship does displace quite a bit. I don't remember exact figures but it does move several feet when firing a broadside volley.

The guns themselves move back several feet into the compartment and the guns are very much manual. The firing rate is something like 1 round every 2 minutes but they can go faster if they forgo some saftey. IRC each bag of gunpower weighs something like 140 pounds and they use 3 or 4 at a time. Each armor piercing round weighs in at 2700 pounds. They come in all flavors of fusing.

Nasty stuff

Now that's just her 16 inch guns. BBs have 12 5inch double turrets that are also manually crewed.

Bottom line BBs have tons of firepower and they can take quite a bit of punishment. Modern ships are not really made to slug it out with other ships. There goal is to destroy anything before it even comes close using naval gunfire.

The role of the BB has changed a lot since the aircraft carrier came into power.

Scendore

Fliger747
12-16-2004, 03:08 PM
Sadly we no longer have the industrial base to produce something like the magnificent 16" 50 cal Mark 7 naval rifle, or the massive armor used by these ships.

The firing of a broadside would displace (not throw) the ship sideways about 3 feet or so. In actuality the guns were not discharged simultaneously, but with a predetermined spacing (in milliseconds), so as to not have vibration disturb the accuracy of adjacent pieces.

During WWII use of maximum charges would result in a barrel LINER life of only a bit over 100 rounds. For shore bombardment reduced charges (fewer bags) gave better tube life and a more usefull tajectory. Post war development of cooler burning powders extended maximum tube life possibly to 1000 rounds.

macd1102
12-16-2004, 03:56 PM
back in the mid 80's whille onboard uss ranger which included in the task force for pr purposes a battleship, which one slips my mind but it is factual that when firing all guns the ship would move in the water sideways and it was noticible, also the crew are notified before batteries are released, guns, missle whatever, so its not a surprise to the crew, preventing injuries

malkuth
12-16-2004, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
Man, I wonder what it feels like standing on the deck like that when those things are firing... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um if your on the deck when Those babies are going off Feeling it will be the least of your worries.

eddiemac0
12-16-2004, 06:32 PM
Magnetic rail guns (no recoil), automation, modern armor, the submerged, surface and air cover of a modern carrier group, and sheer scariness of a BB designed this very day, could play a useful diplomatic and military role. Modern wars are almost always fought with coastal countries for control of coastal regions, and long range guns are quite capable of hitting those targets with a great degree of accuracy. Read up on you Mahan and you will have to agree that given the BB would be more effective now as a bombardment platform than it ever could have been as an anti-shipping vessel. The focus needs to be shifted to purity of combat role for these monsters.

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2004, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by malkuth:
Um if your on the deck when Those babies are going off Feeling it will be the least of your worries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look up! There is a photograph _from the deck_ of one of the guns going off.

Man, people's capacity to frabricate junk out of thin air just so they can sound awesomely authoritative is exasperating.

macd1102
12-16-2004, 08:40 PM
i myself have put in 21 yrs in the us navy, i have been involved in every conflict our country has had until current war, you may chose to think that people make up stories, but first check yourself, if your not satisfied with your dull life that you see the need to expand on it, thats your business, because what i speak of is apart of my daily life, because they dont pull numbers off the internet like most of the people here who try to come across as knowing something does not make it lies, one last point and i done here, all info you find in books are not factual, most technical specs are classified, which you dont warrant the clearance to know, so what you get is what has been deemed enough for you to know. expirience: uss constellation, uss ranger, uss dw eisenhower, uss nassau, and uss doyle. no need to fabricate

Fliger747
12-16-2004, 08:41 PM
The overpressure from the firing blast was considered a problem in battleship design and crew utiliztion. During WWII many 20mm light AA weapons were mounted for and aft. Few were manable during use of the main battery. Other equipment, particularly the fragile tube electronic gear of the era was subject to blast or shock damage. Observation aircraft mounted atop fantail catapults have been blown overboard!

It was always a consideration, even during the modernizations of these ships.

Sakai9745
12-16-2004, 09:50 PM
Dang it!!! Where is that stupid pic???

The pressure wave that these guns could create were a problem, although not as terribly as some as suggested. As Fliger747 and macd1102 mentioned, the any personnel in the immediate vicinity of the main batteries were evacuated prior to firing. The blast was capable of wreaking havoc on personnel, but you had to be fairly close and in direct line of the blast wave for anything as terrible as being blown clear over the side.

J30Vader
12-17-2004, 12:01 AM
Battleships are expensive in terms of manpower, but very cheap in terms of firepower. Think about how much it cost to train a pilot. Then the plane. Then think about how much a 16" shell costs.

IIRC, and I am honestly not sure about it, ther was a proposal to use smaller, sabot like shells to extend its range.

Also consider just how many pilots would not have been guests of the Hanoi Hilton if a pair of BBs shelled every target in reach.

As mentioned above, they don't sail alone. They would have the same screen a carrier would. And the vitals are far better protected against damage. Plus lots of air cover.

fordfan25
12-17-2004, 12:05 AM
iv heard of that before.

J30Vader
12-17-2004, 12:10 AM
Over pressure. If you look at a picture of the Yamato in 1944 you see all those AA guns around the superstructure. The reason was the blast pressure of those 18" guns.

One of my brothers was in the navy. He thought it would be a great idea to get a picture of a Harpoon launch. After waking up in the sickbay he got a royal **** chewing. And no picture.

Lt.Davis
12-17-2004, 08:18 AM
so what can of ship the militry using since BB is out?