USS Iowa firing all of its 16-inchers. A fantastic spectacle but anachronistic in 21st century warfare. (US Navy Photo) Posted on 01/06/2014 1:08:10 PM PST by Sir Napsalot
USS Iowa firing all of its 16-inchers. A fantastic spectacle but anachronistic in 21st century warfare. (US Navy Photo)
Those who cover the militarized aspects of the ocean eventually will encounter a group of people who want the U.S. Navy to get back into the battleship business.
The argument goes like this: The four remaining World War II Iowa-class battleships are cheaper to operate, cheaper than building new ships, and provide powerful and much-needed weapons (giant 16-inch guns—that’s the diameter of the shell, not the length of the barrel) to the U.S. arsenal. (The 2012 summer movie spectacular Battleship may have reinvigorated some of the calls to reactivate the big ships following the glorious montage of the USS Missouri coming to life to fight maritime aliens).
Before killing the buzz of why bringing back the Iowa-class ships doesn’t make sense, let’s take a quick history tangent.
The modern armored ship entered popular American culture with the 1862 ironclad battle between the Union’s USS Monitor and the Confederacy’s CSS Virginia (often referred to by its Union moniker Merrimack).
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
Replacement parts are nowhere to be found except on museum ships, if still there and in working condition.
No one has made ammunition for the 16-inch guns for decades. Whatever is left has been in storage since 1991 at Seal Beach NWS and would have to be tested prior to use.
Battleships are wonderful in asymmetrical warfare. Wonderful.
Every argument that can be applied to battleships can be applied to aircraft carriers. They too, are wonderful in asymmetrical warfare. And are vulnerable in symmetrical warfare.
Bring back the battleships, I want to watch third world missiles bouncing off them.
It’d bounce off. The captain of the Missouri said as much during Gulf War I.
A battleship would shrug off almost any of the modern anti-ship missiles needing little more than a paint job afterwards. I do believe there is a supersonic carrier killer missile that the Russians developed some time ago which might be a threat, but that’s about it. Those are some serious ordinance and can only be carried by strategic bombers. I also believe the Chinese have them now.
Awesome part of the movie.
I find your post a little contradictory. You make some good points, but if you could target with satellites or aircraft (even drones), why wouldn't you fire from long distances, rather than make your platform more vulnerable by closing in?
Great Thinking!
We need more of those (surrenders).
A lot of that was due to US development of radar, and Japanese ignorance of it.
Well, with GPS guided shells the artilery is making a come back. Of course ships can easily be killed and subs make more sense. But if we have ships, makes sense to me to have regular guns on them.
It is a passage of time, as the time for the Battleship had come and gone.
But it won’t stop us from admiring them, or have cherished memories, tales from the elders, etc. Like a great dame, proper tributes need to be paid.
The Belgrano was a light Cruiser, and she was sunk with a torpedo. The Sheffield got hit with a missile, she was a destroyer.
Yep, Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
(Grin)
The argument for battleships is to bombard enemy beaches prior to landing. The possibility of landing troops on an opposed beach like they did at Tarawa or Iwo Jima is virtually zero, so the usefulness of the battleship is virtually zero as well.
Thanks Sir Napsalot. Guided missiles are superseding artillery on land as well.
Aircraft carriers house squadrons of fighters, bombers, surveillance, control and anti-submarine aircraft, each aircraft capable of attacking or defending against multiple targets. No other vessel does that. I do think that they should look again at the Pykrete concept which was briefly explored during World War II, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk
We could give the Iowa to the Mexican Navy, so Obama and Boehner could sign Amnesty on it in Los Angeles.
Satellites only give crude estimates of location. They tell you the enemy is in an area the size of Delaware. Also, satellites can and will get shot down in a real war. My contention is that naval warfare will get primitive real quick. Nobody is going to radiate unless you want a ARM up your butt.
Int he modern world, there’s just no practical use for them, however as we are aware, technology can suffer disastrous setbacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.