Don't think any other nation is thinking of reviving Battleships either.
Int he modern world, there’s just no practical use for them, however as we are aware, technology can suffer disastrous setbacks.
Today, we need more timely articles like "The Rise and Fall of the Fighter Jet, "The Rise and Fall of the Aircraft Carrier", or "The Rise and Fall of the Tank" that point out the degree to which we are still overspending on the tools of yesterday's wars.
Rail guns may lead to new vessels that carry guns as their primary weapons.
If missile and missile-defense developments are such that they cannot be stopped then armored ships will return.
If missile-defense developments are such that they missiles are totally ineffective, then direct fire may return as a primary attack weapon.
Those would not bring back the BB-61s, but they might lead to the development of new battleships.
While I love seeing gigantic cannons blast they are outdated.
With rocket and gps technology we can deliver accurate fire from further and further ranges than any battleship could ever hope.
Over the horizon, hundreds, thousands of miles away. Better from half a world away.
Take that Allah worshippers and we’ll station armed drones over you day and night as well.
I say we repurpose the ships for today world or keep them for the kewel factor.
Article says four Iowa class ships, there were 6, only four completed.
Unfortunately, the Iowa can’t do that any more.
A good article and I agree with it.
With that being said, I too can see the need for a modern battleship. But more along the lines of a ‘Arsenal Ship’, that is the Gun/Missile platform and a more versatile Sea Control Vessel that actually does the directing of fire and assigns assets to missions as necessary.
Keep the numbers of crew men down too. Why? Because they are both costly and create huge numbers of casualties when placed in the concentrations used in the Old style WWII vessels.
I think of an Arsenal ship as a valuable asset that can also be thought of as an expendable one. Once found they are going to be attacked until sunk. In the meantime other Arsenal Ships spread over the ocean can continue to whack the enemy until they and their assets are gone, either sunk or if on the land made unusable.
And of course with any discussion like this, there has to be the national commitment to build and maintain such units. Otherwise it’s all a waste, both of time and money and of the national prestige and honor of the nation that built them.
I’m a sucker for these ships going back centuries into their history.
The idea of a floating fortress coming up to a target and blasting it to hell still is awesome to see.
But the new ships get the job done, and that’s what is important.
Love these kinds of discussions. thanks for posting. It makes sense that battleships just wouldnt be worth the effort in a modern conflict. But to take it a step further I could argue that when the shooting starts in an all out conflict, the same reasons battleships arent coming back will also be a big wake up call for the modern day aircraft carrier. big, slow, expensive, man power heavy, vulnerable to cheap anti ship missles are the same reasons the BB idea wont work. It would take only one lucky shot to get through the ageis umbrella to render a CAG out of operation. And i believe it’s more likely that in a massive missle swarm attack a lot more than one would get through. So, while everbody still wants one (india, china etc....) they are so valuable that you really cant afford to lose one in combat. In a china/taiwan shootout we’d have to park our’s east of taiwan and spend all of our resources just to protect them. Because its not like we can spit a new one out like we could back in 1945.
If i were designing a navy of the future (and woe to the nation that allowed me this job) rather than bringing back battleships, I would take the zumwalt concept even further and develop fleets of dozens of tiny low profile platforms that were modular depending on the mission. youd have a mix of ships and some would be loaded with various drones, some with missle pods (air or sea or land), amphib landing modules, command module etc...and the modules could be changed out depending on the event and or the mix needed for the next mission.
I’m by no means an expert so there may be better ideas already in the works nor am i probably the first person to come up with this type of concept but I just see the modern carrier as a brdige between the battleship days of old and whatever the future holds.
The Russians are coming pretty close with their refit of the Soviet-era Kirov-class large guided-missile cruisers. Those are a bit more suitable to a modern navy, I'll admit - nuclear power and all.
The irony is still thick, though... given that those cruisers were what prompted the Reagan administration to refit the Iowas.
New technology- especially drones- overcome all the drawbacks to battleships. Drones can provide air-cover.
The big guns are obsolete. But there’s lots of new stuff to put on that sturdy platform.
A battleship can fire 2,700 lb projectiles a distance of 24 miles with its 16-inch guns with a high degree of accuracy.
A Volkswagon Beetle weights 2,100 pounds. That means a battleship anchored in Brooklyn, NY can fire a Volkswagon Beetle - with two passengers - and shoot them to Hackensack, NJ on a trip they will not soon forget.