No comparison to the modern lethality of modern torpedos, aerial bombs, and air to surface anti-ship cruise missiles w/ 1000 kilo HE warheads. Armor is no defense.
Posted on 06/18/2005 5:32:42 AM PDT by SLB
The Navy wants to let go of its last two battleships. But a group called the United States Naval Fire Support Association is doing its best to torpedo that plan. Both sides are firing salvos across newspaper op-ed pages.
The issue: Does a weapon that was born in the 19th century and came to maturity in the 20th century still have a role in the 21st?
The answer could well decide whether the battleships Iowa and Wisconsin rejoin the fleet-in-being - or whether they'll join their sister ships Missouri and New Jersey as floating museums to an age gone by.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Hood was a battlecruiser not a battleship. Big difference in protection and internal subdivision.
Not to mention Red China's subs.
"An opacity lens can pick up a light plume."
So can IR and for every fossil fuel burning ship in the fleet. The smoke/heat signature issue for a battleship is a no greater than it is for the other fossil fueled surface combatants that you were trying to make an issue out of. They all run the same risk of detection by those methods.
"Bringing back the two or three of the Iowas is a bad idea."
Not to the USMC whose operations they would support it isn't.
No comparison to the modern lethality of modern torpedos, aerial bombs, and air to surface anti-ship cruise missiles w/ 1000 kilo HE warheads. Armor is no defense.
Well, actually, what supposed to happen in war is to inflict as much damage to the enemy while not unnecessarily increasing the risk to your own forces.
The Silkworm was a rather ancient missile and whether or not the Missouri would have avoided a hit by a new generation Hai Ying-3 Supersonic Anti-Ship Missile is another matter.
When the Falklands War was being fought, the CO of our CGN used the opportunity to discuss battle tactics with the ship's officers. The Brit's lack of adequate carrier air power meant that they did not have the stand-off capabilities to engage the enemy far away from their fleet as would have been U.S. battle doctrine. As a result, the "small boys" were busy swatting missiles.....a few times unsuccessfully.
Our CO made the point that we (our CGN) and the other air-defense ships of a battle group were there as a last resort. "When we are forced into the situation that we have to start shooting down the enemy's bullets," he said, "we're already in deep sh*t."
A BB, by it's very limited gun range, forces itself automatically into such "deep sh*t". The range of 16 inch gun is 21 miles. The range of a Silkworm is 50 miles. The range of a Hai Ying-3 is 90 miles.
So, in order put to a 16-inch shell on target at much less acurancy than and aircraft can put a 2000 pound JDAM on target, in a stretch of territory limited to a very narrow coastal area, you are putting a very expensive asset in harms way when air-power can put nearly equivalent ordnance on target at much greater accuracy and at much less risk.
Yes, war means that the enemy gets to shoot at you but the wise commander does not unnecessarily risk a large number of men and a very high-cost asset when the job can be performed better and at much less risk by far fewer men at far less cost.
"Such a feint could have been accomplished by B-52 carpet bombing of the coast at very little risk"........... True but it cannot be sustained and delivered upon demand. Those planes usually come from a long way and you have to wait for them to sortie. Sometimes hours.
And how long did it take for Halsey's Task Force 34 BB's to beat feet back to the Samar invasion fleet where Taffy 3 was getting the snot beat out of it after he was tricked into getting his BB's out of position?
That is the problem with BB's. They have a very limited big gun offensive range and they can only move down the coast at 30+ knots.
"In addition, the range of the BB is extremely limited. Once the action moves 20 miles inland, the big guns of the BB are as utterly useless in the war as the guns of a 1905 era coastal artillery fort. By contrast, air-power can deliver 2000 pond GBU-31 JDAM's with a 10 meter CEP (Circular Error Probable) anywhere on the battlefield." .......... NSWC Dalghren has developed and sucessfully tested over the years the BBs were reactivated, RAP 16" shells utilizing existing shell casings which can be fired up to distances of 115 miles maybe more...........
Even if you extend the offensive radius to 115 miles, you are still limited by a slow moving platform that must move into the teeth of shore-based missile and air defenses. That essentially rules out use against any enemy other than a poorly armed third-rate power. Otherwise, you end up with an HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse scenario.
Pre 9/11 thinking. I work as a consultant to both the Navy and USMC and know people in the know. There has been a lot of change of sentiment towards to BB's especially the Marine Corps brass at MCCDC and MARCORSYSCOM.
However, is that thinking based on sentimental attachment to the BB or on practical considerations? Rember, some U.S. Navy Admirals openly wept when Billy Mitchell sunk the Ostfriesland.
You're correct. A Battleship would attract nukes.
Then why don't carrier groups attract nukes?
Sustainable firepower is great. If we have more then two conflicts going on at once requiring it, what is the third option since we have only two BBs? How do we accomplish that third, fourth or, god forbid, an eighth mission? A combination of things I suspect.
Now that would be a good area to explore here as it's a real world possibility and forces people to think outside the box.
The Yamato was on a suicide mission with no air support and the Imperial Japanese Navy was on its last legs. The Yamato force was attacked by 386 airplanes in the first wave and hit with 309 in the second wave. They were simply overwhelmed and had no way to fight back. The Yamato and Musashi were sunk at the time when Japan had no effective carrier force to counteract the American threat Had the Japs been able to have effective air cover sinking them would not have been as easy. A BB in a SAG would have the benefit of air cover plus the countermesasures on the escorts which are quite capable of dealing with the threats. Risk of destruction is always a fact in any naval combat operation. The best you can do is use tactics and countermeasures.
Armor is a defense. Our Abrams tanks absorb hits from the latest in AA technology and still survive and there armor technology is over 30 years old. The modern naval ordnance we have is designed to deal with unarmored ships which are not protected and not stoutly constructed. AP weapons would simply punch holes in them and pass through without exploding.
"However, is that thinking based on sentimental attachment to the BB or on practical considerations?"
Based on analysis.
Great point?
So if we can't put out say 25 full battle groups to fight the
mythical future scenario then we shouldn't do anything to deal with current situations?
What comparable sized military forces are the threat?
No other country has a navy or military of any size escept China.
For the next ten years or so the threat is islamic terrorism for which the BB's would serve quite well.
Are you saying that we should not meet that threat because of some crazy 8, 10, 12 front war in the future when there is no sizable adversary?
"You're correct. A Battleship would attract nukes."
If a battleship or carrier got hit with nuke. I assure you that the capital city of the power that authorized such an attack would have mushroom clouds appear over it in short order.
Re: "...Volkswagen-sized projectiles..."
It always gets under my skin to see this written and makes me wonder about the mental ability of someone who would write it!
16-inch rounds may weight as much or more as a Volkswagen, but to fire "Volkswagen-sized projectiles" would take a barrel diameter of four feet!
Gad! Get a grip...
But nukes on missles put the carrier groups in range.
So again why haven't the carrier groups been hit?
But nowadays we have enemies with nukes who wouldn't care.
With respect, this is typical bean counter mentality.
The price tag for a battleship in miniscule when when compared to the national pride we feel when that battleship sails by... not even the space shuttle compares. How swells our heart to be part of a nation that can float this mighty ship? What price is the respect we get from other nations when they can see that we can afford this enormous warship?
To put this in perspective, I'll bet George Foreman doesn't get involved in many fights outside the ring because of his size. Sure, five or six guys could make a decision to take him down but what are the odds? Those guys are going to count their beans and logically figure out that five smaller guys should be able to take him down. The next thought is that it is going to really, really hurt when one of those fists rearranges their face. End of fight before it even starts.
National pride and deterrance are the intangibles that are not factored when counting beans.
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.