Last two battleships' friends, foes bring out the big guns

St Louis Post Dispatch ^ | 06/18/2005 | Harry Levins

[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.

[ArrogantBustard]

I love the battleships, I have always been in awe of them. 9 16 inch naval guns can do a lot of damage. But look what happened to Argentina's General Belgrano during the Falklands War. It was sunk easily by a single British sub. Are the benefits of the naval guns worth the risk of putting so many sailors in one hull?

For the record: Argentina's so-called "battleship" Belgrano began life as USS Phoenix CL-41. She was in reality a Light Cruiser, armed with a mix of 5" and 6" guns, and displaced 10,000 tons. IOW, she was no battleship. Worse, the Argentines did not keep the maintenance and damage control standards of the US Navy.

Whatever may be the merits (or lack thereof) of returning the Iowa Class battleships to the line, the dismal fate of the Belgrano has little to do with them.

[chuckwalla]

What's your source? A comic book?
China is most definitely NOT going to bet it all on aq.
What is the strengh of China's navy? Anywhere near ours?
But even if that were the case then we use some carrier groups to bottle them up while the BBs maul aq elsewhere.
NK is not going to bet it all on aq either.
North Korea does not have a navy. They have a few patrol boats and maybe a WWII diesel sub or two but even they are not going to bet it all on aq.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You're correct. My source is a comic book.

[chuckwalla]

Obviously you're not serious.

[Robert_Paulson2]

In tactics I as a civvie noticed something.
The brass likes faster more maneuverable stuff.

every time it seems.
take all the humvees that took a hit from IED's

not enough armor for that exact mission at that exact time.
but maneuverable? hell yes. and very very strong. hard to hit, hard to kill...

but sometimes you need a heavily armored tank.
I cannot forsee a time when a fully armored battleship, might not come to be the difference between the rise or fall or our naval superiority... and I want the battle ships ALIVE, until we replace them with spaced based battle ships that are so superior and so inpenetrable, that our enemies have zero doubt and our men have zero question as to outcomes when they encounter a situation.

I want to KEEP these two battleships for a few more decades.

[chuckwalla]

got to remember we are fighting an enemy not too gar removed from the dark ages. They don't have fast moving mechanized forces. Nor do they have counter technology to ours.
Conventional firepower works quite well against them.

[Robert_Paulson2]

or...
that may not be immediately identifiable.

If Russia sold subs to China.China sold them to pakistan.
Pakistan sold them to Iran... or a north african ally of theirs...

and if that nation sold or donated them to a crew of pakistan trained al quaida... and three or four crews had one or two low yield, low tech nukes that they could deliver from some distance out...

who would we nuke.
Or would we make speeches while we waited, weeks, months or even a year to 'make sure'?

'who can we nuke for nuking us?'

just a rhetorical question.

[chuckwalla]

You don't think we'd notice them training.
I'm sure it would take an extensive amount of training before a bunch of landlocked middle ages warriors could even hope to pull off a highly sophisticated and epeensive operation.
What port would they train out of that we don't monitor in some way?
Where would they maintain it? Dock it? Fuel it? Etc.
A one time use would still need extensive training which would be detected somehow.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I stand in awe of your intellect. Now you want my comic books, too.

[Arkinsaw]

the dismal fate of the Belgrano has little to do with them.

Other than the fact that you have too many souls in one hull and that the cost-benefit analysis of that makes it not worth it. That was my point.

[HamiltonJay]

The Iowa Class Battleships are absolutely a necessity today.. They've been mothballed serveral times over the years only to be recommissioned when world conflicts have come to the fore.

Sorry, NOTHING, and I do mean NOTHING projects sheer power like an Iowa Class battleship. Yes, a carrier can do more damage, and the age of ship to ship combat is over... but a tin pot dictator sees an Iowa Class on the Horizon, believe me he has more the fear of God in him than seeing a Nimitz class.

20 Mile range, absolutely no defence, not to mention tomohawk cruise missles etc etc.... Nothing projects pure POWER like an Iowa class.

Its psychological... what does one fear more? The 300 lb man who is all muscle in the dark alley? or the 5'6" 110 sopping wet guy? Even if the 5'6 110 is a 6th degree blackbelt, he will not instantly instill fear like the 300 lber.

Some say, they're slow, their costly, they don't have must military purpose... and that is true, from a straight military standpoint, they are outclassed now a days.. but WAR and and the projection of MILITARY POWER is at the end of the day a POLITICAL act.... Nothing projects power remotely the way Iowa Class Battleships do.... Nothing.

Seeing pitch black turned as bright as day by a full broadside, and a thunder so loud it rattles your soul cannot be replaced by anything else.

[HamiltonJay]

Nowadays, I suppose, one bunker-busting JDAM dropped by an F-18 could probably do the job.

16" round costs far less than a Bunker buster and JDAM... and you can't jam the electronics of a 16"er.

[ArrogantBustard]

The cost of sinking an Iowa class BB is rather higher than the cost of sinking a light cruiser.

The benefit of dropping 16" shells on target is rather higher than the benefit of dropping 6" shells on target.

Now it may well be that dropping 16" shells on targets up to 20mi inland isn't something the USN needs to be able to do anymore. It may also be that the USN doesn't need heavily armoured big gun ships anymore. The point you miss is that USS Phoenix/General Belgrano was NOT capable of hitting targets with 16" shells, and she was NOT heavily armoured. "One torpedo sank the Belgrano" tells us precisely nothing about the vulnerability or the offensive utility of an actual battleship.

If you're worried about "too many souls in one hull", worry about CVNs, LHAs and LHDs. They carry larger crews and less armour.

[finnman69]

I disagree. It would only take one Kilo submarine to sneak up and launch a spread of torpedoes at the Iowa.

The side protection (torpedo defense) and the triple bottom systems provide protection against underwater threats such as torpedoes, mines and near-miss explosions. Both of these multi-layered systems are intended to absorb the energy from an underwater explosion equivalent to a 700 pound charge of TNT. ( http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/IowaClass/Armor.htm ).

Modern antiship weapons are far more powerful than a 700lb charge, such as the 1000 kilo supersonic antiship Soviet era cruise missiles. WW2 era torpedoes and mines were contact fused. Many modern torpedoes are designed to explode underneath the keel of a ship creating a huge bubble that uses the weight of the ship itself to break it's back.

Modern weaponry does not need to penetrate the armor of an Iowa class battleship to kill it. Therefore Armor is irrelevant. A retrofitted BB still has all of the unarmored modern sensors that very vulnerable to attack.

On Monday June 14, 1999 the Australian Collins class submarine, HMAS Farncomb, fired a Mark-48 war-shot torpedo at the 28 year old former Destroyer Escort TORRENS.

The firing was part of the Collins class trials requirements and was designed to validate the submarine's combat system. The submerged Farncomb fired the Mark-48 torpedo at the stationary hulk of the 2700-ton Destroyer Escort from over the horizon. The plume of water and fragments shot some 150 meters skyward as the blast of the torpedo cut the ship in two. The stern section sank rapidly after the torpedo hit, the bow section remained afloat but sank sometime later.

The torpedo warhead contains explosive power equivalent to approximately 1200 pounds of TNT. This explosive power is maximized when the warhead detonates below the keel of the target ship, as opposed to striking it directly. When the detonation occurs below the keel, the resulting pressure wave of the explosion "lifts" the ship and can break its keel in the process. As the ship "settles" it is then seemingly hit by a second detonation as the explosion itself rips through the area of the blast. This combined effect often breaks smaller targets in half and can severely disable larger vessels.

The Mark-48 torpedo used in this test is a variation of the MK-48 ADCAP (Advanced Capability) torpedo developed for the United States Navy.

Photos and Mk-48 Torpedo information provided by Maritime Headquarters and DSTO Australia. Photos by PO Scott Connolly and AB Stuart Farrow.

[Redleg Duke]

Yeah, right! Just like the Air Force promised the Army in the Key West Agreement that they would provide all of the close air support, so the Army didn't need armed air vehicles...and then went off to concentrate on Nuclear Bombers.

I read the article over the weekend and the author made some excellent points. Just like the FCS concept is focussing on hit-avoidance, so does the DDX depend on it rather than the capability to absorb a hit and keep on fighting.

Keep the Battlewagons and get the New Jersey and Mighty Mo back on line too!

[Arkinsaw]

The cost of sinking an Iowa class BB is rather higher than the cost of sinking a light cruiser.

The benefit of dropping 16" shells on target is rather higher than the benefit of dropping 6" shells on target.

Now it may well be that dropping 16" shells on targets up to 20mi inland isn't something the USN needs to be able to do anymore. It may also be that the USN doesn't need heavily armoured big gun ships anymore. The point you miss is that USS Phoenix/General Belgrano was NOT capable of hitting targets with 16" shells, and she was NOT heavily armoured. "One torpedo sank the Belgrano" tells us precisely nothing about the vulnerability or the offensive utility of an actual battleship.

If you're worried about "too many souls in one hull", worry about CVNs, LHAs and LHDs. They carry larger crews and less armour.

If you look at my post as a whole rather than just a bunch of disparate sentences then the point is there. The benefit of lobbing 6" shells was not worth the risk of the loss of the large crew of the Belgano to a modern torpedo.....just as the risk of the loss of the larger crew of an Iowa class battleship is not worth the 16" firepower. In other words, its not worth putting that many souls in one hull when you could put them in a greater number of cheaper hulls that can put out the same firepower and thus spread the risk around.

As for a CVN, the firepower, range, and flexibility of that class of vessel add additional factors to the benefit side of the equation that a WWII era battleship does not possess. You also cannot spread a flight deck over many smaller vessels, so that option is out of the equation whereas it is not when considering guns and battleships which you CAN spread around easily. Its not the same calculation as to whether you need a large vessel or can perform the same task with several smaller ones. My point is the same.

[ArrogantBustard]

just as the risk of the loss of the larger crew of an Iowa class battleship is not worth the 16" firepower.

Now that's the point in contention, isn't it? You've just assumed an answer (in the negative). If there really is a benefit to hitting targets with 16" artillery, you need BBs to do it. You can no more spread the big guns out among smaller ships than you can spread the big flight deck out among smaller ships.

"In other words, its not worth putting that many souls in one hull when you could put them in a greater number of cheaper hulls that can put out the same firepower and thus spread the risk around.

Replace "when" in that sentence with "if" ... and I (partly) agree with you. But multiple small caliber shells do not necessarily add up to one large caliber shell. And (again) the vulnerability of light cruisers doesn't tell us much about the vulnerability of capital ships.

[Arkinsaw]

Now that's the point in contention, isn't it? You've just assumed an answer (in the negative). If there really is a benefit to hitting targets with 16" artillery, you need BBs to do it. You can no more spread the big guns out among smaller ships than you can spread the big flight deck out among smaller ships.

Adding in the limited range and the capability of aircraft and missiles as well as the capability of smaller guns, the efficacy of the 16" is in a rather narrow range. The jobs that only it can do are rather limited. It can do those things exceedingly well, but they are limited in scope. I haven't seen the case made where that capability outweighs the other side of the equation and until I do I have to answer the question with a negative.

Replace "when" in that sentence with "if" ... and I (partly) agree with you. But multiple small caliber shells do not necessarily add up to one large caliber shell. And (again) the vulnerability of light cruisers doesn't tell us much about the vulnerability of capital ships.

The smaller vessels, and smaller guns, can accomplish some of the tasks that the 16" can. Not all, but some. Air power can accomplish some of the tasks that the 16" can. Not all, but some. Missiles can do the same. Not all, but some. The question is, do the narrow range of requirements left justify the cost, and risk, of the battleship. You are limiting the comparison to one between smaller guns and bigger guns but that is not the choice.

In the matter of vulnerability, there is a big difference between the vulnerability of an Iowa within a US battlegroup and a Belgrano out by itself. But, if a shot does get through, then an Iowa would be quite vulnerable to modern weapons. In the sense of losing a large crew, the Iowa would be harder to swallow than the Belgrano. In addition, there is an element of national and state pride invested in those ships that add to the cost of a potential loss (similar to the Belgrano). The two have their differences, but the impact of their loss on the owning country have similarities as a cost.