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 ...
Back in the 80's under Sec Lehman, the Navy was working on a program for a rocket-boosted shell from the BB's guns..The range was way over 100+ miles, and the accuracy was very good, and this was before any smart bomb technology had really developed. Something like 80% of the world's population centers would be in range of such a weapon...
One next generation Exocet to the super structure puts the entire "platform" out of commission and gives the enemy a huge PR win.
Old British saying; "Wogs start at Calais" alt "Past Calais it's all wogs".
BB ping
"The Iowa class battleships remain unmatched to this day. Although there are no longer any enemy battleships to fight, they are unmatched in their ability to blast shore based targets. Their armor makes them nearly invulnerable to anti-ship missiles in use today. Their speed allows them to keep up with the fastest elements of the United States fleet. And with upgraded weapons systems including anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles, the Iowa class battleships remained versatile and useful tools for our nation's defense. Isn't it interesting that the one consideration taken for granted during their design -- the cost of sending them to sea and assembling a crew -- is the one factor that led to their demise."
http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm
Notice this line "Their armor makes them nearly invulnerable to anti-ship missiles in use today."
Why they would be decomissioned is beyond me.
Exocets would just about bounce off the USS Iowa (class battleship) waterline armor.
The Iowa class battleships as refurbished in the 1980s added 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 16 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The ships each require a crew of about 1200 officers and enlisted men. The 16-inch guns have a range of ~25 miles.
The planned DD-21 (Admiral Zumwalt) class of ships will be able to carry about double the number of missiles, has cannon capable of launching projectiles into the hundred mile range (high explosive) with a crew around 100. You can crew a whole flotilla of DD-21 with the crew of one BB-61.
That's true, and the actual ground combat will be increasingly between remotely-controlled or (shudder) autonomous machines.
If torpedo hits were the primary concern for the decommissioning of large ships, then aircraft carriers would also be on the chopping block. However, there are ways to prevent subs from hitting our main ships with torpedoes. Namely, our own hunter killer subs as well as helicopters and destroyers. Being that battleships were never meant as "stand alone" warships, it would go without saying that they would be afforded the same protection as our other large ships or be positioned within a battle group for maximum protection.
Decommissioning the last two would be a mistake in my opinion. With further advances in gun design (like the electromagnetic rail guns we are working on) and modern propulsion and defense systems, the Battleship would be nearly invulnerable to anything other than a nuclear attack and be a mighty intimidating show of force to boot.
Unless you can figure out how to make them sail on land, the BB's would have been of zero use in the two most recent conflicts.
Not to mention obsolete power plants, the fact that the ships aren't configured for modern electronic gear, and on and on and on.
These ships for all practical purposes became obsolete on December 7, 1941. They're hideous white elephants. For the money--and it would take a LOT of money to refurbish and maintain them--there are any number of things we can buy that would make a much greater contribution to the nation's defense.
" Try finding accurate schematics."
Library of Congress.
Wiring and turbines were replaced in 1980's refit so are actually only about 20 yrs old. Subs can launch cruise missiles which have a much lower payload at the cost of $2 million per round. The blast and damage effect of 1 16" shell (which cost around 10K)would require roughly 6-8 missiles to accomplish the mission. The destructive power of the shell is greater than a missile because it arrives with much more force because of its weight, speed, and momentum. Using cruise missiles for shore bombardment is not cost effective and impractical because for the cost of 1 cruise missile we could shoot hundreds of 16 inch shells and destroy a lot more targets.
In Vietnam, my squadron dropped 1000-pound bombs on a concrete blockhouse all day long -- and barely put a scratch in it. The Navy brought in the New Jersey and, after 5 minutes of shelling, all that remained of the blockhouse was rubble and dust. Nowadays, I suppose, one bunker-busting JDAM dropped by an F-18 could probably do the job.
Can we stop pretending our argument is based on the NEED for a giant phallic ocean-going armory and just admit we are loathe to get rid of them because let's face it. They are cool....
There are other types of antiship missiles that dive from above. Battleship deck armor is considerably thinner than its belt armor. The 17-inch figure is the maximum thickness in certain limited areas. It's much less almost everywhere else.
The battleship thread comes up periodically on the sci.military.naval Usenet newsgroup. It's dismissed out of hand by the people there...many of whom have actual expertise in the field: active and former naval personnel, marine engineers, etc.
As cruise missiles get smaller, cheaper and capable of longer ranges, 16" guns become less viable. It's not a matter of $20 million dollar aircraft or 16" guns. Unmanned precision guided weapons systems can already do the job more cheaply and more effectively than both. When you can employ a weapon like a cruise missile in such a way that nobody knows where it came from or who fired it and that they mostly likely won't even know it exists until it hits its target, you've got a weapon that is more useful than either a Battleship or a manned fighter.
I think you nailed it.
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.