When you watch a WWII movie (or a movie about any earlier war), you might see something you won’t see in any movie about the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any later war: Surface naval ships fighting other ships and trying to sink them. This just doesn’t happen any more. Nowadays, the Navy’s military purpose (apart from shipping ground troops to combat zones) appears to be to provide a mobile aiming-and-launching platform for missiles and ordnance directed at land-based targets. Why is that? Is it just because the U.S. Navy is the only one left that matters and no other can realistically challenge it on the open seas? Or has military technology simply made ship-to-ship combat obsolete?
Basically since WWII, carrier launched aircraft and long range anti-ship missles like the Exocet have replaced the battleship with its long range guns as king of the seas.
Well, submarines are still used for sinking ships (Falklands). Realistically, aren’t they the only vessel that has a decent chance of getting anywhere near close enough another ship to sink them what with long range air patrols and missiles?
If you stretech the definition of “ship,” it might include some small Iraqi coastal vessels sunk by US ships in GW1 & 2.
If the Taiwan Straits ever heat up, the ROC and PRC will more than likely have some hot ship-on-ship action. Our stuff will most likely stay back to Harpoon range (if we even get that close[even though the latest Harpoons have a rather impressive range]), since our naval strategy is largely based on airpower.
But on the high seas? Nobody has a ‘blue water navy’ that can seriously challenge us. The French and British are going to (probably) be jointly building a new series of carriers, which will be more in tune with the American style of ‘really friggin big’, but I don’t believe that any design has been settled on. And other than them, nobody has the money or experience to run real carrier battle groups.
“Ever” is a long time. However, as has been said, long range weapons and detection methods mean that such encounters will be a result more accident and screw-ups than planning and probably. I suspect they will be limited to single ships blundering into eath other with their crews having their heads in the “way up and locked” position. They will be incidental rather than crucial to the outcome of any wars.
Well, not until the ISS Starchaser comes out of hyperspace and encounters the hostile Vegans at Barnard’s Star.
Not tomention, but there aren’t any more “big gun” ships left! The US Navy’s new destroyers and frigates have (at most) a 3" single gun turret.
Which makes for an interesting question: those third-world navies that still have big gun ships (heavy cruisers, like the Argentine’s ill-fated “General Belgrano”)-do they still train their gunners with these antiques?
What would amodern US Navy destroyer do, if it encountered the battleship posessed by China?
I’m guessing s ship-to-ship missle would make quick work out of such a cjhinese ship.
The last BB (battleship) of the US Navy was the USS New Jersey-are there any gunners left in the Navy who could handle her 16" guns?
I think this is exactly right. Large-ship conflicts will not occur except by accident. Two ships already in close proximity when hostilities break out, for example.
You might see ship to ship conflict among smaller vessels, such as coastline patrol ships. But basically, the existence of long-range missiles and detection means ships won’t be getting very close to each other in a war.
Weren’t the Exocet missiles used ship-to-ship in the Falkland Islands war?
Five of the six Exocet launches were by air, which is what it was designed for. One was off a jury-rigged land-based launching system.
That’s pretty harsh. So what if they don’t want to eat animal products, it’s hardly cause for an intergalactic war…
The largest gun on any Navy ship that I know of is a 5" 62. Not real sure of the barrel length. The 5" 38 guns on the destroyer escort I was on would shoot about 20 rounds a minute that went maybe 4-5 miles. The new 5" guns can shoot close to 60 rounds a minute for 12 miles. All the bigger guns have been retired.
I doubt there will be many ship to ship battles. There are satillites to look on the surface and long-range sounding gear underneath. I believe it would be virtually inpossible for a ship or submarine to get anywhere near each other today undetected. Missiles will carry the future wars, and Phalanxe guns will try to protect the ships.
Note–several ship-to-ship encounters have taken place between North & South Korea over the decades.
And they happen with increasing frequency.
There is a strong likelyhood of a clash between NK forces & Japanese Self Defence Naval Forces in the near future.
When watching or reading about WWII or earlier campaigns, one often finds references to the big guns being used to bombard areas on shore in preperation for a (usually amphibious) attack. What would we use now-a-days for this purpose, if we’ve retired most of our big gun baring fleet. I would assume that using cruise missles for this sort of saturation bombing would be horribly expensive. Carpet bombing from planes could replace it, but I would think that flying planes over territory held by the enemy would put them in danger.
No shit? :eek:
I work with a guy who is a reserve LCDR - he served on the New Jersey as an active duty junior officer. There are still battleship sailors around, but the ships are gone. I doubt there’s any way to bring them back. That style of warfare is gone now.
There are no new frigates either. New destroyers do have only one gun turret, but it’s an automated 5 inch gun, not a 3.
Frontal assaults on opposed landings are supposed to be out of favor now. With both vertical insertion and hovercraft coupled with good intel on where the enemy aint , is supposed to be the flavor of the day.
Hence naval gunfire support is not supposed to be needed.
Declan
Basically it’s all about range; missiles can travel much farther than shells. It’s basically the same thing that happened when fire-arms replaced swords and pikes. Extremely unusual circumstances might see a future battle where both sides were fighting with swords but realistically military technology is not going to go back.
Do attack submarines and torpedoes count for the OP? They are considered ‘capital’ ships (or boats) aren’t they? I can see clashes where subs attack other subs or surface ships directly…well, via torps anyway.
If you mean surface ships, and you want to see big capital ship battles a la Jutland, we didn’t even see much of that in WWII (though the Japanese gave it a go several times…and I suppose the whole Bismark thing kind of qualifies). Certainly the time for that is long gone, unless it happens between two nations with more antiquated navies as has been pointed out already. I certainly don’t see the US ever (well, in the foresee-able future) engaging in that kind of battle again except by some fluke of misfortune.
-XT