# Bring back the battleships? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860 "2009-02-14T20:42:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/61 "2009-02-16T15:06:12Z")
Puppygod, once again, the railgun version have 290 mile range. Mach 7 speed. > **[Weapons Archives](https://www.popsci.com/category/weapons/)** > > See the latest Weapons stories from Popular Science. See news, trends, tips, reviews and more at Popular Science. > **[Zumwalt-class destroyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD(X))** > > The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a class of three United States Navy guided-missile destroyers designed as multi-mission stealth ships with a focus on land attack. The class was designed with a primary role of naval gunfire support and secondary roles of surface warfare and anti-aircraft warfare. The class design emerged from the DD-21 "land attack destroyer" program as "DD(X)" and was intended to take the role of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support. The ship w T... Read what the Zumwalts can do. 80 VLMS cells for Tomohawks. For a main gun? > [@](#): > > The Advanced Gun System is a 155 mm naval gun, two of which would be installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced 155 mm gun and the Long Range Land-Attack Projectile.[38] This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 lb and has a circular error of probability of 50 meters. This weapon system will have a range of 83 nautical miles (154 km) and the fully automated storage system will have room for up to 750 rounds.[38] The system will be provided with a magazine of 600 rounds or more per weapon and offers a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating issues. The combined firepower from a pair of turrets gives Zumwalt-class destroyers firepower equivalent to 18 conventional M-198 field guns.[34] This is not your grandfather’s battleship. There will be only three, but they will be Queen of the Seas. Edit: Msmith, check out the armor ratings and the missile launch capability. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/62 "2009-02-16T15:11:47Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > But how close are we to a working energy weapon powerful enough to knock aircraft and missiles out of the sky or small enough for a tank? It seems like we are as close to these as we are to a working Fusion reactor. You know a rolling 20-50 years. Granted. With today’s technology it isn’t possible. But if it is developed then there will be a case made to mount them on ships big enough to defend themselves and power the weapon, plus carry the electronics and sensors to make them useful. ---
**Author:** ![puppygod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@puppygod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puppygod)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/63 "2009-02-16T15:23:50Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Puppygod, once again, the railgun version have 290 mile range. Mach 7 speed. > [Weapons Archives | Popular Science](http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/electromagnetic-railgun) > [Zumwalt-class destroyer - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD(X)) > Read what the Zumwalts can do. 80 VLMS cells for Tomohawks. > For a main gun? > This is not your grandfather’s battleship. There will be only three, but they will be Queen of the Seas. > > Edit: Msmith, check out the armor ratings and the missile launch capability. I was refering to 16 inch artillery, not future railgun or improved 155 mm systems. Actually my point was that there is not enough benefits for 16 inch to be developed when compared to, say, improved 155 mm artillery systems. And Zumwalt is not battleship. It weights three times less than Iowa and don’t have any armor worth mentioning. It’s not like anybody is arguing that surface ships and barrel artillery is obsolete. It’s just huge, heavy, armored floating colossi with huge, heavy artillery guns are done for and not going back. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/64 "2009-02-16T16:37:11Z")
“Beserkers” are unmanned, autonmous, heavily armed fighting ships with multiple weapons capabilities. You send them out, and they engage the enemy. Nolives lost, and they are expendible. Sort of like RPAs-we could knock them out quickly, and use them against any Chinese fleet. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/65 "2009-02-16T16:38:01Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > But how close are we to a working energy weapon powerful enough to knock aircraft and missiles out of the sky or small enough for a tank? It seems like we are as close to these as we are to a working Fusion reactor. You know a rolling 20-50 years. [Closer than one might think](http://www.militarypictures.info/airplanes/boeing_abl.jpg.html) It’s not small enough for a tank, but it is small enough for a battleship. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/66 "2009-02-16T16:42:25Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Edit: Msmith, check out the armor ratings and the missile launch capability. The Zumwalt is classified as a “destroyer”, not a battleship. ---
**Author:** ![Enterprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/76d3ee/32.png) [@Enterprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enterprise)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/67 "2009-02-16T16:52:08Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Billy Mitchel’s 1921 demonstration of the aircraft’s ability to sink a battleship effectively rendered the battleship obsolete. This message was driven home at Pearl harbor, the sinking of the Bismarck, the Battle of Midway, and the sinking of the Yamato. It just took a long time for the message to sink in (zing!). I hate to do this, but really: read up on that, and I mean all of this. Check, for example, the various articles written by Trent Hone (I can give you cites if you so desire) on the role of the battle line in U.S. Navy thought. Billy Mitchell’s attacks on _Ostfriesland_ were a joke. What he proved as that given what time they needed, attacking an anchored, undefended and unmanned ship, planes were capable of inflicting enough damage to sink a battleship. Give me a blow torch and the same conditions, and I’ll sink you a battleship myself. That, however, does not render the battleship obsolete. The same goes for the other examples. Pearl Harbor proved nothing (if it had been the Pacific Fleet submarines that the Japanese had concentrated on, would that have proven they were obsolete?). The case of Midway is interesting. Midway demonstrated that carriers operating wihtout battleship support would not be able to control the sea, although they could deny it to the enemy. Spruance declined to pursue the Japanese fleet because of his fear of a night engagement with enemy battleships, against which he could not have stood. Carriers in 1942, even up to 1944, could not expect to unilaterally control naval operations as long as the enemy posssessed sufficient strategic opportunity to force a fight, as, for example, the Japanese had at Leyte. As for the others, _Bismarck_ was rather unlucky, but she was sunk by battleships, not by carrier planes; and all _Yamato_ proves is that a single battleship without air cover escorted by one cruiser and eight destroyers cannot stand up to the air power of sixteen carriers over a prolonged period of time. That’s the lesson of _Prince of Wales_ and _Repulse_, too. None of it has any bearing on the utility and or obsolescence of the battleship. ---
**Author:** ![Enterprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/76d3ee/32.png) [@Enterprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enterprise)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/68 "2009-02-16T17:16:38Z")
> [@puppygod](#): > > Range for 16 inch is about 40 km. Even with ERFB, base-bleed or rocket assist we can only hope to extend it by up to 40%. Say, 56 km maximum. Quite a lot for barrel artillery, but next to nothing compared to heavier rockets, not to mention missiles. Heck, even guided aerial bombs like SDB have twice that range. Nothing close to stand-off. Note, that we can achieve 30 km with your standard ground-based 155 mm howitzers now - using ammo currently fielded. I’m not so sure. The new 155mm for the _Zumwalt_ is apparently planned for a range of 100km or so, and I imagine a well-designed 16" gun would be capable of quite a bit more. I agree about the point about the price tag, though not about the applicable targets (again, think submunitions, or something of the sort; but even with a regular WWII type 16" shell, you’d have only about 2000lbs total weight and significantly less explosive filler; certainly, what an F-16 may bomb with a Mk84, a battleship could legally shoot at). I suppose you’d end up with something akin to a short-range (shall we say, just for the heck of it, about 250kms?) carrier-based fighter-bomber in performance, without needing to endanger a pilot or plane. Probably, as I said, not worth it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/69 "2009-02-16T17:24:57Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Don’t be so sure. We didn’t use Apaches in Kosovo in 1999 because we were so concerned about their vulnerability to ground fire. And which do you think is more vulnerable, a battleship or an SSGN? Those fuckers are stealthy, carry 154 TLAMs, need only 150± crew, are nuclear powered, and we got FOUR of 'em. Not to mention B-2s armed with small diameter bombs – not quite as stealthy, but we’re talking about many, many dozens of precision guided weapons falling from the sky. I’m at a loss to think of a good reason why a battleship would do better than SSGNs and stealth aircraft in softening up a beach for an assault, should that ever be needed. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/70 "2009-02-16T19:18:47Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The Zumwalt is classified as a “destroyer”, not a battleship. This is true, DD, not BB. But it does seem to be darn impressive for a DD. Will a BB result from this? I don’t know, but I _can_ tell you that this is a new _kind_ of warship. I honestly can’t guess how it’ll change warfare, but if it performs, I don’t see any reason why a BB successor might not happen circa 2050. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/71 "2009-02-16T20:56:40Z")
Isnt the biggest barrier to the battleship turning up again political? Ie there has to be an opponent building a significant enough navy that it would come up as a theoretical concept. Currently the US’s lead over other navies is so huge its unlikely to be a viable concept, and any opposing navy is likely to concentrate on submarines for a good while before considering major capital ships, making a new capital ship for the US an unlikely prospect as a counter. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/72 "2009-02-16T21:02:10Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > Isnt the biggest barrier to the battleship turning up again political? On the contrary, I’d say it is technology. Precision guided weapons can be carried on nearly any platform, so what’s the point of 16 inch guns? Especially considering that a battleship costs a lot more to build and operate, and there’s a lot to be said for having a slightly larger number of slightly less capable platforms, rather than one-of-a-kind ones (e.g., we could probably build 2 DDG-1000s and perhaps even the first of the next generation cruiser for what it would cost to build one battleship). ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/73 "2009-02-16T21:31:18Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > So, what if we put them in the centre of the battle group with the carrier and re-cast them as a platform for large weapons? Weapons too large to be carried on smaller ships. Are there such weapons? Nuclear missiles come to mind. Meh. We’ve already got SLBMs. Much handier. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/74 "2009-02-16T21:33:04Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > This is true, DD, not BB. But it does seem to be darn impressive for a DD. Will a BB result from this? Not likely. A modern destroyer is roughly equivalent in tonnage to a WWII cruiser but with a lot more firepower. The class designation is more a product of a ships role, not it’s size. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/75 "2009-02-17T01:05:49Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Not likely. A modern destroyer is roughly equivalent in tonnage to a WWII cruiser but with a lot more firepower. The class designation is more a product of a ships role, not it’s size. Right. FWIW, the ships the USN still classifies as cruisers have themselves been built on what are essentially stretched destroyer designs for decades now. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/76 "2009-02-17T01:51:35Z")
> [@Enterprise](#): > > I hate to do this, but really: read up on that, and I mean all of this. Check, for example, the various articles written by Trent Hone (I can give you cites if you so desire) on the role of the battle line in U.S. Navy thought. > …None of it has any bearing on the utility and or obsolescence of the battleship. I’m not an expert on the history of the battleship, but it’s my understanding their purpose is to dominate the sea with their firepower. The problem is that they don’t and never did. Battleship duels like the Hood vs the Bismark or the Battle of Jutland were the exception, not the rule. And when you can launch dozens of relatively cheap aircraft with bombs and torpedos that can cripple them relatively easily, their huge cost becomes prohibative. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/77 "2009-02-17T03:17:04Z")
I’m having a hard time imagining something dominating the sea more than that Tomohawk carrier/rail gun design I’m seeing. Add in some drone scouts… ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/78 "2009-02-17T07:34:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m at a loss to think of a good reason why a battleship would do better than SSGNs and stealth aircraft in softening up a beach for an assault, should that ever be needed. Maybe thats now, but in twenty years the tomohawk and B2 may not be in service for any number of reasons. The kind of war that would require a kick down the door ,beach operation, would mean that those systems would be dedicated to non nuclear strategic targets like airfields and the like, so you would be limited to the harrier and F18 hornet for servicing targets with the old fashioned iron bombs, pgm’s and cluster bombs. Declan ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/79 "2009-02-17T07:37:18Z")
Billy Mitchell had the correct idea that battleships would be obsolete in the face of naval air power. Taranto [Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto) proved it, and so did Pearl Harbor. So did the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway. Carriers render battleships utterly obsolete. Had the Japanese continued to attack Midway with only their battleships and escorts after their four carriers were sunk, they would have lost every ship that remained. Every damn one. With few to zero American losses to anything except submarines. Why have a battleship with a 30 mile weapons range, or even a 100 miles weapons range when a cruise missile from a cruiser can hit a portable shit house at will? When a Predator can do it and report back that it was unoccupied at the time of the hit? The only other advantage that a battleship had (other than big guns) was lots of armor. An Iowa was 800 feet plus and weighed 40,000 tons. Well, a Nimitz is 1000 feet long and weighs 100,000 tons. They are substantially more heavily armored than battleships were. They are faster, can protect the missile cruisers and destroyers from anything in the open ocean short of a nuke and launch attacks 500 miles away and refuel bombers flying from the other side of the globe. You could put up a fleet of Iowas and Yamatos against one carrier battle group and lose the all the battleships with no casualties to the carrier battle group. Short of nukes, a carrier battle group constitutes naval and air supremacy in any military situation for the next 10 years. Nukes make that a whole lot more problematical. Hell, the HMS Victory is cool, but like the USS Missouri, it is properly a museum. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/80 "2009-02-17T07:40:35Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Maybe thats now, but in twenty years the tomohawk and B2 may not be in service for any number of reasons. The kind of war that would require a kick down the door ,beach operation, would mean that those systems would be dedicated to non nuclear strategic targets like airfields and the like, so you would be limited to the harrier and F18 hornet for servicing targets with the old fashioned iron bombs, pgm’s and cluster bombs. > > Declan Beach operations are are done over the horizon and the “shelling” can be done with destroyers and cruisers and support aircraft to the extent it is necessary. Or even B-52s. Yeah, we don’t know if in 20 years cruise missiles and bombers will work, but they do now, and battleships are bizarrely more expensive and less effective at accomplishing the same thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860.md?page=5)