Bring back the battleships?

[Ravenman]

@Uzi

If the big ship can’t survive one hit, then there is no point in building the damned thing. If the assumption is that it can survive more than one hit then the argument can be made to build it. Otherwise, build a bunch of smaller ships where it doesn’t hurt as much when they get destroyed.

There is no ship that can realistically survive one big hit these days. With modern weapons, the odds of a hard kill (the ship sinks) or a mission kill (the ship has to return home) are very high. What I (and others) are saying is that it makes no sense to assume a big ship can be made more survivable. See more discussion below.

You seem to think I’m disagreeing with your argument. I am not. That is what is bugging me.

Ok, you can agree with me. It’s just that I’m disagreeing with 80% of what you’re saying.

Enough armor could possibly do so. You understand ‘possibly’?

No, it is not possible. For the sixth time, there is no possible way to put enough armor on a battleship to make it survivable. It is like saying that one could break the sound barrier in a car if you made the engine with great enough displacement and a whole lot of pistons. There is just isn’t going to be a car with a V-128 engine that displaces 100 liters, or whatever. Just as a car with such a big engine in hopes it will go fast would be absurd, trying to slap more metal on a ship to survive modern weapons is just as nonsensical. Defeating modern threats has more to do with detection, countermeasures, and electronic warfare than it does with armor.

Could an energy weapon stop it? If I fired enough rounds into the air to essentially create a wall of ammunition? I’ve pointed out technology that is being used today that provide guidance capability regular infantry weapons. You don’t see the possibility of this on a high velocity weapon?

There is no DE weapon on the horizon that could accurately track and keep energy on a warhead traveling in maneuvering, very high speed body like that. A Gatling gun might have a chance against one of a DF-21’s warheads in the last few seconds, but there are too many to kill them all. Comparing a bullet traveling at 2,200 feet per second with one that’s traveling at 23,000 feet per second just isn’t realistic.

I’m sorry, you think I’m talking science fiction, yet all these weapons exist now and could see production shortly. Maybe 10 years, maybe longer.

I’ve talked to engineers working on two railgun projects. I am not an engineer myself, but they are doing great work and are as upfront as can be about what their weapons can do and can’t do. The wonder weapons you are describing are a long way off.

[mlees]

What was the math, again?

What is the penetration power (in inches of Cemented Armor plate) these rail guns could achieve?

[Mosier]

It depends. The potential energy in a moving object is the mass times the square of the velocity. That means that increases in velocity increase the potential energy of the projectile much more than a comparable increase in the mass of the projectile would.

[Boyo_Jim]

Can you fire a depleted uranium shell through a rail gun? Is depleted uranium magnetic? Or would you need some kind of sabot to do it?

[Uzi]

@Boyo_Jim

Can you fire a depleted uranium shell through a rail gun? Is depleted uranium magnetic? Or would you need some kind of sabot to do it?

Would the high speeds require using DU for penetration? I’d also wonder if DU is too hard such that it would just poke a hole in soft skinned targets without transferring its energy.

[Zebra]

@Enterprise

I Bismarck was rather unlucky, but she was sunk by battleships, not by carrier planes;

You are incorrect. A hit by a carrier plane severely damaged Bismark and that lead to a host of British ships being able to pound her but finally she was scuttled. Not sunk by another battleship.
But still, WE DON’T NEED THEM. We don’t need half the navy we have now. Why do we need to be the Queens of the Sea?

and here is another Presidential quote

[QUOTE=President Eisenhower]
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
[/QUOTE]

[Otara]

@Mosier

It depends. The potential energy in a moving object is the mass times the square of the velocity. That means that increases in velocity increase the potential energy of the projectile much more than a comparable increase in the mass of the projectile would.

But it cant beat mass entirely. You’re talking 3kg vs 1200kg for a 16 inch Iowa cannon.

The kinetic energy is whatever electrical energy they put into it at most - 32MJ or 64MJ, so any kinetic energy will be a lower amount of that. The 16 inch puts out about 350MJ by comparison, not including any explosive in the shell. While chemical cant increase speed past a certain point, it can compensate with mass to a fair extent.

That energy will transfer in a pretty different way of course.

Sabots were mentioned in wiki as the way to accelerate non ferrous projectiles.

Otara

[Uzi]

You’d have to get the 3.2Kg projectile up to 20km/s to be equivalent just on kinetic energy. It seems like they have done it on smaller objects according to the wiki page, but no mention of the definition of ‘small’.

[unkldave]

While battleships may seem like little more than dinosaurs in the modern navy, I think they actually do have a place in the fleet. And not just for the flag waving support roles and intimidation factor they may have on whatever third world countries that might incur the wrath of the US Navy but in an actual role in saving the lives of whatever forces the US sends to do the fighting.
I have seen the effect these great ship can have on foreign forces being apposed. It is not an empty threat as many of you seem to believe here in this blog. But I digress. Lets do the math;
To retrofit and deploy an Iowa class battleship for use in todays navy may cost around 54 million give or take some 20 million dollars. Even if we use a worst case scenario of $250 million dollars, The benefits of reactivating these battle wagons is obvious. A years worth of operations cost less than 20 million.
The Iowa class ships can fire a 16.5 inch artillery round of many different weapon class (I.E. armor piercing or antipersonnel) every three minutes. That’s nine huge rounds of American steel raining down on targets every three minutes that might be twenty miles inland! With a total of 2700 rounds on ship, these beasts of the sea can stay on station for weeks at a time. At a cost of approx. $3000 per round, the missiles of the DDX which can cost upwards of $200k - $1 million each look pretty expensive.
The DDX can also fire long range weapons which as I have stated are very expensive, but not for any length of time. They will have an intended battery of approx. 120 long range ship to shore missiles, antiaircraft battery’s and their new advanced 5 in. deck guns do not have the capabilities of the huge guns of the battleship. During the first gulf war, the mighty Missouri was in control of the entire gulf! A DDX or even a carrier could do that. Carriers, even with their cloud of air support are too valuable to risk in an enclosed water route and the DDX just isn’t up to the job of carrying out fire support missions for the Marines. Which is also, by the way, the main argument from the Marines to reactivate the battleships.
Lets talk armor;
The DDX has a 3 in armor belt that pretty much covers the entire ship. Not bad, but when the thickest portion of armor is below the waterline in the forward and side sections of the ship and none more than 8 inches thick on any part of the ship, a well placed 20 mm round can penetrate it. Rumors of Chatom armor belts in vital sections of the ship have not been confirmed, but are appreciated. US carriers also carry no more than 8 inches of armor on any part of the ship, relying on air cover and various antiaircraft weaponry to do the job of protecting the ship. This is pretty much true for every US ship in the fleet as well. During WW2, the US lost 26 carriers to enemy fire. Four of these were capital ships.
The 50 some odd year old Iowa class battleship carry 16 inches of belt armor and upwards of 12 inches on their decks The thickest of any ship other than the Yamato class Japanese ship. (which was sunk yeah but I’ll get to that in a bit.) The control quarters of these ship are protected by at least 16 inches of armor to provide protection for the captain and fire control. The Missouri was hit on the port side by a Kamikaze aircraft carrying a 500 lb. bomb and it basically bounced off the side with little to no damage. The US Washington was hit by many shots, some as large as 14 inches and 2200 lbs., from Japanese heavy cruisers and Battleships, yet even though it was an earlier class of ship and less protected, it continued to do battle for another five months until she was finally ordered home for repairs in 1943. When the British bombed the German Battleship Tirpitz, they used three 22,000 lb. earthquake bombs which basically blew apartment size holes in her bottom and she remained afloat for another three weeks when she was again bombed by the unbelievably immense bombs and finally sent to the bottom of a fiord. The IJN. Mushashi and IJN. Yamato were both hammered four over four hours before they succumbed to their watery fates. FOUR HOURS?! And they each shot down up to 45 US aircraft during the shooting match.
The point is that these giants can withstand an incredible amount of damage and continue to fight. Even with the advances of modern anti shipping weapons available to our foes, there is nothing in any inventory that could penetrate the hull of those 60 year old behemoths. Nothing! Had the ships moored at battleship row in Hawaii been prepared for battle and had their waterproof doors sealed, most would have survived the Kaiten torpedo’s and 500 pounders that pummeled them. The Arizona was an example of what a well placed bomb with no air cover can do. The explosion within her propagated from section to section thru open hatches in the same manner in which the British ship the Mighty Hood was destroyed. Her magazines lit her up from the inside out like a roman candle. Dives on the Arizona show the hatches open and the interior of the ship to be in a solidified molten state even after 50+ years of deterioration. But then,… These ships sunk at Pearl Harbor were not at war. They sat in the harbor in a state of unpreparedness just waiting for someone to drop a bomb on them. As a matter of fact, no US battleship was ever sunk in wartime! None!
During the Vietnam war, all the Iowa class ships were upgraded to advanced antiaircraft weaponry. their steam turbines were all retrofitted and their communications were greatly improved. These ships have all seen less than 15 years of service! They are practically BRAND NEW!! For the cost of one DDX class ship, some 1.6 Billion, (With a “B”!) our navy could have four of the greatest ships afloat and control any sea they choose. They have the firepower and they have the armor to withstand any attack. They can protect and provide fire for support our marines landing ashore or other ships at sea. They also have the speed to run into the fight. In 1969, two US battleships were escorting US carriers. At 34 knots, they actually had to slow down so the carriers used during the conflict could keep up with them.

So do I support the old battleships in a modern navy? You bet your ass I do! I wonder why the Navy keep them in reserve and not out at sea? And by the way, the great ships you see remanded to museum duty across the country are not in mothballs. By order of the US department of the Navy, the Iowa class ships are not to be altered in any way and are kept in a minimum operating condition by the states who host them lest they lose these tourist dollar generating vital arms to the US government mothball fleets. Even in death, these monsters of the sea just might be called upon again to provide protection to US troops

[Ravenman]

@unkldave

To retrofit and deploy an Iowa class battleship for use in todays navy may cost around 54 million give or take some 20 million dollars. Even if we use a worst case scenario of $250 million dollars, The benefits of reactivating these battle wagons is obvious. A years worth of operations cost less than 20 million.

Are you high? A SPQ-9B fire control radar costs about $10 million bucks. A modern IT system for a destroyer costs about $20 million bucks, assuming the cabling is already in place, and that doesn’t count the cost of any communications or other equipment that would ride on that IT. The personnel costs are staggering – there’s about five times as many sailors on a battleship than there is on a cruiser or amphibious ship. That means the manpower cost for one year for one battleship is probably around the $100 million range, and that’s before the damn thing even leaves the harbor.

You are fantastically misinformed about the cost of a battleship. By orders of a magnitude, at least.

The Iowa class ships can fire a 16.5 inch artillery round of many different weapon class (I.E. armor piercing or antipersonnel) every three minutes. That’s nine huge rounds of American steel raining down on targets every three minutes that might be twenty miles inland!

Over the last twenty years, anti-ship missile technology has evolved so much that the idea of parking a battleship 20 miles off the coast of a halfway modern adversary is just sheer – well, I was going to say nonsense, but really it is just a stupid idea. The Marine Corps cancelled their amphibious tank program (the EFV, under development for nearly 20 years) in part because the idea of parking an amphib 20 miles offshore, within swimming range of the EFV, was a nonsensical proposition.

The 50 some odd year old Iowa class battleship carry 16 inches of belt armor and upwards of 12 inches on their decks… Even with the advances of modern anti shipping weapons available to our foes, there is nothing in any inventory that could penetrate the hull of those 60 year old behemoths. Nothing!

They can have all the belt armor they want – hell, upgrade it to 12 feet – and it doesn’t do jack for the multiple modern anti-ship missile that will be diving in from above at Mach 5.

So do I support the old battleships in a modern navy? You bet your ass I do! I wonder why the Navy keep them in reserve and not out at sea?

Because they are a huge waste of money and not tactically relevant anymore.

[mlees]

I know this is a zombie thread. Iowa-class battleship - Wikipedia

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

@unkldave

To retrofit and deploy an Iowa class battleship for use in todays navy may cost around 54 million give or take some 20 million dollars.

Cite?

Even if we use a worst case scenario of $250 million dollars, The benefits of reactivating these battle wagons is obvious. A years worth of operations cost less than 20 million.

Cite? Her 1984 reactivation refit cost over 500 million.

The Iowa class ships can fire a 16.5 inch artillery round of many different weapon class (I.E. armor piercing or antipersonnel) every three minutes. That’s nine huge rounds of American steel raining down on targets every three minutes that might be twenty miles inland! With a total of 2700 rounds on ship, these beasts of the sea can stay on station for weeks at a time. At a cost of approx. $3000 per round, the missiles of the DDX which can cost upwards of $200k - $1 million each look pretty expensive.

Your rate of fire quote is in error. It’s closer to 30 to 45 seconds per shot.

I suspect that your cost of shell is in error. Respectfull request for a cite? During the investigation of the Iowa turret explosion, I seem to recall that the Navy stated that the propellent bags were WW2 surplus stuff. If all of those have been destroyed, reordering news supplies is going to be costly.

The DDX can also fire long range weapons which as I have stated are very expensive, but not for any length of time. They will have an intended battery of approx. 120 long range ship to shore missiles, antiaircraft battery’s and their new advanced 5 in. deck guns do not have the capabilities of the huge guns of the battleship. During the first gulf war, the mighty Missouri was in control of the entire gulf! A DDX or even a carrier could do that. Carriers, even with their cloud of air support are too valuable to risk in an enclosed water route and the DDX just isn’t up to the job of carrying out fire support missions for the Marines. Which is also, by the way, the main argument from the Marines to reactivate the battleships.

The Iowa class also only carried about 130 rounds (of 16" shells) per barrel. Furthermore, the barrel life of the 16"/50 is quoted to be 250-350 rounds, depending on what is fired. I doubt there is any manufacturer currently set up to make new barrels (which historically was a very time involved process).

Lets talk armor; The DDX has a 3 in armor belt that pretty much covers the entire ship. Not bad, but when the thickest portion of armor is below the waterline in the forward and side sections of the ship and none more than 8 inches thick on any part of the ship, a well placed 20 mm round can penetrate it. Rumors of Chatom armor belts in vital sections of the ship have not been confirmed, but are appreciated. US carriers also carry no more than 8 inches of armor on any part of the ship, relying on air cover and various antiaircraft weaponry to do the job of protecting the ship. This is pretty much true for every US ship in the fleet as well. During WW2, the US lost 26 carriers to enemy fire. Four of these were capital ships.
The 50 some odd year old Iowa class battleship carry 16 inches of belt armor and upwards of 12 inches on their decks The thickest of any ship other than the Yamato class Japanese ship. (which was sunk yeah but I’ll get to that in a bit.) The control quarters of these ship are protected by at least 16 inches of armor to provide protection for the captain and fire control. The Missouri was hit on the port side by a Kamikaze aircraft carrying a 500 lb. bomb and it basically bounced off the side with little to no damage. The US Washington was hit by many shots, some as large as 14 inches and 2200 lbs., from Japanese heavy cruisers and Battleships, yet even though it was an earlier class of ship and less protected, it continued to do battle for another five months until she was finally ordered home for repairs in 1943. When the British bombed the German Battleship Tirpitz, they used three 22,000 lb. earthquake bombs which basically blew apartment size holes in her bottom and she remained afloat for another three weeks when she was again bombed by the unbelievably immense bombs and finally sent to the bottom of a fiord. The IJN. Mushashi and IJN. Yamato were both hammered four over four hours before they succumbed to their watery fates. FOUR HOURS?! And they each shot down up to 45 US aircraft during the shooting match.
The point is that these giants can withstand an incredible amount of damage and continue to fight. Even with the advances of modern anti shipping weapons available to our foes, there is nothing in any inventory that could penetrate the hull of those 60 year old behemoths. Nothing! Had the ships moored at battleship row in Hawaii been prepared for battle and had their waterproof doors sealed, most would have survived the Kaiten torpedo’s and 500 pounders that pummeled them. The Arizona was an example of what a well placed bomb with no air cover can do. The explosion within her propagated from section to section thru open hatches in the same manner in which the British ship the Mighty Hood was destroyed. Her magazines lit her up from the inside out like a roman candle. Dives on the Arizona show the hatches open and the interior of the ship to be in a solidified molten state even after 50+ years of deterioration. But then,… These ships sunk at Pearl Harbor were not at war. They sat in the harbor in a state of unpreparedness just waiting for someone to drop a bomb on them. As a matter of fact, no US battleship was ever sunk in wartime! None!

NO armor belt covers the whole ship. Either on the DDX, nor the Iowa. Even on the Iowa, the entire superstructure is unarmored. Her bow section is unarmored. See “all or nothing” armor scheme.

The armor does not protect against mines or torpedos. (A series of bulkheads and blisters does that.) I suspect the explosive warheads of the latest torpedos, mines, and missles pack a little more punch than the charges of their WW2 forfathers.

Note: The Italian battleship Roma was sunk by a single German radio controlled glider bomb. (A “Fritz X”.)

I’ll leave the Pearl Harbor debate aside.

During the Vietnam war, all the Iowa class ships were upgraded to advanced antiaircraft weaponry. their steam turbines were all retrofitted and their communications were greatly improved. These ships have all seen less than 15 years of service! They are practically BRAND NEW!!

Umm, no. Any Vietnam era AA and radar suites are out of date. Even stuff installed in the 80’s is most likely to need replacing with current gear.

For the cost of one DDX class ship, some 1.6 Billion, (With a “B”!) our navy could have four of the greatest ships afloat and control any sea they choose. They have the firepower and they have the armor to withstand any attack. They can protect and provide fire for support our marines landing ashore or other ships at sea. They also have the speed to run into the fight. In 1969, two US battleships were escorting US carriers. At 34 knots, they actually had to slow down so the carriers used during the conflict could keep up with them.

They had to “slow down” because the carriers had to conduct flight ops (which meant turning in to the wind), not because the carriers couldn’t keep up.

So do I support the old battleships in a modern navy? You bet your ass I do! I wonder why the Navy keep them in reserve and not out at sea? And by the way, the great ships you see remanded to museum duty across the country are not in mothballs. By order of the US department of the Navy, the Iowa class ships are not to be altered in any way and are kept in a minimum operating condition by the states who host them lest they lose these tourist dollar generating vital arms to the US government mothball fleets. Even in death, these monsters of the sea just might be called upon again to provide protection to US troops

In my opinion, while battleships are a very impressive, visual representation of engineering and industrial prowess, there are cheaper ways to bring ground support to troops ashore.