It’s possible to have both as evaluation criteria when comparing courses of action even if you weight effectiveness higher. ISTR it being in the requirements briefing slides I saw for what ultimately became the Stryker purchase. Cost has certainly been included in any number of staff MDMP training exercises I had to go through. Resource constraints and managing budgets were an important part of what my duties were during my career. Maybe it’s an Army thing like “Hooah.”
It’s also not like the Navy hasn’t considered longer range rail guns effective for at least some roles. They are spending money developing them, after all. Assuming the ybecome available, considering the optimum mix seems likely IMO. Considering cost as part of that decision, in what has been a pretty resource constrained environment for the past several years, doesn’t strike me as something bizarre. I wasn’t Navy though. Hooah.
But this theoretical cost relationship has tended not to pan out well. Long range guided shell programs have typically been troubled in the USN. Also the pro-big gun argument at times seems to ignore the USN’s huge sunk costs in air power. JDAM’s are a real life, not vaporware, long range (due to the a/c carrying them) guided weapon with a very low marginal cost. And there isn’t typically an explicit idea of cutting back carrier forces to fund long range gun projects. And carrier forces like the other existing legs of the USN structure have their own minimum scale issues (eg. keeping Newport News able to build them if you keep cutting back the production rate).
Rail guns are somewhat of an unknown. There are positive and negative aspects to that like any unknown. But IMO it’s now safe to say the 155mm long range gun is a fizzle. It’s a plenty expensive way to put ordnance on targets anyway you count, and fills relatively little in the way of any need that couldn’t be done by other weapons. As long as a few are around, useful ways to employ them might be found. But overall it just hasn’t panned out enough to make the idea of new bigger (traditional propellant) guns and ships to carry them make any sense. And the exception in case of 16", ‘well we already have the ships’, is not really true anymore. Bringing those ships back now would be phenomenally expensive, and a big unknown and risk how much it would really be.
Due to my error perhaps I am afraid you mistake my meaning. I meant the lack of action after the world wars might have lowered standards in training with those former beach and boat pounders. Been a long time since dem sledges hit anything important!
I see that mostly as an argument for not dumping tons of money into starting the development. I don’t disagree there. Since the Navy has been working on it, and has yet to cut that effort, it’s worth at least considering potential later decisions - whether it’s worth fielding and in what mix. Starting the program was one decision. Continuing it has been an ongoing decision. If they manage to get close to something feasible, acceptable and suitable for fielding that prompts the kind of decisions I was referencing with respect to potential fielding.
Part of this argument is that these old battleships look impressive and to a certain extent “cool”
Have these nearly 900 foot long ships with these great big guns prominently displayed has that certain flair to it.
Even though the practicality of them is limited at best, they would still be awesome to have around even if they are more ceremonial than anything else.
We will have to live with them as Museum ships (which in a way makes them even more accessible.
Not to nitpick, but the USS Arizona was only indirectly sunk by a bomb.
It was it’s own powder magazine that sunk it when it exploded.
Had the magazine not exploded, the bomb itself would not have sunk it.
Yea i know, the bomb is what caused it to go off, but it’s similar to someone having thrown anything flammable in there.
And to be fair The Arizona was not active or defended, you could destroy a lot of things stuck in the same position.
Not arguing to bring back battle ships, but got to be fair to the Arizona and her lost crew.
As for your question.
I can give you one example of where one might consider shells a bit more of a threat than missiles.
You could bury someone in more shells in a a day than they could afford missiles in a life time.
Shells are cheap and effective, if you can get the delivery system in place.
As for the other guy, missiles can penetrate armor and concrete etc too, you simply need a high velocity delivery vehicle, and you design the war head just like you would a shell you were using for the same effect.
We have bunker busting and armor penetrating missiles, they work just fine, they are simply expensive and harder to produce.
And sadly for the Battleship, in this day and age, the Battleship would be targeted via satellite, the info fed into a smart missile that would then go seek out it’s target.
All fired from a range that the Battleship can not return fire from.
I can see uses for them, but it would be very niche oriented, and the costs of keeping crewing and maintaining it for just in case one of those occasions comes about is prohibitive.
If someone is thinking of reactivating the Iowa class, then its because its usually the least expensive of three schools of thought.
The other two being a new class of BB and the Arsenal ship program. Personally I think they should bite the bullet and come out with a new class, somewhere between the Eight inch heavy cruisers that manned the gun line in Vietnam, and the old Alaska class BC’s. Nuke powered and big enough to put new systems online as they become available.
It would supercede some roles that are currently filled by flight 3 burkes, which are said to be running out of room and power for the envisioned net centric warfare, which is the darling of the F35 set currently.
All things concerned, however is to see what the Navy’s defined mission is, if that mission as currently stated has changed or if its being enlarged, then that mission will define the ship’s of the line.
Right, but, you know, they were wanting to make a game that would be fun. When I was younger I used to play this really cool submarine simulator. Contrary to reality, I NEVER used the deck gun…it was a lot more fun to sink ships with the torpedos. In later editions, they actually took the deck gun away since I doubt anyone really used the thing. In real life, though, the deck gun was often used in all navies that used subs for a variety of reasons.
Also, things have progressed since the 80’s wrt naval guns. Perhaps someone making a newer game would make the same decisions (i.e. they would get rid of naval guns because they aren’t nearly as fun to blow shit up with as missiles), but the tech has progressed quite a bit further since then, so perhaps they would allow that firing a rail gun might be fun too.
It’s a cyclic arms-race sort of situation; the western allies will come out with an effective countermeasure, and the missile people will counter it, etc… ad nauseam.
People were saying tanks were obsolete… but Chobham and reactive armor changed that equation quite a bit. Something similar will happen with capital ships.
I also want to say that I’ll believe it when I see it; nothing coming out of the Kremlin is remotely credible when it comes to… well, anything. Especially not weapon capabilities.
This was a tabletop board game not a computer game. Attacking with guns was the same procedure as attacking with missiles; you looked up the numbers and then rolled dice to see if you had a hit. So the “fun” was pretty much equivalent.
If anything, firing the guns in a game would tend to be more fun. As many people have conceded, battleships and their big guns are cool.
But it never came up in the game. The guns had such short range that two opposing ships never found themselves within the range of each other’s guns. Long before that happened, other weapons with far longer ranges would have been used.
I wouldn’t discount naval gunfire any time soon. Naval guns can now reach out to 50 miles. If a stealth ship manages to slip undetected within 50 miles, say in an inland sea or a chain of islands, then things are going to be very uncomfortable for unarmored ships carrying only missiles.
Armor seems obsolete only because of the way war at sea is now being fought (or thought to be fought.) From Vietnam to maybe Desert Storm, the US navy used mainly Iowa-class battleships to come within missile range of an enemy’s landmass. 10 inches of armor above deck will make you feel more confident.
We are/were still fighting the “Manned Bomber” v ICBM when the “Drone” came along and demonstrated the ability to use a human-controlled “bomber” without have to carry the human and its life-support system on board.
Once it was figured out that creating a bubble under a mega ship meant you didn’t need to punch holes in it, the “capital ship” stock has been sinking.
The development of a cheap missile that can not be stopped by any even theoretical technology will be the final nail in the coffin of the huge ship.
Be that a scramjet/hyper sonic/unpredictable trajectory/whatever missile, it will make no sense to spend $4 billion on a ship which can be killed for less than $1 million.
And you know the US’s fondness for carriers means they are at the top of the “Find a way to kill it” list of just about everyone who does not speak English.
It takes only a lit match to burn down Empire State building, but how? You need to be kinda smart, or your ESB security has to be kinda dumb, or you have to have a squad of SEALS protecting you. So your $1 million has to be very lucky, or backed up by more than $5 billion, in order to sink $4 billion. A bit off with the numbers, I know, but you get what I mean. To sink a capital ship, you need a lot of capital help. A big ship gets big protection if its mission merits it.
And the above discussion assumes a symmetric confrontation with a country having a comparable naval force with the US. What about an asymmetric war? Were the Iowa or New Jersey in any kind of danger when they bombarded North Vietnam, or Lebanon, or launched missiles at Iraq?
Do we really really need to spend billions of dollars so we can asymmetrically bomb goatherds hiding in caves near the ocean cheaply?
Again, you can’t count the cost per shell. You have to count the entire cost of putting each kilogram of HE on target, which includes the fully amortized cost of the battleship. A missile is expensive because you count the whole cost of the missile and the launcher, not just the HE payload. But you can’t just count the cost of the shell, you have to count the cost of the whole delivery system.
If you already have a mostly useless battleship and giant stocks of mostly useless shells, then steaming to the Persian Gulf to bombard some caves with cheap shells isn’t much more expensive than sitting in the dock swabbing the decks. So these ships were used for that purpose in Vietnam and Lebanon and WWII, because we had them and so using them for a marginally useful purpose was better than using them for no useful purpose.
But we don’t have those free legacy battleships anymore. We’d have to build new ones. And even if we got them for free, it’s not free to operate them and staff them.
ISTR it being in the requirements briefing slides I saw for what ultimately became the Stryker purchase. Cost has certainly been included in any number of staff MDMP training exercises I had to go through. Resource constraints and managing budgets were an important part of what my duties were during my career. Maybe it’s an Army thing like “Hooah.” 
