Bringing back the Battleship

[Defcon 6]

The following are/is arguements for battleship reactivation, or battleship support in modern naval forces.

Distortions about ships
By James F. O'Bryon
Published June 17, 2005
Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton's June 13 Op-Ed article on battleships left me confused and
somewhat angry, not so much because of his bias toward building the DD(X) and against
retaining the two venerable battleships (BBs) still in our mothball fleet, but the apparent
distortions in the data he presented to make his case, relegating these two ships to permanent
museum status.
The 15 years I spent in the Pentagon was providing independent oversight of nearly 100
major Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps systems assessing their lethalities,
vulnerabilities and survivabilities. The one thing that we fought hard to achieve was to
ensure that competing systems were assessed on a level playing field.
I'm writing because I don't believe that Adm. Hamilton's Op-Ed has placed the DD(X)
and BB on a level playing field for comparison.
First, the DD(X) features two 155mm guns launching projectiles that contain 24 pounds
of explosives each, roughly the amount that a suicide bomber might carry. In contrast, each
battleship contains nine 16-inch guns, each capable of launching full caliber projectiles the
size of Volkswagens, capable of attacking both surface and buried hard targets or saboted
rounds traveling much farther. Furthermore, the battleship's guns already exist. The DD(X)'s
don't.
Adm. Hamilton claims that the 16-inch rounds couldn't be given precision guidance,
claiming "punishing muzzle energy." In Project HARP over 30 years ago, delicate
instrumentation packages were launched from such guns to altitudes of more than 50 miles.
While the admiral claims that "super-long-range 16-inch gun rounds are illusory," Pratt &
Whitney's design studies, backed by laboratory scramjet experiments, concluded that such
shells were feasible, reaching 460 miles in only nine minutes and could be fielded in seven
years, well before the first DD(X) joins the fleet in 2014.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is the comparative survivabilities of the
battleship and DD(X). I have overseen a number of ship vulnerability programs over the
years and, in my opinion, there is no tougher ship than the BB. While I believe that the DD
(X)'s focus on hit avoidance is desirable, sometimes you cannot avoid the fight.
When I hear the argument that the "passionate advocates" of battleships are uninformed
or just plain nostalgic, I'm reminded of the way that the B-52 has repeatedly been upgraded
over the past 50 years with improved fire control, avionics, propulsion, improved munitions
and a host of other upgrades that put this workhorse of the Air Force at the center of much
of our strategic and tactical defense. Is this nostalgia? No, it's recognition of the huge
benefits and low risks that retrofitting new technologies can bring to a proven platform. In
fact, there are 31 B-52 modification programs currently underway allowing this aircraft to
contribute to the nation's defense at least through 2040.
The same can be done for the battleships. The DD(X) continues to be plagued by
increasing cost and system complications with cost estimates ranging from $3.3 billion up to
Page Distortions about ships -- The Washington Times e 1 of 2
http://www.washingtontimes.com/func...16-100901-9551r 6/17/2005
$7 billion per ship. Projection Forces Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett recently
referred to it as a "technology demonstration program." The admiral claimed that "spending
the billions of dollars to reactivate the battleships, develop advanced munitions, and pay the
very high costs to operate them would come at the expense of other vital programs." Is
several billion dollars for a destroyer also not a high cost? In fact, the fiscal 2006 defense
budget allocates 1.47 billion just to refuel the Vinson carrier. Why would $1.5 billion be to
costly to reactivate/modernize a battleship with much more firepower and survivability than
the DD(X) and be done in less than half the time at lower risk?
The nation's two remaining battleships have proven themselves over the years and, as the
B-52s aptly demonstrate, were not only effective at their introduction but can be retrofitted
with the latest technology to allow them to provide the fire support that the Marine Corps
continues to require.
Allowing these ships to become museums in the defense bill will be irreversible and place
our Marines at risk for the foreseeable future. My hope is that any decision on the future of
the DD(X) and the battleships be based on a solid analytical footing.
James F. O'Bryon is chairman of Mobius Business Solutions and owner of the O'Bryon
Group. He is also former director of the Defense Department's Live Fire Testing.

 

[SOLDIER officer]

I agree with all that. But the reality check here is the fact that most of these conversations about battleships are regarding only the two existing Iowa class battleships. I would love to have battleships back in the US Navy. But its a non-starter for me unless we move beyond reactivating the Iowas and start talking about a new class of battleships.

Its pointless to discuss scramjet munitions and cost comparisons between BBs and DD(X)s when we're talking about 60 year old battleships that will last only how long and would eventually be replaced by DD(X) sooner or later anyway.

 

[Defcon 6]

I agree with all that. But the reality check here is the fact that most of these conversations about battleships are regarding only the two existing Iowa class battleships. I would love to have battleships back in the US Navy. But its a non-starter for me unless we move beyond reactivating the Iowas and start talking about a new class of battleships.

Its pointless to discuss scramjet munitions and cost comparisons between BBs and DD(X)s when we're talking about 60 year old battleships that will last only how long and would eventually be replaced by DD(X) sooner or later anyway.

Check the AGS thread here in this forum. And look for my post. I created a concept I call the BB(X). Theres also a bigger version that is based on the Montana Class that I have in another forum.

 

[Berserk Fury]

lol BB(X).
Its an interesting concept though right now I think the world's navies really need multi-purposed ships that are fast, reliable, and cheap. Uprading a BB would take tons of money whilst building a few patrol boats armed with ASM's don't. Plus, more hulls mean more survivability and mobility.

 

[Defcon 6]

Yes but the Navy is wanting to field fewer ships, not more. The DD(X) costs only a billion less than my BB(X) concept design.

The DD(X) costs 4.2 billion dollars. They aren't cheap. Thus the problem becomes more wide ranging in solution.

 

[Berserk Fury]

lol
your idea is pretty awesome though.
but the Navy wants to field lesser ships with more firepower but also with the same mobility. That's why we pre-position ships, armaments and troops.
I think the Navy is focusing more on frigate and destroyer-sized ships and shore patrol crafts though that's only what I think which doesn't count for much xP

 

[rickusn]

Many think DDX will never get built.

Costs in the US for military hardware has skyrocketed to unbelivable levels.

The USAF seems to have finally got a handle on Raptor costs but how many will actually get built is anybodies guess. 83 have been contracted foir with 50 delivered with 13 more completed and prepping for delivery

The new multi-service F-35 costs are still a quesstimate. The USN is starting to get cold feet about the whole deal.

The USMC Osprey seems to be overcoming both its technical and cost problems but again how many actually get built is questionable.

Congressional meddling is likely to at least double the cost of LCS.

Then we have Virginia class SSN and LPD 17 cost escalation.

At some point costs have to moderate or nothing will get built.

 

[Berserk Fury]

At some point all newly developed platforms will have to be shared base on your post which isn't that bad of an idea.
The planes might be withheld from mass production as the USAF already has airframe life prolongment planes and upgrade kits for F-16's etc.
And I'm pretty sure the government will keep the funding for the subs as to form a deterent against other subs maybe the Kilos sold by Russia.

btw, if there were a BB(X) ASW would be near impossible as it would produce so much noise and it'd be so slow. Either way, I think if there were a BB(X) there would have to be BBBG instead of CBG's.

 

[Defcon 6]

Theres no reason why it would produce excessive noise or be slow. In fact as in the design parameters it has a maximum sprint speed of 41 kts. A BBBG is useless. If I remember the whole idea was to stick carrier decks on Iowa class bb's. Making them ugly and useless overall.

 

[stephen weist]

The navy just might shoot itself in its own foot. If it goes ahead with the DDX then these would be able to launch attacks that are now the sole area of the carrier. This would show that less carriers were needed. Less carriers mean less escorts, less aircraft and so on. the fewer ships you have means the ones left will wear out faster, you cant get around that. Scrap the DDX and JSF, concentrating on RnD for your existing ships, and new building for these as well. Maintaining the current levels should be the number one priority.

 

[Berserk Fury]

We already have RnD projects for our ships.
Individual components are constantly upgraded (e.g. Standard missile and VLS system or the Tomahawks) though they are not enough; that's why there needs to be new designs to supplement existing ones.
Maybe a new carrier design or DD(X).
The JSF is a major breakthrough for planes.
F-35's are multi-service planes, standarizing airplanes is a pretty good idea.
There's no point in upgrading existing designs as they will reach their limit at one point. Why not focus on a new design that has greater potential?

 

[EthanXH58]

Well, The arsenal ship was an excellent proposal and I think it was shot down prematurely. The ship was supposbed to be a double hull design weighing 40,000-50,000 tons. It wasn't exactly a battle ship but more of a plat form that would carry as much as 500 Land attack missiles and manned by only 50 people. It was suppose to cost only USD 500MM in 2001 dollars. However, for some reason the whole deal was shelved and because of that I believe they came up with the concept of DDX. Though DDX will weigh more than a Ticongeronga class cruiser. DDX is really more of a light cruiser than a destroyer.

USN has unneccarily assigned too many roles into a single platform and there for the almost 2 billion dollar price tag per platform. USN should review it's plans and simply the role of DDX to the role of traditional destroyer missions. I also think they should reintroduce the Arsenal ship concept. However, istead of being a dumb missile carrier platform as was the case in the previous case, the navy should have it armed with ultra long rage 12 to 16 inch guns along with the advanced sensors and the ability to deliver 300-400 land attack cruise missiles.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

The simplest way to provide those arsenal ships is to use Wasp class LHDs. The height of the hanger deck is sufficient for the Mk 41 stratigic VLS. I did draw something up, but it's too big to upload. Hmm, imagine multiple 64 cell vls launchers running down the port side of the deck, a dozen will fit. On the forward deck starboard side mount 1 or 2 8 inch naval guns that were being trialed years ago to replace the 5 inch. Or the lastest 155mm long barrelled howitzers that can land multiple shells on target simitaneously. The rear starboard side would have a reduced size hangar for rpv and helos for targeting, etc. The lastest Wasp with the gas turbines will be a cheaper ship to build, man, and maintain, and as an arsenal ship will provide a heavy hit in any litteral battle on an existing platform.

 

[Alswelk]

Why not actively construct new warships based on the quite capable Iowa-class? At some point in the future, there's again going to be a nation capable of competing with the US for naval dominance, and, to my mind, it would be an advantage to use a design we know is excellent, then find ways to improve upon it against the eventuality of a naval war.

 

[Rich]

The problem with the Iowas is they were ancient history by the time they were launched. They served some purpose in Korea but since then, and after Regan reactivated them, they were nothing but big old ships with big guns that can be paraded around the worlds oceans. Its true their guns provide amphibious op firepower but name one battle since WW-ll where they were absolutly needed? In the end it comes down to economics. The Iowas just cost to much to man,upgrade,operate, for what they bring to the table.

The arsenal ships were a case of putting to many eggs in one basket in an age where cheap cruise missiles can take out any ship. Also what are the odds of something completly new and untested coming in on budget and only manned by 50 sailors. About zero I'd say. And they said the Titanic couldnt sink. Also you still wouldnt have guns on it.

DD(x) is a family of three ships on two platforms correct? And even the DD and CV has been pared down to about the same size as current DDs. What we need are new designs, new ships, new technologys. What we dont need are 60 yo relics just because they look good going thru the Suez canal.

 

[Cootamundra]

What we need are new designs, new ships, new technologys. What we dont need are 60 yo relics just because they look good going thru the Suez canal.

Amen to that Rich, what we need is to see a massive expansion in the development of multi-hulled vessels. The next major development is going to be in the area of speed of naval vessels and through the use of multi-hulled designs (either Bi or Tri) we can get increased carrying capacity (resulting in increased weapons capacity and system complexity) and increased speed (resulting in major rethinks in tactical strategies). The US are seriously looking into FAST CAT ship designs and one of the LCS options is based on an AUSTAL Cat, whilst the UK has been experimenting with the Triton. I don't think it will be long before we see major surface combatants changing shape.

 

[Alswelk]

How do you propose getting a multi-hull ship through the Panama Canal?

 

[LancerMc]

While I love the idea of refurbishing our two last Iowa class battleships, turning them into a completely modern warship would be extremely difficult and extremely costly (though probably not as much a new class or ship). There would be a need to put all new radar probably AEGIS and effective communication technology would take huge amounts of time. The 16 inch gun can be effective and accurate weapon, but there are allready extended range naval shells in testing and service. The DDX is also hoping to use a magnetically assisted shell to increase range and firepower. Thats why the shell for the DDX gun only has 24 pounds of explosive, because it will also use the extreme velocity of the round to improve the hitting power of the weapon.

 

[Wild Weasel]

You know, I see no reason why a new carrier hull could not be "beefed up", and modified from the waterline up to serve as a modern replacement for the Iowas.
Alternatively, an LHA/LHD hull might be just as effective, and more economical.

The question is: a modern BBG(N?) would fulfill what mission that can't be accomplished with the USN's current fleet of DDGs and CGs? That's rhetorical actually- I know the primary mission of a BB is to support amphib operations with NGFS, and provide deep strike capability with TLAMs. But,
1) The US has not been forced to make any WWII-style beach landings for a very long time, nor do they seem to be missing the capability to do so;

2) There is a number of currently available weapons systems that can be projected from existing surface ships, which could provide the same sort of NGFS volume. These include NATACM's, LASM, POLAR, TACTOM, the new 155mm AGS, VGAS, and the 127mm/62 ERGM.

All that is really needed, is a navalized version of the MLRS, and a sufficient number of VLS tubes to fire these weapons from. Even though "traditionalists" are still glassy-eyed about the Iowa's 16" guns, there's no reason why the overly-heavy, and cumbersome MK7's, and TLAM ABL canisters, could not be replaced by smaller, lighter, and much more flexible PVLS, MLRS, and AGS/VGAS batteries.

The NATACMS, LASM, and POLAR missiles all more than double the range of the Iowa's 16" shells- ATACMS Blk-1A exceeds more than 300km. All three can be vertical, or MLRS launched, to provide 360 degrees of firing arc and a high volume of all-up ready rounds. Finally, all three are capable of at least near-precision GPS guidance, and can be loaded with bomblet submunitions, hard target-penetrating unitary warheads, or smart missile-dispensing payload options.

For long-range strike missile capability, a BBG's PVLS would provide ample space to launch a larger number of VLS-fired TLAMS than the Iowa's ever could. They could actually be the primary TLAM-launching ship for each ESG, freeing up the escort CG's, DDG's, and SSN's VLS tubes to be loaded with a larger number of SAM's, and VLS-launched torpedoes. The ESG's escorts should be escorting, tasked with the defense of the attached HVUs.

Naturally, the PVLS and other weapon mounts would allow the BBG to defend itself at the very least, and perhaps even provide the rest of the task force with additional layered defences. It's probable that the most serious threat to a BBG, would be from sub-launched torpedos. So clearly, the ship should have some ASW capabilty as well.

Finally, as my concept is based on a carrier or LHA/LHD hull- there is no reason why the aft third of the ship could not be fitted out as a Kiev-style STOVL "carrier". A trimaran hull-form would allow the BBG to support an angled launch deck on either side of the superstructure, a large VTOL deck ( 8 launching/landing spots, 16 parking/replenishment spots ) at the far aft end, and up to three elevators- two deck-edge elevators port and starboard midship, and a third at the aft end. The aft-end of the super structure has a hanger for up to four medium aircraft, the hanger deck has space for half of the embarked airwing, as well as assorted maintenence bays.
The vessel's airwing should comprise a mix of multi-mission helos/Osprey( up to 12 ), JSF ( up to 24 ), UAV's ( up to 12 ), and UCAVs ( at least 24 ). The UAV's should be able to provide real-time long-endurance AWAC's surveillance, as well as recon. The UCAV's should also be capable of OECM jamming support, and SEAD missions. All are vertical takeoff, and in-flight refueling capable.
A dock, and well-deck at the stern allows the BBG to launch, service, and receive small craft, LCACs, AAAVs, and RUVs/UUVs.

There is a secondary mission that BB's have performed in the past: They were the premier anti-ship weapon, until the arrival of the aircraft carrier.
Incidentally, this is a role that may be just as important for a modern Iowa replacement. Today, the USN's best surface ship-launched ASuW weapon is currently the Harpoon Blk II, which leaves a little to be desired as far as a modern ASM is concerned. They aren't VLS-capable for some reason, they are subsonic without being very-low observable, and they are a little short-ranged in comparison to other ASMs.
What's more, in the unlikely ( but somewhat possible ) event that an ESG's carrier flight deck is ever put out of commission, the only other ASuW weapons available are the Harpoons, ( up to 8 ready rounds on each ESG surface combatant, and the attached SSNs/SSGNs ) Seahawk-launched Penguin ASMs, MK48 ADCAPs from the attached sub(s), and lastly- the tiny little MK45 5" gun rounds. It seems like a lot of fire power- and it certainly would be, within 120 or so kilometers from the ESG. But that is well within the range of newer OPFOR ASMs, and is therefore a rather precarious situation for an ESG to be in.

Unfortunately, the DD(X) doesn't seem to address this deficit at all. Except for the possibility of using the TACTOM as an overly-expensive, and overly-effective ASM, the new 57mm Bofors gun, and helo-launched Penguins- it doesn't seem to have ANY real ASuW capability. It will not even be equipped with the Harpoon ASM, as far as I know.

So, in conclusion; I believe that a large, powerful, and highly-survivable BBG could certainly provide for a much-needed ASuW deficiency as an integral part of an ESG. Perhaps what is needed most would be a longer-ranged, stealthier replacement for the Harpoon ASM, with an additional role as a 500km-ranged land attack missile. I have heard mention of a VLS-launched JASSM-ER concept, but I don't believe that the USN is really looking to replace the Harpoon in the foreseeable future.

Perhaps a BBG could be loaded with supersonic, MLRS-launched ASuW weapons. These could be ATACMS, or LASM, with a GPS/LADAR seeker to provide an anti-ship capability. If equipped with a hard-target penetrating, unitary or thermobaric warhead- these missiles should be very capable against any known vessel.

 

[Cootamundra]

How do you propose getting a multi-hull ship through the Panama Canal?

Good question, but apart from the Panama Canal I'm 99% sure that no other major waterway would be blocked. And with the much faster transit speeds the trip around the Cape would be much less than previously. Also as the US maintains fleets in the Atlantic, the Pacific and in the Gulf this issue would really not crop up that often anyway.