Return of the battleship.

[skeleton]

as to phycology, theylle respect your ship when it shoots a cruise missle through the gap of thier teeth

[ewen55]

Originally Posted by Tankcrewman2008

Looking at all these new destroyers and frigates makes me weep I mean there is no armor on these ship's as shown in previous conflicts where warships are damaged or sunk due to ASM's. My main point is old, rusting hulks of the once powerful battleships sit in shallow water for tourists to gaze at while they could be sitting off shore of a hostile country acting as a deterrence. Heavy armor coupled with powerful weaponry makes these behemoths a living nightmare for the smaller pee-wee ships.

Before you all start saying these ships are slow, highly expensive and mentally frustrating to maintain look at the modern age, with new technology and new inexpensive materials you could probably build a 21st century battleship for just over the price of a Nimitz class carrier or more depending on what you want.

Weaponry; New auto-loading guns will decrease the number of personnel needed, Equip the ships with state of the art SAM systems such as PAAMS with a few Goalkeepers, fit the ships with ship launched ASM's and cruise missiles.

Armor; Military analysts state that most ASM's will not be able to penetrate the hull of a battleship even the old ships maybe the large Russian Kitchen missiles but no ones tested. Water armor though I've not read much on this type of armor but it has something to do with physics maybe I'll learn more on that someday, Chobbham or Dorchester armor will be perfect but it would seem the MOD wont give it away neither would it be cost effective in such large quantity's, maybe build the ship out of frozen wood pulp but no i think staying with steel and shaped hull will suffice.

Power plant; Although you may be thinking "Hmmm nuclear would be best" but no your wrong as there is a far more suitable source of power which is Hydrogen power, yes that's right hydrogen is the new nuclear being able to produce energy with no worry's of running out of resources. Obviously only wealthy country's can produce this type of fuel I know in the USA some states use Hydrogen powered cars, Back to battleships I know nuclear seems better because you don't have to refuel all the time but think the resources needed to power reactors will eventually run out.

Well I've probably bored you enough with my constant dribble but feel free to reply.

Cheers

I agree completely, and so does the U.S. Marine Corp, but so far, no joy. All the Iowa class battleships are outfitted to take an Admiral and his Command Staff (old saying, an Admiral weighs 50 tons), negating the need for seperate command ships. U.S. Naval institute Proceedings had a series of articles on just that subject back in the late 90's.

Pull off the remaining 5 inch 38's, replace the ones on deck with 76mm Oto Melaras, and the superstructure mounted ones with Goalkeeper, replace the forward two engine rooms with unneeded nuclear reactors from the Sea Wolf program, and add two more Tomohawk launchers per side.

Nothing, not even a Kitchen, will penetrate the multiple layers of hull, armor belt, fuel/water tankage, and interior armor belt between the primary deck and the waterline, the superstructure is far too compartmentalized to be put out of action in less than 10 or 20 hits, and big missles like the Kitchen are just too easy to shoot down.

Especially easy for a ship with 9 16 inch (420 mm) guns. An airburst from a single 16 inch projectile leaves a hole in the universe 200 meters wide. Multiply that by 9, and the main battery becomes the most lethal AntiAircraftArtillery on the planet. With modified fusing it becomes a savagely effective anti-submarine weapon also, at ranges out to 45 kilometers.

Strap on a $1,500 dollar rocket booster to a $500 dollar shell, and a projectile as effective in most cases as a Tomahawk missle can be thrown almost 200 kilometers for 15% of the cost.

It has been fought by various members of the aerospace industry and their Congressional representatives, but it's an idea that won't go away, and it may happen yet. It is still the single most cost effective support vessel for Marine Corp amphibious landings in the world.

And the Iowa class ships aren't rusting hulks, but well maintained weapons that could put to sea as soon as a crew was found for them, a matter of a few weeks at most. Two of them have been fully modernized and outfitted with missle launchers and state of the art communications systems. Their fire controll systems can be linked with escorting AEGIS cruisers and Burke class destroyers.

I wouldn't hold my breath, but the possibility is still there, and the ships have at least another 20 years of usefull steaming in them.

[Feanor]

So multiple 500kt warheads going off won't put an Iowa-class out of the game? I'm just curious.

[ewen55]

Originally Posted by Feanor

So multiple 500kt warheads going off won't put an Iowa-class out of the game? I'm just curious.

If they could get there sure. But even if they did, an Iowa would last longer than any other ship afloat, and also protect (with heavy hydrogen liners) better against a neutron bomb than anything else afloat.

Also, at the Bikini Atoll test blast, the aircraft carrier Saratoga had an atom bomb chained to her hull 400 meters away and underwater where the shock wave would be dramatically magnified.

With no damage control, it took her almost a day to sink, and she started life as only a heavy cruiser, not a battleship.

Bottom line, no non-nuclear missle flying has more energy than a battleship's shell, and no American battleship was ever sunk when fully manned and underway. With dramatically inferior damage control compared to an American vessel, the Japanese battleship Yamato absorbed more than a hundred armor piercing bombs and 18 torpedos before she went under.

The primary reason the Iowas were reactivated was bombardment of the Iraqi desert positions in Desert Storm. The U.S. Navy put a bomb, missle, or battleship shell every 500 meters, every 45 minutes, for several weeks, before engaging the Iraqis. A battle hardened army, fresh off a hard fought victory against Iran in a war that lasted for years, was so shaken they surrendered in tears, begging for the explosions to stop. Most of the ordinance that landed within 40 kilometers of the ocean was 16 inch shells, at $500 dollars each.

And you wonder why the Marine Corp is desperately trying to get two battleships back in action?

[StevoJH]

Don't think i'd want to be on any ship if a thermobaric warhead detonated over head. Even if the ship itself survived, all its external sensors etc would be toast.

And fairly sure there would be half a chance to be cooked yourself.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by ewen55

If they could get there sure. But even if they did, an Iowa would last longer than any other ship afloat, and also protect (with heavy hydrogen liners) better against a neutron bomb than anything else afloat.

Also, at the Bikini Atoll test blast, the aircraft carrier Saratoga had an atom bomb chained to her hull 400 meters away and underwater where the shock wave would be dramatically magnified.

With no damage control, it took her almost a day to sink, and she started life as only a heavy cruiser, not a battleship.

Bottom line, no non-nuclear missle flying has more energy than a battleship's shell, and no American battleship was ever sunk when fully manned and underway. With dramatically inferior damage control compared to an American vessel, the Japanese battleship Yamato absorbed more than a hundred armor piercing bombs and 18 torpedos before she went under.

The primary reason the Iowas were reactivated was bombardment of the Iraqi desert positions in Desert Storm. The U.S. Navy put a bomb, missle, or battleship shell every 500 meters, every 45 minutes, for several weeks, before engaging the Iraqis. A battle hardened army, fresh off a hard fought victory against Iran in a war that lasted for years, was so shaken they surrendered in tears, begging for the explosions to stop. Most of the ordinance that landed within 40 kilometers of the ocean was 16 inch shells, at $500 dollars each.

And you wonder why the Marine Corp is desperately trying to get two battleships back in action?

Your battleship however is a huge target, and would require escorts. So it's not just a matter of updating the sensors, and getting a crew (which in itself is pricey) but also a matter of putting together an escort group for ASW and AAW. The battleship itself could hardly stop a single volley from a Kirovs 20 Shipwrecks. And the technology in those missiles is already decades old (meaning even relatively third world countries could get their hands on something not too far from it). In other words we end up with something that takes a lot of money. Not something useless, or crappy, but something that requires a lot of money to get operating. The question now is whether the capability it provides justifies taking money away from other things in the budget and spending it on reactivating the Iowas.

[Sea Toby]

The Iowa class battleships are obsolete. Very few of the companies that built her parts still exist, finding any blueprints of those parts will most likely be impossible. They are electronic analog ships in a digital world. During their last operations twenty years ago some efforts were made to upgrade some of their electronics, but not nearly enough. Anyone recall vacuum tubes?

Every system is obsolete, including their human waste systems. Attempting to upgrade these systems will lead to the discovery of abestos. Zumwalt class destroyers are being built with guns that have more range than the Iowas. Learn to live with the Zumwalts.

[StevoJH]

Originally Posted by Sea Toby

Zumwalt class destroyers are being built with guns that have more range than the Iowas. Learn to live with the Zumwalts.

Don't you mean overpriced barrel launched missiles? If you are targeting something 100nm or so inland, you'd get a faster response from the shore based artillery that is most likely closer to the target.

Its for this reason i like the proposed RN 155mm gun better then the AGS.

[USNlover]

I second the emotion brought forth by my esteemed colleague. However
the cost of the improvements would be really expensive and the over a
long distance the "air burst " would dissipate and be a useless waste
of money, The tomahawk replacements would also be a waste because the
shells+rocket boosters would be too large for the lifts and it would
take a couple to sink a ship due to targets CWIS because they would be
moving slower than tomahawks. Again to the air-bursts would not go far
enough into the water to sink a sub seeing as they operate sometimes
miles below the surface. Its a good idea but with many holes and too
costly for the Navy/United States budget.

[Marc 1]

Originally Posted by USNlover

I second the emotion brought forth by my esteemed colleague. However
the cost of the improvements would be really expensive and the over a
long distance the "air burst " would dissipate and be a useless waste
of money, The tomahawk replacements would also be a waste because the
shells+rocket boosters would be too large for the lifts and it would
take a couple to sink a ship due to targets CWIS because they would be
moving slower than tomahawks. Again to the air-bursts would not go far
enough into the water to sink a sub seeing as they operate sometimes
miles below the surface. Its a good idea but with many holes and too
costly for the Navy/United States budget.

Air bursts? What are these 16 inch airburst shells that you and your esteemed colleague Ewan55 referring to? There were only a couple of shells developed (HE, APC and Nuclear Mk 23) for these guns and none were what you'd call an airburst design like the Bofors AHEAD et al.

[ewen55]

Originally Posted by Marc 1

Air bursts? What are these 16 inch airburst shells that you and your esteemed colleague Ewan55 referring to? There were only a couple of shells developed (HE, APC and Nuclear Mk 23) for these guns and none were what you'd call an airburst design like the Bofors AHEAD et al.

U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings had an excellent series of articles in the late 1990's on the comparisons between the proposed "Arsenal Ship" and the Iowas, with the Iowas coming out way ahead in survivability and antiaircraft effectiveness. I believe the rocket booster, similar to the Salvo 8 inch gun tried back in the 1980's, was integrated into the shell, with the TNT sweated out and replaced with microexplosives to up the yield.

One would imagine a dedicated AAA projectile, rather than a pinch penny conversion, would use more of the space inside the shell, since it wouldn't need the semi-armor piercing nose. Given what they've done with simple iron bombs using strap-on guidance units, and the maturity of American Copperhead technology, I would not want to be inside a Backfire trying to get within launch range. Prefragmented warheads aren't needed when several hundred kilos of explosive are detonated. The overpressure alone would suffice to shred any airframe I could imagine.

Since the loss of the F-14 and it's Phoenix missiles, fleet defense has little flexible option to fill in the gaps around the Standard AA missle at medium (beyond CIWS/Stinger Post) to long range, and the gunnery officer who wrote the article seems to have been well recieved. Again, the Marines were desperate for all that extra weight of shot on target, and discussed giving up a regiment of combined arms infantry to finance it.

Over the horizon fire support on a disputed beach, capable of half minute of angle accuracy and 9 shot spaced airbursts comparable to a low yield nuke, with constant fire for hours at a time. Still not a bad idea.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by ewen55

One would imagine a dedicated AAA projectile, rather than a pinch penny conversion, would use more of the space inside the shell, since it wouldn't need the semi-armor piercing nose. Given what they've done with simple iron bombs using strap-on guidance units, and the maturity of American Copperhead technology, I would not want to be inside a Backfire trying to get within launch range. Prefragmented warheads aren't needed when several hundred kilos of explosive are detonated. The overpressure alone would suffice to shred any airframe I could imagine.

Really? And what range in AA mode would these weapons be efficient at? How effective would they be at altitude? What kind of sensors would need to be installed, as well as C2 systems, to coordinate the effective working of multiple such weapons? And would it not be cheaper to add an AAW escort to a Zumwalt?

[Marc 1]

Originally Posted by ewen55

I would not want to be inside a Backfire trying to get within launch range. Prefragmented warheads aren't needed when several hundred kilos of explosive are detonated. The overpressure alone would suffice to shred any airframe I could imagine.

Ah, so this is a mythical beast. The proposal is to spend untold millions of dollars to make a 16 inch artillery shell an anti-air weapon. Fired from ageing barrels (more cost in replacing them). Incidentally, given the SS-N-22 has a range of 130km, AS-16 is 300km, BrahMos is 290km etc, I doubt you'll be swatting the delivery aircraft out of the air with a 16 inch shell with a 30 odd km range. Given that these missles are sipping along at Mach 2 to 3 - the maximum warning you'll get would be 25-30 seconds - I'm pretty damn sure that it takes a tad longer than that to load a shell in a 16 inch gun, train the turret, and track the missile - frankly without completely renewing the training/elevating/loading gear you'd need to keep at least 2 barrels permanently loaded with AA shot. Given that these missiles are usually never fired singly, you'd need to tie up more barrels with AA rounds. That will mean a much reduced NGS ability. I'm sure it would also be possible to cut down a Kenworth prime mover to be used as a document courier too, although the cost effectiveness of doing so would be questionable.

NGS, there are far more sophisticated alternatives that can produce nearly the same weight of firepower - MLRS, air support, artillery etc. The only times this NGS system is useful is a seaborn landing. And even then with the new assault concept of sitting some way off the coast (over the horizon) with the LCAC's and EFV's to deploy somewhere crossing the coast in a much wider arc due to their higher speed. The advantage of surprise would be lost if you were to 'indicate' the assault location by needing to park a battleship and its protective screen much closer to the shore.

Originally Posted by ewen55

Over the horizon fire support on a disputed beach, capable of half minute of angle accuracy and 9 shot spaced airbursts comparable to a low yield nuke, with constant fire for hours at a time. Still not a bad idea.

Yields comparable to a tactical nuke - maybe you've missed the last few conflicts - the idea these days is restraint and accuracy - not every war is going to involve pulverising the enemy. The last time the Iowa's were taken out of mothballs was 1982 - it cost $500 million dollars to refit and reactivate them then - given that it is a similar period of time that has elapsed, a cost of well ove a billion dollars per ship would be needed (the hull aparently has buckets of asbestos etc). Reactivating one would be a waste of time, so you'd have to look at 3 to ensure one in refit, one working up and one on station could be assured. So probably 3 billion dollars plus the immense running costs (plus the costs of developing new ammunition, plus perhaps barrels etc) for something that is only really useful as a NGS platform, and then only in a Gulf War type scenario when the ampibious assault is close by. Or, the same money ivested in another carrier - flexible, usefull anywhere strike further than 37km away...

Nup, they make great museums...

[MrQuintus]

I'd much rather see a fast cruiser, with 4 155mm 52 calibre guns in 2 twin mounts, sustained combined rate of fire 30 rounds per minute and a range of up to 60km with existing rounds, and with MRSI you can put plenty of iron on target, wrap it all in a large armoured (approx 6 inches) conventional hull with a pile of VLS and a big hanger/flight deck and all the stuff needed to be a self defending asset and you have a very scary ship.

Now imagine they'd spent the Zumwalt money on that!

[ewen55]

Originally Posted by MrQuintus

I'd much rather see a fast cruiser, with 4 155mm 52 calibre guns in 2 twin mounts, sustained combined rate of fire 30 rounds per minute and a range of up to 60km with existing rounds, and with MRSI you can put plenty of iron on target, wrap it all in a large armoured (approx 6 inches) conventional hull with a pile of VLS and a big hanger/flight deck and all the stuff needed to be a self defending asset and you have a very scary ship.

Now imagine they'd spent the Zumwalt money on that!

The cruiser wouldn't be any faster than an Iowa, the 6 inch (155mm) would only have a range of 32 kilometers with base bleed shells, and a tiny explosive charge by comparison to the 16 inch (420mm) shell. An even smaller yield if they used RAP rounds for longer range, about the same power as the 5"54. Plus one third the armor, the battleships are ready to go now, and already paid for.

Two of the Iowas have been completely modernized and professionally maintained, trained reservist crews could be put aboard and worked up in a few weeks, and they can keep up with a modern Carrier Battle Group (33kts.)..

Figuring no enemy could get within 300 nautical miles before launching (got to love those Viking EW planes), then even a supersonic missile would need 12 minutes to get into an attack position, and supersonic missiles suck. Quite simply, they are huge, with monstrous firing signatures, easy, clumsy targets for radar/infrared/lidar, and flying fuel tanks saying "Hit me and watch me blow".

The standard by which all other missiles is judged is still the small and extremely agile Harpoon, and it only gets through to the target by means of electronic spoofing and HARM missiles taking out the enemy's fire control before the Harpoon gets there. At the moment, the only people who have that kind of technology are on our side.

Witness the Israeli attack on Syria's nuclear facilities two years ago, through more than 1,000 kilometers of airspace supposedly controlled by more than 5 billion dollars of Russia's latest radar, equiptment so new the Russian military hadn't taken ownership of it yet. All maintained and operated by first line Russian technicians, yet they didn't know the Israelis were overhead until the plant exploded, and they couldn't track or lock on to any of the Israeli aircraft on their way home.

The 16 inch projectile weighs from about 1 ton to about 1.5 tons, depending on type (HE, AP). It is made of hardened tool steel with a solid nose, and is spin stabilized. Any incoming projectile or missile can be hit if you are willing to invest enough money in AAA or missiles, but only a shell could shrug off any hits with, at best, only minor degradation to it's trajectory.

The Marine Corp's strong interest in the 16'' battleship happened back in the 1990's, when it was realized that Copperhead missile technology had given the big naval gun a new lease on life. We are talking about what is essentially an over the horizon gunfire support vessel for amphibious support operations. The anti-aircraft, anti-missile, and anti-submarine capability is a lovely bonus.

Nine HE shells, cluster detonated at altitude, 35 to 40 kilometers away, produces a deadly overpressure area 600 to 800 meters wide, 600 to 800 meters high, and more than 200 meters thick, that nothing on earth can fly through. Fuzing is controlled by the nearest AEGIS cruiser or destroyer. Instead of trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, you are slamming a door almost half a mile wide on anything that wants to fly through it.

Century old technology modified by the substitution of nothing more than a fuze becomes the ultimate mid-range answer to anti-aircraft needs, between the long range of the Standard missile and the short range AA missles and CIWS mounted on warships now. A capability sorely needed since the demise of the F-14 and it's Phoenix missile.

As an amphibious support craft, the 16'' battleship has no equal. The Arsenal Ship was cancelled several years ago, because it was shown that it couldn't stay in the fight more than a few minutes without a resupply, and it couldn't be kept from being blown out of the water from a serious hit. VLS shouldn't be exposed to combat in littoral waters.

The 1,300 kilo armor piercing 16" shell has penetration far in excess of a Harpoon land attack variant, and an Iowa can deliver 400 of them per hour, at the cost of only 2 Harpoons.

The guns are new, with thousand of liners in storage, and more than 100,000 shells ready to go. Call it better than 75 loadouts of 1,500 shells per fire mission.

Those two ships are there and ready now, and the Navy keeps crews trained to utilize them. If there wasn't a serious chance of their being used, I doubt either the expense of keeping them ready or maintaining the MOS's peculiar to that class of ship could be justified. Or the storage and maintenence of their ammunition.