Battleship is not obsolete

Is the battleship obsolete?

  • Battleship is obsolete

    Votes: 33 50.8%
  • Battleship is not obsolete

    Votes: 28 43.1%
  • I don't know and I don't care

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • Total voters
    65
Use normal fleet elements until Railguns are able to be fitted on to replace the main guns of all ships. Strip out that useless main gun for a far more deadly weapon.
Czin, are we talking about Dreamland, or real life? Right now the railgun is not a viable weapon.
 
Czin, are we talking about Dreamland, or real life? Right now the railgun is not a viable weapon.
I like to think about the somewhat distant future (2050ish distant.) Distant enough to be very different, but not too distant as to be unpredictable.
 
Use normal fleet elements until Railguns are able to be fitted on to replace the main guns of all ships. Strip out that useless main gun for a far more deadly weapon.

Useless main gun? dude you sig is right you really are half mad :) the main gun is the only thin that can make a boom loud enough to scare the wits out of the enemy, besides if the rail gun isn't going to be around till 2050 than they will need a new type of battleship to carry it, and the Navy will have a battleship with two turret in front and one in back each having three railguns, so even then the Battelwagon will NOT be obsolete :)
 
From the military History thread:

March 31st 1992 - USS Missouri (BB-63), the last active American battleship is decommissioned.

Since as far as I know, it was the last active battleship of any navy, that would be the day the battleship officially became obsolete.:crybaby:
 
From the military History thread:

March 31st 1992 - USS Missouri (BB-63), the last active American battleship is decommissioned.

Since as far as I know, it was the last active battleship of any navy, that would be the day the battleship officially became obsolete.:crybaby:

Decommissioned doesn't necessarily mean obsolete, In some cases Decommissioned means not currently active, we have eth U.S.S Wisconsin berthed in Norfolk at Nauticus as an attraction and a museum, but for some reason the Navy keeps her in operational condition :)
I went on a tour of her and asked "why" I was told "just in case" ...............made me smile, I hope that makes you smile a little too my friend:)
 
We should build a 250,000 ton battleship, sail it up to chinese waters in hearing distance from the main body of the chinese navy and shout at Bejjing "Hey China ours is biggers than yours! Oh wait you don't have one!" Then sail away laughing our rear ends off like small children.
 
Last edited:
We should build a 250,000 ton battleship, sail it up to chinese waters in hearing distance from the main body of the chinese navy and shout at Bejjing "Hey China ours is biggers than yours! Oh wait you don't have one!" Then sail away laughing our rear ends off like small children.

Just moon em and leave a rooster tail when you leave :) lets see a junk keep up :)
 
1. Short Answer: Yes, they are very obselete, congress is idiotic for forcing the navy to keep them mothballed.
2. Battleships have a comparatively short range, and 16 inch guns have virtually no accuracy compared to cruise missiles or planes.
3. The cooling and electricity requirements for railguns currently make them impractical, not sure when that might change, but at current point, they are not.
4. Even if 16 inch guns weren't innacurate, class range, and generally inefficient compared to missiles or planes, the ship that they require is far too large not to be hideously vulnerable to missiles, bombs, and other threats. Doesn't matter if you've got 20 inches of belt armor, a missile can cut through that easy, and sure, point defense CIWS and counter missiles work fine, but you don't need nearly as much of them on a smaller ship
5. An aircraft carrier size is justified due to the massively more firepower than can put out for their size compared to a battleship, in case you ask.
6. I think there is some utility to the 5 inch guns on current destroyers and cruisers as they are relatively small and efficient for the amount of size they take up, and ad a fair bit of versatility for relatively short range fire when I missile might be overkill. They are also smaller and therefore less crippling to the fleet if lost.
 
It was Regan that brought them back in the US, he found that telling people that under the oceans the US submarines could destroy the world, and they would look out and see nothing, So he brought back a couple of Battleships that would put into ports and look impressive, and they did. With a crew of some 2.000 men and armed with obsolete weapons they were more of a liability during times of conflicts than a help. Okay they did shell some places but there was no real opposition to them.
 
It was Regan that brought them back in the US, he found that telling people that under the oceans the US submarines could destroy the world, and they would look out and see nothing, So he brought back a couple of Battleships that would put into ports and look impressive, and they did. With a crew of some 2.000 men and armed with obsolete weapons they were more of a liability during times of conflicts than a help. Okay they did shell some places but there was no real opposition to them.
Somehow I hate to disappoint you but the last time a US Battleship fired her guns in anger was at Desert Storm the USS Missouri & the USS New Jersey had Missile up grades I am not sure about the USS Wisconsin but the USS Iowa only had two active Big Gun Turrents but I do know those Big 16" were very accurate at 28 miles.The only thing wrong with the Iowa Class Battlewagon is the expense to run the platform.
 
Last edited:
Very much so, very expensive and as mentioned would require a large contingent of warships to supply or support any one battleship.

One of the reasons this has been over looked with carriers is that a carrier can project it's power much farther than a battleship.

Also a battleship has to move much closer to the enemy to engage it, making such an expensive assent very vulnerable. Especially in todays naval environment of high speed anti ship missiles, that can be transported by truck and hidden along a coast line almost anywhere.

Hence in amphibious assaults, those missiles are usually the first target of an well coordinated air camp gain to ensure the safety of the amphibious assault force.

As with the tomahawk upgraded battlewagons used in Desert Storm, they did not make much impact as far as I have found other than making expensive missile platforms.

Which mind you, can be accomplished by much smaller and less expensive tomahawk equipped warships.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
During Operation DESERT STORM battleships USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI fired more than 1.000 rounds of 16" ammunition in support of ground operations. USS MISSOURI alone fired more than one million pounds of ordnance. Using Remotely Piloted Vehicles and Marine spotters ashore, targets included artillery, mortar and missile positions, ammunition storage facilities and a Silkworm missile site. USS WISCONSIN's RPVs provided on-site reconnaissance support from 11 nautical miles out for advancing Marines. On 03 February 1991 the battleship USS MISSOURI (BB-63) fired eight 1.25-ton shells from its 16-inch guns at prefabricated concrete command and control bunkers Iraq was moving into Kuwait, destroying the bunkers. The barrage, totalling 18,000 pounds of high explosives, marked the first combat firing of the MISSOURI's 16-inch guns since the Korean War, and was in support of Marines and coalition ground forces. This also marked the first use of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) for gun fire spotting in a hostile environment. And on 03 February USS MISSOURI destroyed an Iraqi artillery emplacement. On 06 February USS MISSOURI destroyed 4 artillery emplacements and a command bunker with another 16-inch gun barrage in support of Marines. In a second salvo, the MISSOURI fired 28 16-inch rounds against a radar control site complex, completely destroying it. 5-inch batteries also engaged. MISSOURI had fired a total of 112 16-inch shells and 12 five-inch rounds in 8 fire support missions over 48 hours.

Within two hours of relieving its sister battleship, USS WISCONSIN (BB 64) conducted its first naval gunffre support mission since the Korean War, firing an 11-round salvo with its 16-inch guns and destroying an Iraqi artillery battery in southern Kuwait. Secondary explosions reported. USS NICHOLAS escorted the battleship. USMC OV-10 called in the fire mission. On 07 February USS WISCONSIN pounded Iraqi artillery, electronic warfare and naval sites with its 16 inch guns. 50 rounds sunk or severely damaged 15 boats, destroyed piers at Khawr al-Mufattah Marina. 19 rounds also fired at artillery and missile sites. On 08 February USS WISCONSIN attacked a dozen Iraqi artillery emplacements with 36 rounds of its 16-inch guns in support of a Marine reconnaissance probe into occupied Kuwait. Using its remotely pilot vehicle to visually relay pictures and gun-firing coordinates of targets, the battleships's harassment and interdiction mission was designed to pin down and confuse Iraqi gunners during the Marine attack. Off Khafji, Saudi Arabia, WISCONSIN also blasted bunkers, troops and artillery sites, and continued its naval gunfire missions responding to calls for fire from U.S. and coalition forces on 09 February. Then on 12 February USS MISSOURI, USMC aircraft/artillery, and Saudi artillery mounted a combined arms attack on multiple fixed-position targets (Iraqi troops, artillery, a hardened command bunker and tanks) in southern Kuwait. The battleship expended 60 rounds in 9 naval gunfire support missions. On 21 February USS WISCONSIN destroyed a command complex, firing 50 rounds from off Khafji. RPVs spotted targets and provided coastline reconnaissance. Two days later USS MISSOURI destroyed targets on Favlaka Island off the coast of Kuwait City. On 24 February CINCCENTCOM announced the initiation of the ground offensive, and USS MISSOURI and USS WISCONSIN fired at targets in occupied Kuwait in support of the ground offensive. The next day USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI continued naval gunfire support, with MISSOUR
I alone firing 133 rounds or 125 tons of ordnance on targets.

From here:

http://http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-7.htm


In 1983, a bloody civil war was raging in Lebanon, and U.S. naval forces were offshore to protect U.S. interests and U.S. Marines who had landed in the war-torn country. On September 19, after a period in which U.S. ships fired when U.S. position were attacked, USS Virginia (CGN 38) and USS John Rogers (DD 983) fired 338 rounds from their 5-inch guns in support of Lebanese Army forces defending the strategically important village of Sug el Gharb in the Shouf Mountains east of Beirut. This signaled a shift in U.S. policy, and on 25 September, New Jersey took up station off Beirut.

On 28 November, the U.S. government announced that New Jersey would be retained off Beirut although her crew would be rotated. On 14 December, New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from her 16-inch guns at hostile positions inland of Beirut. This is the first 16-inch shells fired for effect anywhere in the world since New Jersey ended her time on the gunline in Vietnam in 1969.

On 8 February 1984, New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekka Valley east of Beirut. Some 30 of these massive projectiles rained down on a Syrian command post, killing the general commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon and several other senior officers. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.


From Here:

http://http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/history/full_history.php
 
Last edited:
Certainly not.

Russia, for example, has brought Peter the Great (aka Yuri Andropov) out of reserve.
28b1c125c4084052d4f5a68b2c8.jpg


d9241cf6e0c5t.jpg

IMG_0329.jpg


1144-4_24.jpg
1144-4_25.jpg
1144_27.jpg
1144-4_05.jpg


See more here: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/worlds-largest-most-powerful-battleship-t83900.html

By 2020, 3 more of these giants will be in active service once again

Admiral Nakhimov (former Kalinin)
1289458150_1280250040_dhcndhdhudhndh-dhndhdhdhndh-nedhdhdhundhndh-dhnedhudhndhune-dhdhdhdhnedhdh-dhdhndhdhdhdh.jpg

To be back in the Navy by 2012.

Admiral Lazarev (Frunze)
%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80+%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB+%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2+%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%A4.bmp


Admiral Ushakov (Kirov)
007xzp03

Both to be modernized by 2020.

Eventually, each of those will become the battleship of each of Russia's four Fleets (Black Sea, Baltic, Northern, and Pacific Ocean).
 
During Operation DESERT STORM battleships USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI fired more than 1.000 rounds of 16" ammunition in support of ground operations. USS MISSOURI alone fired more than one million pounds of ordnance. Using Remotely Piloted Vehicles and Marine spotters ashore, targets included artillery, mortar and missile positions, ammunition storage facilities and a Silkworm missile site. USS WISCONSIN's RPVs provided on-site reconnaissance support from 11 nautical miles out for advancing Marines. On 03 February 1991 the battleship USS MISSOURI (BB-63) fired eight 1.25-ton shells from its 16-inch guns at prefabricated concrete command and control bunkers Iraq was moving into Kuwait, destroying the bunkers. The barrage, totalling 18,000 pounds of high explosives, marked the first combat firing of the MISSOURI's 16-inch guns since the Korean War, and was in support of Marines and coalition ground forces. This also marked the first use of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) for gun fire spotting in a hostile environment. And on 03 February USS MISSOURI destroyed an Iraqi artillery emplacement. On 06 February USS MISSOURI destroyed 4 artillery emplacements and a command bunker with another 16-inch gun barrage in support of Marines. In a second salvo, the MISSOURI fired 28 16-inch rounds against a radar control site complex, completely destroying it. 5-inch batteries also engaged. MISSOURI had fired a total of 112 16-inch shells and 12 five-inch rounds in 8 fire support missions over 48 hours.

Within two hours of relieving its sister battleship, USS WISCONSIN (BB 64) conducted its first naval gunffre support mission since the Korean War, firing an 11-round salvo with its 16-inch guns and destroying an Iraqi artillery battery in southern Kuwait. Secondary explosions reported. USS NICHOLAS escorted the battleship. USMC OV-10 called in the fire mission. On 07 February USS WISCONSIN pounded Iraqi artillery, electronic warfare and naval sites with its 16 inch guns. 50 rounds sunk or severely damaged 15 boats, destroyed piers at Khawr al-Mufattah Marina. 19 rounds also fired at artillery and missile sites. On 08 February USS WISCONSIN attacked a dozen Iraqi artillery emplacements with 36 rounds of its 16-inch guns in support of a Marine reconnaissance probe into occupied Kuwait. Using its remotely pilot vehicle to visually relay pictures and gun-firing coordinates of targets, the battleships's harassment and interdiction mission was designed to pin down and confuse Iraqi gunners during the Marine attack. Off Khafji, Saudi Arabia, WISCONSIN also blasted bunkers, troops and artillery sites, and continued its naval gunfire missions responding to calls for fire from U.S. and coalition forces on 09 February. Then on 12 February USS MISSOURI, USMC aircraft/artillery, and Saudi artillery mounted a combined arms attack on multiple fixed-position targets (Iraqi troops, artillery, a hardened command bunker and tanks) in southern Kuwait. The battleship expended 60 rounds in 9 naval gunfire support missions. On 21 February USS WISCONSIN destroyed a command complex, firing 50 rounds from off Khafji. RPVs spotted targets and provided coastline reconnaissance. Two days later USS MISSOURI destroyed targets on Favlaka Island off the coast of Kuwait City. On 24 February CINCCENTCOM announced the initiation of the ground offensive, and USS MISSOURI and USS WISCONSIN fired at targets in occupied Kuwait in support of the ground offensive. The next day USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI continued naval gunfire support, with MISSOURI alone firing 133 rounds or 125 tons of ordnance on targets.

From here:

http://http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-7.htm


In 1983, a bloody civil war was raging in Lebanon, and U.S. naval forces were offshore to protect U.S. interests and U.S. Marines who had landed in the war-torn country. On September 19, after a period in which U.S. ships fired when U.S. position were attacked, USS Virginia (CGN 38) and USS John Rogers (DD 983) fired 338 rounds from their 5-inch guns in support of Lebanese Army forces defending the strategically important village of Sug el Gharb in the Shouf Mountains east of Beirut. This signaled a shift in U.S. policy, and on 25 September, New Jersey took up station off Beirut.

On 28 November, the U.S. government announced that New Jersey would be retained off Beirut although her crew would be rotated. On 14 December, New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from her 16-inch guns at hostile positions inland of Beirut. This is the first 16-inch shells fired for effect anywhere in the world since New Jersey ended her time on the gunline in Vietnam in 1969.

On 8 February 1984, New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekka Valley east of Beirut. Some 30 of these massive projectiles rained down on a Syrian command post, killing the general commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon and several other senior officers. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.


From Here:

http://http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/history/full_history.php


Hell why didn't you elighten me in the begining? I love knowlegge thats in the right place at the right time!
 
1. Short Answer: Yes, they are very obselete, congress is idiotic for forcing the navy to keep them mothballed.
Obsolete as a surface combatant in a mix it up with other surface combatants due to size an speed.

Not obsolete as far as being a NGFS platform for shore bombardment, with ethier it's main battery or it's secondary battery. It's greatest failing is the cost to crew and maintain an Iowa Class BB, they are not cost effective to the Navy, the USMC would like them back solely for the NGFS role they provide, won't happen.

Only Iowa is in moth balls now, Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin are all memorial ships or National Landmarks and are maintained as such. Iowa has a group working to finance her conversion to a memorial ship on the west coast, so the idiocy is over stated in your post.

None will be recommissioned and if Iowa doesn't find a home she'll probably go to the ship breakers in a couple years.

2. Battleships have a comparatively short range, and 16 inch guns have virtually no accuracy compared to cruise missiles or planes.
The range of a 16"50 is 23 miles giving it far and away more range than the standard NGFS direct support guns the 5"38, 5"54 and 5"64 at 14.9 mile max range, without RAP.

For a Naval Gun with the fire direction control system that the Iowa Class had the 16"50 was an accurate system for what it was being asked to do as an NGFS and shore bombardment system, in reality when you are lobbing 9 HC or AP 16"50 rounds at an area target, do you really need pin point accuracy?

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



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Armor Piercing (AP) shell fired by these guns is capable of penetrating nearly 30 feet (9 m) of concrete, depending upon the range and obliquity of impact. The High Capacity (HC) shell can create a crater 50 feet wide and 20 feet deep (15 x 6 m). During her deployment off Vietnam, USS New Jersey (BB-62) occasionally fired a single HC round into the jungle and so created a helicopter landing zone 200 yards (180 m) in diameter and defoliated trees for 300 yards (270 m) beyond that.[/FONT]

Cost of a Harpoon or Tomahawk is roughly US$ 1,200,000 , are you really going to fire them at every shore target, or are you going to go with the cheaper alternative of an NGFS platform that can range it, given the 16'50 is no longer an option however in most cases within the fan 5" inch NGFS is more cost effective and responsive than air or missiles for target engagement. Sometimes low tech is better, air is not always on station, nor is air always armed to deal with target.



3. The cooling and electricity requirements for railguns currently make them impractical, not sure when that might change, but at current point, they are not.
4. Even if 16 inch guns weren't innacurate, class range, and generally inefficient compared to missiles or planes, the ship that they require is far too large not to be hideously vulnerable to missiles, bombs, and other threats. Doesn't matter if you've got 20 inches of belt armor, a missile can cut through that easy, and sure, point defense CIWS and counter missiles work fine, but you don't need nearly as much of them on a smaller ship
You seem stuck on some preconceived notion that the MK7 16"50 Naval gun is inherently inaccurate for some reason. How accurate do expect a "dumb" system to be exactly? A "dumb" system is only as accurate has it's fire control system and spotters, and human error has to be factored in.

The only real point you have had is that the vessel necessary to support a 16"50 is to large and not cost effective to crew or maintain solely for the sake of having a large caliber NGFS asset, but then thats been the US Navy's point since 1989-90, so I guess thats not really your point at all.

5. An aircraft carrier size is justified due to the massively more firepower than can put out for their size compared to a battleship, in case you ask.
Yeah, good comparison. And I wouldn't ask anyway, but hey . Comparing the fleet air arm, that has been the backbone of the fleet since WWII and a BB that has been pretty much regulated to being a NGFS/Shore Bombardment platform since mid to late WWII is getting into apples and oranges territory. No one is questioning the need for carriers or why carriers are large.

6. I think there is some utility to the 5 inch guns on current destroyers and cruisers as they are relatively small and efficient for the amount of size they take up, and ad a fair bit of versatility for relatively short range fire when I missile might be overkill. They are also smaller and therefore less crippling to the fleet if lost.

Some utility? You think there might be "some utility" to having 5" gun mounts on Destroyers and Cruisers?

Lets put it this way. I know a USN SWO who serves on Ticonderoga Class vessel. To qoute him. "Somes cheaper is better and sometimes guns are more effective." I'll take his word for it.

The USN also still has the mission of providing NGFS to landing forces and a present 5" is what is available. I'd submit to you that you have never witnessed a well coordinated well adjusted FFE on a target from a USN vessel firing a 5" gun against a shore target. And really your gonna launch a missle or sortie a flight of FA18's against every mortar emplacement , machine gun and small troop concentration in the intial stages of a landing? Yeah buddy, thats high tech and all, but hardly cost effective.

You seem to be stuck on a high tech solution, which is probably just as bad in terms of cost effectiveness as bringing an Iowa Class out of moth balls, if you think willy nilly firing 1,200,000 dollar missles at every target or sorties of FA18's.

The Iowa Class is obsolete for everything except being a large caliber NGFS platform, and in such a configuration it's too costly to crew, operate and maintain for having such a limited role. The Navy has said that since the 80's and the only lobby for the return of the BB'S is a small contingent in the USMC and folks with a case of nostalgia for the old Battle Wagons, for whatever reason.

Aside from all that, there are some flaws in your understanding of NGFS accuracy and the benefit trade off in high tech vs low tech approaches to fire support and target engagement.
 
Last edited:
It was Regan that brought them back in the US, he found that telling people that under the oceans the US submarines could destroy the world, and they would look out and see nothing, So he brought back a couple of Battleships that would put into ports and look impressive, and they did. With a crew of some 2.000 men and armed with obsolete weapons they were more of a liability during times of conflicts than a help. Okay they did shell some places but there was no real opposition to them.

Actually one of the main reasons that Iowa Class BB's were recommissioned and retro-fiited with Cruise Missle Cans was the Soviet Navy's Kirov Class Battle Cruisers (see Prapors post in this thread), which is roughly the same size as an Iowa Class BB, the Kirov class was set up as a large weapons platform guided missles, Katshan AD gun, Torpedo's and depth charges although it only bears 130 mm Gun Mounts (5.1").

So it was a case of cold war my ship is as big as yours and it has a bigger battery. Problem was that Iowa class was really only suited for a NGFS/Shore Bombardment/ Cruise Missle platform role, when a few Tico or other similar ships could have provided the same platform for GM's but without the 16" main gun.
 
I do believe that eventual larger firepower in a smaller package, as is the evolutionary trend in military technology will one day give battleship like NGFS to smaller naval vessels.

As for the exact tools of the trade who knows?


Yes it would cost more, but it maybe more balanced out between the smaller crews and less fuel to run the thing.
 
The Russian Battle Cruiser posted above has never been a threat to the US because it has had so many problems with it's Propulsion systems it has spent most of its time alongside the pier.Also the Us Agies class Cruiser has it out-classed in every way possible as far as Fire Control.
 
Back
Top