Should the US Navy reactivate their battleships?

Question

Ideally, you could have a Battleship Fleet in the Atlantic, and one in the Pacific. seems like everyone seems to think it's a good idea...except for the people who spend the Navy's money.

Answer 1

I have a copy of a Navy report (very technical though) that argues we should activate them. The reasons vary but mainly the argument is that a carrier and the battle group usually consisting of 9 to 11 ships cost a great deal of money to build and operate. I believe the actual figures are that a battleships guns could strike 90 something percent of targets and more accurately. That with modernization the crew could be reduced and the room given over to a floating barrack for a Marine detachment.

In fact, the opinion from the paper follows and duplicates some of what I have given, there is one thing that is contained in another paper and that is the Navy has no gun platforms. That there have been causalities from that problem but no steps have been taken to correct the situation. What that basically means is the Navy lacks the fire power to support ground operation.

If you want a copy of either copy provide me an e-mail address and which paper or if both papers that you want.

STATEMENT: "In 1941-42 there was serious opposition to the Carrier replacing the battleship today there is the same opposition for recommissioning the battleship. Let me interject a short argument for them reentering the fleet. Money, in this day of budget conscience items the ships could be redeployed for considerable less than adding a new ship and/ or another air wing. Safety these ships were designed to take abuse incidents like that which happened to the Cole would hardly faze them. With today’s technology the crew could be shrunk considerably and Marines added for a comfortable floating base. They don’t need a fleet of ships and can even travel alone. One important fact the Carrier Navy and supporting politicians don’t want known is the battleships big guns can reach 87% of all the targets that have been targeted by the air power in the last 40 years. They seem to want the Carrier for the extra positions it provides John Holland the inventor of the first seller of a submarine to the US Navy stated that the “Navy did not seem to like the submarine as there was no place for them to strut”. There are many more arguments for the ships being reactivated than the, not, a further recommendation is made for GAO to follow-up with their own investigation".

God Bless You and The Southern People.

Answer 2

As has been posted, 16" guns, while they're pretty impressive... especially, I suspect, if you're on the receiving end, can't do the damage that a missile can. I believe somebody mentioned cost. You can fire quite a few 16" projectiles for the cost of a single missile. The cost isn't so much in the weaponry, it's in the maintenance. Over the years a few were kept alive by overhauling and refitting them. These undertakings cost a lot of money. Now the ships themselves are sixty years old. Maintaining them is like spend $20,000 to put a new engine, transmission, drive train, and instrument cluster in a 1975 Toyota. When you get done, you still have an old car. Now, suppose you do that every five years. It's cheaper to buy a new car. So, rather than refurbish the old ships, they would build new ones. But, as you correctly deduced, and as others have indicated, their functions have been replaced by other kinds of ships. Planes from carriers, missiles and unmanned surveillance aircraft from other ships have taken over the pre-invasion "softening up", the close air support, and the reconnaissance missions. Furthermore, a carrier task group can be configured for just about any kind of mission. And it be reconfigured in a few days. But some of our carriers are getting old too. So we've built a few new ones... again because the old ones, like the battleships, are too costly to maintain, and, unlike the battleship, they're more versatile.

Answer 3

yes immediately keep the main big guns which can fire modern ammo upto ranges of 100miles also the fire control for these are emp proof add several more cws antimissle aa postistions and rerplace the twin 5inch mounts with modern railgun or 155mm turrets they would fit almost exactly in those barbs and everyone that has commented on the huge cost dosnt no s**t dont even listen to their uneducated statements a look at their avatars shows their mentallity the battleship definately has a 21st century role ive advocated reactivating the uss texas in the same way described this would put our country and economy back to work too think about that aspect they could sink anything afloat with the modern protection now available common navy do it for the marines if for any other reason thank you

Answer 4

The modern Navy is being built around faster and smaller mission specific ships. Battle ships take huge crews and don’t offer any real advantage in modern warfare. Destroyers and cruisers are faster, more fuel efficient and can deliver all but the 16-inch gun weaponry. Battleships also make large slow targets of opportunity. The Navy is even looking for ways to make aircraft carriers smaller. The aircraft carrier requires a small fleet of ships and submarines to protect and support it. The aircraft carrier has a punch unequaled in history. One aircraft carrier could sink a fleet of battle ships before battleships would have the aircraft carriers in range of their guns or surface to surface missiles.

Word War II was the end of the battleship era. There may be some limited applications where battleships could be useful, but that usefulness is out weighed by its costs and overall effectiveness.

Answer 5

To reactivate the battleships would be far more costly than beneficial. We have no modern naval enemies and most, if not all, of our conflicts are fought far inland beyond the reach of any battleship. Right now there just isn't a need for battleships.

Answer 6

The battleships are all now in museums USS MISSOURI is in pearl harbor. USS NEW JERSEY is in new jersey. USS WISCONSIN and USS IOWA are still in mothballs but plans are underway to make them into museums. The idea of activating the battleships doesn't seem to make sense to me as they have no targets that rate their attention. If you must have battleships I would prefer totally new ships with the massive capabilities we could install in such ships. Paying for such ships might be a tad steep.

Answer 7

if we put battleships back in service, in would cost billions to refurbish the vessels. Plus new crews would need to be trained. The guns on battleships are not needed. With smart bombs we can, drop a bomb on any target in the world. With more perscision than shells from a battleship.

check out http://www.navy.com/about/shipsequipment/navyofthefuture/lcs/

this is a new class of vessels being built by the navy.

Answer 8

Actually, the cost of running the battleships is far more than we have, not including the cost of getting them recommisioned aagain. We only have four battleships anyways, the Missouri, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Iowa.

Answer 9

The sea war has changed over the years. The battleship is an old technology that is no longer needed.

Answer 10

Now that's the dumbest idea I've heard today. NO, because it's way to expensive. Not only do you have to pay the equipment but you also have to pay for the sailors to man it as well. Besides, terrorists don't have a navy. And we aren't at war right now with anyone who does, so whats the point.