1. An Iowa class battleship has way to much armor to be pierced by Cruise missile or harpoon because cruise missiles carry only a 1000lb warhead and usually intercepted which is why they are never shot at ships often (or is there a chance to shoot them at another ship) and harpoons only have a 500lb warhead but not strong enough to pierce the Iowa since the harpoon lack the ability that most ww2 bombs did “Steel on target”.
2. The modern guns of the Battleship can rip a modern destroyer/cruiser in half, and a CV would be dead in the water after one hit or unable to launch aircraft if it got hit on top of it, Hell I think even a harpoon missile could do that if it was not intercepted!
3. True battleships can be targeted by Subs but that is why you usually have battleships screened by a destroyer or with subs, just like with any carrier fleet today.
4. Modern advances in the battleships could be made today at the cost little since ramjet projectiles have already been successfully tested and fired at 100nm with good accuracy and even with an improved warhead of HMX or RDX explosive.
5. Arguing the Battleships reactivation cost is useless since reactivation and modernization together costs as much as a modern missile frigate which I have come to view as being quite interesting since a BB can threaten a whole city conventially.
6. Manpower is a joke since it takes 5000+ men to run a CV when a Iowa class Battleship takes 1,921 men at maximum capacity (minimum is 800+) and with greater firepower and if range is a problem the Pentagon has already said they want more Tomahawks in the war on terrorism so the amount of tomahawks deployed on each battleship would be increased about 3x as much as they were in the Persian gulf.
7. A battleship can make decisions easier when invading on a beach easier than a destroyer using tomahawk missiles and a puny 5in gun that couldn’t make craters in runways of enemy airports.
8. Battleships have all weather status and are not affected by any kind of weather including hurricanes.
9. A Battleships will only take 1-2 million a year to maintain. At the same time an aircraft carrier cost's several Millions to replace missiles and aircraft (if it wasn’t for the people who put money into the navy’s pocket because they have a house onboard the ship, we would have much less amount of Super carrier’s today).
10. Reactivation and Modernization will only take 1-2 years.
11. Reactivation costs are $500 million and modernization is $2 billion.
12. to further Technology of the Battleships would cost an additional million if not less for the projectiles to be but into production.
13. True no such personnel know or are trained to operate a battleship main gun but can easily be taught if trained properly since manning the main guns is an easy task just as with any gun.
14. Some reports have indicated a battleship's main guns could be used as anti aircraft if the time detonation fuses could be computer operated with its target and shoot 10mm sabot shells plus shrapnel when shell explodes allowing it to be used as an: anti-air, anti-missile, and even anti-ballistic missile some cases said they mixed ramjet rounds with this shell design that it would be able to take out ICBM’s!
15. Some or all 5" guns could be removed when the new ERGM comes out to replace the older 5” guns if you wanted to.
16. No ship or missile in the world is designed to take out the battleship with one shot or with many massed attacks.
17. Battleship Survivability is truly since the Iowa class battleship mostly consists of thick amounts of “Class A Steel” belt armor reinforced by large Bulk heads and Barbettes.
18. True the turrent on the USS Iowa did explode but it only did so little damage to the ship that it can easily be repaired and which was considered in the GAO Reports I read so that turrent has already been included into the mathematics of reactivating the battleships plus even after the explosion it did not render the whole ship inoperable could it have been with a modern destroyer or frigate.
19. True Air Superiority is necessary but when it comes down to shore bombardment, Planes can be: intercepted, sometimes ineffective economically and physically, time to respond even from 10 miles, and usually avoided by the enemy until the marines come on up to the shore to attack.
20. Currently building new battleships would be.....truly expensive depending upon their armaments and capabilities and just be a lot easier to reactivate and modernize our battleships today.
21. Surface ships were built for Naval presence, if we did not want Naval presence we would have built the arsenal ship back then but it came down to the fact that the arsenal ship could be easily struck by one harpoon missile and probably blow up the whole ship because of it's weak armor and heavy armament beyond it's own defensive capabilities to protect exposed weapons whereas the battleship can protect it's magazine and it's missiles with several anti-air/missile weapons and thick enough armor to make sure they don't explode by the bullet proving that ships do need armor, even today. Hell The USS Cole Bombing proved our destroyers and frigates are unable to take a single hit from even a small speedboat with explosives, chances are they were probably using dynamite for the bombs which is a joke, hell when I read the article I laughed a bit myself, it’s a joke to think the U.S. Navy will never get hit when we are at war, even if it is with a third world country.
22. Iowa class battleships today cannot be compared with the ships of WW1 or WW2 due to the fact that technology back then against aircraft was completely ineffective in most cases whereas today trying to hit a destroyer with a single harpoon is almost impossible but massed attacks would sink a destroyer after 1-3 hits of harpoons.
23. In history the Iowa’s have been praised for their ability to put "steel on target" something that no other ship in the world is able to comprehend due to modern destroyers only shooting weak 5" guns and cruisers of the same size guns, hell the only thing that separates the difference today between a destroyer and a cruiser is their length and the fact that cruisers carry a few more tomahawks and have one more gun than a destroyer, and most frigates today only shoot 3" shells sometimes (I wonder what this world is coming to!).
24. The current intended replacement of the Iowa class battleships is the DD(X) destroyer, which is now being questioned since each will cost 3+ billion (USD) and small 19 pound explosive out of a 225 pound projectile is also being questioned on strength and the price of one projected DD(X) will mean that two Iowa class BB’s can be reactivated and modernized with extra money to spare and built in less time with greater firepower. I understand the concept of the DD(X) to have stealth on surface to “change the future of naval warfare” but if that’s true and the enemy does think they are unable to find the DD(X) on it’s radar they will fire at innocent civilians to try and find it or even if they spot it, it’s pretty hard not to spot a fishing boat out in the middle of the ocean fishing knowing that fish aren’t usually out that far but by the shore.
25. Battleship explosive power can easily be increased since current battleship shells use TNT and not RDX or HMX explosives which would give them a close 200lbs+ explosive force instead of a 145 lb force, the anti-ship shells of the Iowa BB’s would be used with this new warhead also.
If you wish you find out what I’ve gotten my sources from here they are:
About the Ramjet round- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet
About the Iowa class battleships- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship
About the remaining Iowa class battleships- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wisconsin_%28BB-64%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29
Some other commentary I came across- http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm
I would have liked to have list all of my sources but that would take to long so enjoy for now!
2007-12-13 02:53:00 · 8 answers · asked by Combos 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
True though that More explosive power on the BB's probabley is not nessicary but it does allow to make larger craters and pierce bunkers better.
2007-12-13 02:54:02 · update #1
I reposted this question because it came up when i was asking a few others.
2007-12-13 02:58:32 · update #2
True we may have an immense amount of firepower already but not enough protection on our ships to show Naval presence, and wihtout Naval presence they will continue to shoot at planes with stringer missiles and just hide when the pioneers come or even just hide underground the whole time until the army/marines come, then the army or the marines have to deal with thousands of people rushing down from mountians holding rockets and Ak-47's riding around in technicals holding mortars and when that happens, who will be there to give close enough response of the higher volume fire protection they will need from guns and not missiles, truely the airgod's will help but if we were to deal with a smart enemy, what happens when those hroents are painted by a stringer missile and then shot down, then we got black hawk down going on all over again!
2007-12-13 03:29:31 · update #3
(sorry for the technical error spelling the upper sentence, hroents= F/A 18 hornets.)
2007-12-13 03:30:53 · update #4
Sorry i forget to state that every missile fired from the DD(X) will cost $50,000 each, hell a ramjet projectile would definately be much more cheaper and with more range of about 40nm which is a 40% increase to the DD(X).
2007-12-13 03:33:42 · update #5
Why did you ask this again? Didn't like the answers last time around?
2007-12-13 02:56:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
With CISW and other anti-missile systems, any missile can be stopped. A single high altitude nuke can release a EMP that can cover hundreds of miles. That will make modern carrier group totally worthless, no combat ability at all.
There have been 2 times that guns were to be replaced with just straight missiles. With planes it was during Vietnam, and the F-4. Since then any idea to remove the guns from US warplanes has never even been thought about. Just suggesting it would get that Officer laughed out of the Room. It was to be done again with Ships, but with small boat terrorist attacks still possible, like the U.S.S Cole, no Surface Ship of the US Navy would be sent out with some Naval Artillery on it.
All US destroyers and most cruisers carry a 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun. The US uses that gun as does Australia, Denmark, Greece, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey.
The US uses that gun on the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, California-class cruisers , Virginia-class cruisers, Kidd-class destroyers, and Spruance-class destroyers.
The big thing about the big guns of Battle ship is that it is simple, no electronic computers needed, and no homing system needed. Just pull the trigger, it fires and you hit a target miles away. The 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun of the Iowa class ships will hit targets out 24 Miles. Nothing stops those shells in route.
A modernized Battleship can carry some very scary weapons. The US still has the ability to build 16" Nuclear shells for Iowa-class ships. If the Iowa-class gunpowder guns replaced with '100 mile' hypersonic railguns. The US have already had a succesfull test with that gun. A railgun dreadnought built powerplant of a Nimitz-class supercarrier (twin 550-megawatt nuclear reactors) would be able to ripple off 15 irresistible Mach-7 thunderbolts every second and still maintain steerage way.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/32mj_railgun_test_onr/
Think of Standard 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun with a Nuclear Shell with bigger than 40 kilotons warhead. The W33 nuclear shell had a warhead that big and fired from a standard eight-inch howitzer. Think of that with a 16-inch gun!
Battleships can carry far more weapons that any cruiser, and even guns you can't put on anything smaller.
2013-12-29 15:22:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You might want to read what Billy Mitchell did in the 1920's. Or Pearl harbor Dec 7 1941 Or the the last trip of the Yamato... Bismark...Modern warfare.. A BB though impressive would be a sitting duck. Yup those guns could do a number from 20 miles out. However missiles travel much further than that. Aircraft and armaments are much more effective.
2007-12-13 03:49:20 · answer #3 · answered by Bob D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Battleships are dinosaurs in this age of modern warfare. There is no surface fleet threatening the U.S. There is no piece of real estate which requires extensive pre-landing bombardment prior to the introduction of troops from the sea.
They are fuel guzzlers and slow as snails compared to the current vessels of a carrier strike force.
The cruise missiles you refer to can more easily be launched from aircraft, submarines, and other surface ships. The other weapons systems that are standard to the Iowa Class are not needed. This current war is being fought by small troop units kicking in doors and either taking prisoners or shooting people in the head. There are no massed concentrations of Hirabah waiting for us to move to contact against them.
When I first enlisted in the Navy I was paid in cash (mostly two dollar bills) and I had to make out a pay chit, placing my thumb print on the document. My shipmates today have electronic deposit to their bank accounts and use an ATM card at the ship's store. It's called progress!
2007-12-13 04:15:20 · answer #4 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1) One or two modern F-35s of F-18s carry enough payload to sink a battleship. A Mark 84 bomb can go through 15" of steel, good luck taking that. Each plane can carry about 10. These bombs have same explsoive weight but due to new explosives, it's much more powerful than WW2 bombs. JDAM gives it near perfect accuracy, if a destroyer can't dodge, a battleship can just dream on.
2)A CVBG operates way beyond BB range. And even with missiles, a CVBG would intercept them all according to teh missile salvo theory. A Iowa will have to be completely rebuilt to be able to use it's space for missiles and not just have it retrofitted on.
4) 100nm? Jet with 1200nm.
5) Destroyer with nuclear tipped tomahawks can just as much threaten a city. In fact it's missile load out is equally threatening.
6) Iowa, 2700 men. Gerald Ford, 3700 men. Not big of a difference as the numbers you pulled out of your ***.
7) Tomahawk have superior accuracy and range, more versatile. If we want firepower, we got planes.
8)Typhoon cobra
9) A carrier cost 1.6 billion, but you can use all that for battleships. According to your 2 million value, which is actually much more, you can have 800 USS Iowas, but that won't matter as they all would be at the bottom of the ocean in a month with a single carrier still floating.
10) IJN Yamato had a similar design fori t's maingun but fialed becuase it's too slow to track WW2 planes, let alone a modern supersonic dream. And you think it can intercept a mach 20+ ICBM? Dream on.
16) No, but a quick modification to existing missiles can, a supersonic missile with armor piercing warhead, hows that? Or planes.
18)Explosion wasn't that big, Modern ships survived that kind of attack though yes disabled. But in combat, attacks would be much larger, a single hit on the Iowa's magazine would end up like the yamato. Either way, modern damage output would destroy anything rather you have armor or not.
19) Battleship rounds? C-RAM, Iron Dome. Anything else?
22) mass atatck would call a giant fireball on battleships and would float, but would ripp it's AA, Radar and gun barrels to pieces and would be mission-killed. Hey at least it's still not a total loss right? yea good luck, it can't defend it self now. besides Iowa don't carry as much missiles so it can't even do a mass attack.
23), Modern destroyer 5" guns can shoot from 30-38km. Iowa guns can fire up to 38km. Modern gun have same range as the battleship. It can also penetrate Iowa's armor at around 10km. Modern ship guns are accurate up to 25-30km depending on weapon. Iowa guns are accurate only up to 20km.
24) DD(X) is not to replace the Iowa.
25) Power explosive yay, but we got planes that carry equal explosives. Point?
Carriers repalced battleships, World war II proved that. Carriers are much more versatile. They might no longer have the cost advantage but their capability and adaptability still far surpasses battleships.
2015-05-15 11:59:07 · answer #5 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think most naval tacticians learned in about 1942 that the battleship was obsolete. They were used on occasion as an artillery platform and proved somewhat useful in Korea and Vietnam but as time went on, less and less so.
The aircraft carrier can deliver more firepower faster and more accurately than ten battleships.
Basically, a battleship is a Civil War weapon.
2007-12-13 03:33:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is the amount of money and time that it would take to retro fit these ships worth the limited areas they can operate off coastal regions??
There are some quite good anti-shipping missiles out there even as we type.The day of the battle-wagon is over.
2007-12-13 03:23:12 · answer #7 · answered by conranger1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we don't need them with the current firepower we have
2007-12-13 03:18:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋