I Served on a U.S. Navy Battleship (And They Won't Ever Make a Comeback)

[rangerrebew]

August 18, 2019

I Served on a U.S. Navy Battleship (And They Won't Ever Make a Comeback)

Lots of reasons why this will never happen.
by James Holmes

Steam isn’t dead, then, but it is a technology of the past—just like 16-inch guns. Technicians are few and dwindling in numbers while battleship crews would demand them in large numbers. I rank among the youngest mariners to have operated battleship guns and propulsion-plant machinery in yesteryear, and trust me, folks: you don’t want the U.S. Navy conscripting me to regain my proficiency in engineering and weapons after twenty-six years away from it, let alone training youngsters to operate elderly hardware themselves. In short, it’s as tough to regenerate human capital as it is to rejuvenate the material dimension after a long lapse. The human factor—all by itself—could constitute a showstopper for battleship reactivation.

There’s a mystique to battleships.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/i-served-us-navy-battleship-and-they-wont-ever-make-comeback-74506

[PeteS in CA]

I find naval history interesting (I know, what a surprise), and big guns are a part of that, but the Iowas aren't coming back. The firepower could be nice for shore bombardment, given the >20 mile range and size of the shell, but their engines are decades removed from modern technology.

[skeeter]

I find naval history interesting (I know, what a surprise), and big guns are a part of that, but the Iowas aren't coming back. The firepower could be nice for shore bombardment, given the >20 mile range and size of the shell, but their engines are decades removed from modern technology.

Clearly the Iowa's aren't coming back. But I do think a heavily armored weapons platform would be good for the navy to have for the reason you state. In my untutored opinion today's ships depend too much upon stealth and technology and not enough on plain old survivability.

[thackney]

Clearly the Iowa's aren't coming back. But I do think a heavily armored weapons platform would be good for the navy to have for the reason you state. In my untutored opinion today's ships depend too much upon stealth and technology and not enough on plain old survivability.

How do they survive a Tomahawk Missile or near equal?

[Fishrrman]

thackney wonders:
"How do they survive a Tomahawk Missile or near equal?"

Answer:
They don't.

Same goes for those "other big ships"... the ones that carry airplanes around.

[Axeslinger]

How do they survive a Tomahawk Missile or near equal?

@thackney @Fishrrman

This old Navy man man says: throw in a little condition Zebra and some CIWS stations and I think you might be surprised

[Bigun]

thackney wonders:
"How do they survive a Tomahawk Missile or near equal?"

Answer:
They don't.

Same goes for those "other big ships"... the ones that carry airplanes around.

It amazes me that some folks seem to think that with all the brainpower that makes the U.S. Navy the envy of the world no one has thought to ask and answer that question.

[thackney]

@thackney @Fishrrman
condition Zebra and some CIWS stations

Is there a common english translation available?

It seems to me, a Tomahawk missile survivability is still based upon not getting hit.  The missile may be shot down.  I haven't found much about a ship survival or an decent understanding of the amount of damage a single hit would equal.

Why It Might Be Impossible to Stop a Cruise Missile Attack (For Now)
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-it-might-be-impossible-stop-cruise-missile-attack-now-25651

[Restored]

The key to stopping a cruise missile attack is not to be where the missile thinks you are located. The missile is focused on a target coordinate given to it. If you aren't there, you don't get hit.
It's the reason why they use aircraft to designate the target. If you figure out you are being designated, it's game on

[Axeslinger]

Is there a common english translation available?

It seems to me, a Tomahawk missile survivability is still based upon not getting hit.  The missile may be shot down.  I haven't found much about a ship survival or an decent understanding of the amount of damage a single hit would equal.

Why It Might Be Impossible to Stop a Cruise Missile Attack (For Now)
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-it-might-be-impossible-stop-cruise-missile-attack-now-25651

@thackney

Condition Zebra is the strictest watertight integrity condition that a Navy ship can set....done by closing certain hatches.  It is the condition that is set when a ship goes to General Quarters ( battle stations).

CIWS stands for close in weapons system.  It is a ship defense system that uses a computer controlled Gatling gun that fires 3000rds/minute of 1” depleted uranium projectiles.  It analyzes the battle space, can identify and track  dozens of targets at once, determines the greatest threat and engages the threat.  If it misses, it tracks it’s own bullets so it never misses twice.  Every battleship and carrier had/has multiple CIWS stations....as does every frigate, cruiser etc...all of which run interference for the big capital ships and serve as the first line of defense.

Tomahawks and other missiles aren’t the problem....it’s those pesky bastards UNDER the water that are the problem.

[thackney]

@thackney

Condition Zebra is the strictest watertight integrity condition that a Navy ship can set....done by closing certain hatches.  It is the condition that is set when a ship goes to General Quarters ( battle stations).

CIWS stands for close in weapons system.  It is a ship defense system that uses a computer controlled Gatling gun that fires 3000rds/minute of 1” depleted uranium projectiles.  It analyzes the battle space, can identify and track  dozens of targets at once, determines the greatest threat and engages the threat.  If it misses, it tracks it’s own bullets so it never misses twice.  Every battleship and carrier had/has multiple CIWS stations....as does every frigate, cruiser etc...all of which run interference for the big capital ships and serve as the first line of defense.

Tomahawks and other missiles aren’t the problem....it’s those pesky bastards UNDER the water that are the problem.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.  I do appreciate it.

[Bigun]

@thackney

Tomahawks and other missiles aren’t the problem....it’s those pesky bastards UNDER the water that are the problem.

And those haven't gone without notice either.

[240B]

Clearly the Iowa's aren't coming back. But I do think a heavily armored weapons platform would be good for the navy to have for the reason you state. In my untutored opinion today's ships depend too much upon stealth and technology and not enough on plain old survivability.

It doesn't work like that anymore. Today, ships engage over the horizon from dozens of miles away. If the enemy ship is close enough to be able to actually see it, then one or the other is going to sink. That is just way too close.

Stealth and electronic counter measures are the only way to survive today. There is no more tit-for-tat cannon/firepower battles anymore. Weapons today are so powerful that if you get hit even once, that's pretty much it, no matter how much armor the ship has. Stealth and technology keeps you from getting hit. That's the only way warfare at sea works today.