Author Topic: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?  (Read 1899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« on: January 27, 2017, 02:32:26 pm »
What if America had a true successor to the classic battleship, designed to both deal out and absorb punishment?


Is it time to bring back the battleship?

For decades, naval architects have concentrated on building ships that, by the standards of the World Wars, are remarkably brittle. These ships can deal punishment at much greater ranges than their early 20th century counterparts, but they can’t take a hit. Is it time to reconsider this strategy, and once again build protected ships? This article examines how these trends came about, and what might change in the future.

The label “battleship” emerges from the older “ship of the line” formulation, in the sense that a navy’s largest ships participated in the “line of battle” formation that allowed them to bring their broadsides to bear on an opposing line. After the development of ironclad warships, the “battle ship” diverged from the armored cruiser based on expectations of usage; “battleships” were expected to fight enemy “battleships.” The modern battleship form settled around 1890, with the British Royal Sovereign class. These ships displaced about 15,000 tons, with two heavy guns each in turrets fore and aft, and steel armor. The rest of the navies of the world adopted these basic design parameters, which provided a ship that could both deal out and absorb punishment. The process of ensuring survivability was simplified, in these early battleships, by the predictability of the threat. The most likely vector of attack in the late 1890s came from large naval artillery carried by other ships, and consequently protective schemes could concentrate on that threat.

The limitations of fire control meant that lethality didn’t increase much with size; HMS Lord Nelson, laid down 15 years later, displaced only 2000 tons more.  On roughly the same size hull, however, HMS Dreadnought took advantage of a number of innovations developed in the ensuing years, and with ten heavy guns became a far more lethal platform at roughly similar cost to previous ships. As a consequence, the survivability of smaller battleships dropped substantially, even against naval artillery.

From that point on, lethality and survivability increased dramatically with ship size, and the navies of the world responded accordingly. By 1915 the first line battleships of the Royal Navy would displace 27,000 tons; by 1920 the world’s largest battleship (HMS Hood) displaced 45,000 tons.  In 1921 international agreements would constrain warship size, although the Germans and Japanese in particularly imagined battleships of staggering proportions.

With the advent of the age of airpower (and missile power), size no longer dramatically increased lethality for surface warships. At the same time, a proliferation of threats made ensuring survivability more difficult. The huge battleships of the Second World War could not survive concerted air and submarine attack, and could not punch back at sufficient range to justify their main armament. Except for aircraft carriers, where lethality still increased with size, naval architecture took a turn for the petite. The chief surface ships of the U.S. Navy (USN) today displace less than a quarter that of the battleships of World War II.

Post-WWII ships also, broadly speaking, discarded the idea of armor as a means of ensuring survivability. There remains considerable debate as to how traditional battleship belt (side) armor could resist cruise missiles. Cruise missiles generally have less penetrating power than the largest naval artillery, although they have other advantages. Deck armor proved a more serious problem, and the demands of ensuring survivability from bombs, pop-up cruise missiles, and (more recently) ballistic missiles quickly outpaced the improved lethality of a large, heavily armored ship.  And perhaps most importantly, no one figured out how to eliminate (as opposed to ameliorate) the problem of underwater attack; torpedoes continued to pose a lethal threat to even the most heavily armored of warships.

Which isn’t to say that people haven’t tried. Several navies have played with the idea of large surface warships since the end of World War II. The Royal Navy considered redesigning and completing at least one member of the Lion class, abandoned in 1939. Studies eventually determined that the level of deck armor necessary to protect the ships from bombs would prove prohibitive. The Soviets maintained plans to build traditional gun-toting battleships into the 1950s, when the death of Stalin ended such a fantasy. France completed Jean Bart in 1952, and kept her in partial commission into the 1960s as a training and accommodation ship.

A new wave began in the 1970s, when the Soviet Union started construction on the Kirov class heavy missile cruisers, which quickly took on the name “battlecruisers.” The USN responded, in part, with the refurbishment of the four Iowa class battleships, which acquired long range missiles but remained in service for only a few years.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/it-time-bring-back-the-battleships-13734
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2017, 02:48:29 pm »
Being a battleship nerd I've always hoped they would bring back these blunt force animals in some modern incarnation.

But I don't even know if the US steel industry has the capacity to produce Class A armor anymore. Maybe composite armor can stand in but at the thicknesses required to defend a ship against modern munitions there's probably no substitute for 12 inches of CKC.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2017, 02:51:33 pm by skeeter »

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2017, 02:52:39 pm »
Being a battleship nerd I've always hoped they would bring back these blunt force brutes in some modern incarnation.

But I don't even know if the US steel industry has the capacity to produce Class A armor anymore. Maybe composite armors can stand in but at the thicknesses required to defend a ship against modern munitions there's probably no substitute for 12 inches of CKC.

I'm for pulling the four we have out of museum status and bring them to 21st century specs.  At least until new ones can be built.  The most used BB of the for the New Jersey has only 21 years active time on it despite when it was laid down.

Can you imagine what a Somali pirate or some Iranian soldier in the Persian Gulf would say if they sighted a BB and it's escorts coming into their neighborhood on patrol.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47,055
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2017, 02:56:34 pm »
I'll yield to the expertise others have, regarding this, but.....

in the age of laser weapons and orbiting weapons systems...aren't battleships sitting ducks?   :shrug:
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

"Hello Darkness, my old Friend...stood up too fast once again! Paul Simon 2024.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2017, 02:59:50 pm »
I'm for pulling the four we have out of museum status and bring them to 21st century specs.  At least until new ones can be built.  The most used BB of the for the New Jersey has only 21 years active time on it despite when it was laid down.

Can you imagine what a Somali pirate or some Iranian soldier in the Persian Gulf would say if they sighted a BB and it's escorts coming into their neighborhood on patrol.

The thing these studies always leave out when writing on the subject of BBs is the prestige factor.

Sure they're expensive but as Mahan taught naval power equals global respect & influence. And as interesting-looking as they are I just don't see Zumwalt class destroyers having the same effect.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2017, 03:01:32 pm »
I'll yield to the expertise others have, regarding this, but.....

in the age of laser weapons and orbiting weapons systems...aren't battleships sitting ducks?   :shrug:

Prolly, but in the age of Clancey-esqe weapon systems so are aircraft carriers.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2017, 03:05:31 pm »
I'll yield to the expertise others have, regarding this, but.....

in the age of laser weapons and orbiting weapons systems...aren't battleships sitting ducks?   :shrug:

Not really.  Not any more than a nuclear powered carrier.

The LCS and the DDG 1000 projects are abject failures.  The Zummwalt had to be towed to dock in Panama after it broke down in the Panama Canal.  The LCS ships have their own issues that in a shooting war would result in many lives lost not to mention ships at the bottom of the ocean.

And then there is the sheer intimidation factor.

You can't do this with a missile frigate:



The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Wingnut

  • Guest
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2017, 03:40:23 pm »
Not really.  Not any more than a nuclear powered carrier.

The LCS and the DDG 1000 projects are abject failures.  The Zummwalt had to be towed to dock in Panama after it broke down in the Panama Canal.  The LCS ships have their own issues that in a shooting war would result in many lives lost not to mention ships at the bottom of the ocean.

And then there is the sheer intimidation factor.

You can't do this with a missile frigate:



They do look pretty and make a loud boom.  I'd say the pucker factor would run high if say a Iranian fast boat or pirate ship saw one. 

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2017, 04:18:58 pm »
I'm for pulling the four we have out of museum status and bring them to 21st century specs.  At least until new ones can be built.  The most used BB of the for the New Jersey has only 21 years active time on it despite when it was laid down.

Can you imagine what a Somali pirate or some Iranian soldier in the Persian Gulf would say if they sighted a BB and it's escorts coming into their neighborhood on patrol.

The NJ has been in salt water for what 70 years? I'm not sure her hull is still thick enough for taking on the huge waves in a tropical storm.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2017, 05:48:34 pm »
The NJ has been in salt water for what 70 years? I'm not sure her hull is still thick enough for taking on the huge waves in a tropical storm.

They have systems in stalled on navy ships that fights corrosion and weakening of the steel due to salt water exposure.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2017, 05:51:41 pm »
I'll yield to the expertise others have, regarding this, but.....

in the age of laser weapons and orbiting weapons systems...aren't battleships sitting ducks?   :shrug:

Not to mention, with cruse missiles, you don't need the big guns any more.

They do make a nice statement though.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2017, 05:55:20 pm »
Not to mention, with cruse missiles, you don't need the big guns any more.

They do make a nice statement though.

Cruise Missiles only work so well...not to mention we have limited supplies of them.

The threats to us have all prepared for carrier led forces and aircraft to provide cover for the Marines.  The wild card is a BB battle group.  If and when the time comes when we confront China over their illegal expansion in the South pacific or area strikes are needed on silkworm anti ship missile launch sites in the Straits of Hormouz...naval artillery bombardments and raids will necessary.  Best way to do that is with the 16" guns of a navy battleship.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,881
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: Is It Time to Bring Back the Battleships?
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2017, 02:56:10 am »
I don't think it matters that much how thick and reinforced the hulls on the big ones are any more.

In a real war -- a REAL one -- the cruise missiles or torpedoes coming at one of these (as well as at an aircraft carrier) are likely to be nuclear-tipped.

Armor plate won't stand up to that...