Should the US reactivate battleships?

[Bilge_Rat]

The only advantage with Battleships would be shore bombardment, but BBs are a blunt instrument, much like the WW2 Heavy Bombers.

Now with Precision Guided Munitions, both Laser and GPS guided, one Bomb or shell can take out a target that in WW2 would have required massive area bombing in the hope that one would actually hit the target.

So yes, BBs are obsolete.

Even though no longer part of the fleet, the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin are still in reserve and could potentially be brought back in service, if required.

Although the navy firmly believes in the capabilities of the DD(X) destroyer program, members of the United States Congress remain skeptical about the efficiency of the new destroyers when compared to the battleships.[15] Partially as a consequence, Congress passed Pub. L. 109-364, the National Defense Authorization Act 2007, requiring the battleships be kept and maintained in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again.[29] Congress has ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need be, Iowa and Wisconsin can be returned to active duty:

1. Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
2. The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
4. The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.[29]

These four conditions closely mirror the original three conditions that the Nation Defense Authorization Act of 1996 laid out for the maintenance of Iowa and Wisconsin while they were in the Mothball Fleet.[

Here are some of the issues if they were re-activated:

In response, the navy has pointed to the cost of reactivating the two Iowa-class battleships to their decommissioned capability. The navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million,[26][27] but this does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns because a survey found the powder to be unsafe. In terms of schedule, the Navy's program management office estimates that reactivation would take 20 to 40 months, given the loss of corporate memory and the shipyard industrial base.[2]

Reactivating the battleships would require a wide range of battleship modernization improvements, according to the navy's program management office. At a minimum, these modernization improvements include command and control, communications, computers, and intelligence equipment; environmental protection (including ozone-depleting substances); a plastic-waste processor; pulper/shredder and wastewater alterations; firefighting/fire safety and women-at-sea alterations; a modernized sensor suite (air and surface search radar); and new combat and self-defense systems.[2] The navy's program management office also identified other issues that would strongly discourage the Navy from reactivating and modernizing the battleships. For example, personnel needed to operate the battleships would be extensive, and the skills needed may not be available or easily reconstituted.[28] Other issues include the age and unreliability of the battleships' propulsion systems and the fact that the navy no longer maintains the capability to manufacture their 16-inch (410 mm) gun system components and ordnance.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...support_debate

[Bilge_Rat]

and since we are talking about Battleships, a photo:



USS Washington firing her main battery at the IJN Kirishima, November 15, 1942.

One of the few BB vs BB battles of WW2.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Bishie2

Just wondering what are your guys opinions. Should the United States reactivate the battleships that are museum ships such as the BB 61 Iowa, BB 63 Missouri, and BB 64 Wisconsin. -Bishie2

Absolutely! "If ya got it flaunt it!"... but lets go visual on the concept! (This was the only occasion that all four Iowa Class BB's were steaming in formation(1954). Arguably; two years later...the most powerful surface armada the world ever saw: Mk 23 Atomic shells)....and upgrade the ammo slightly; talk about 'Katie! bar the door!' here! http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2419375&postcount=39

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I love battleships. In the day when they represented a government's power and influence they were indeed important, both as weapons and as symbols. Very expensive symbols. The problem was they were like Greek Heroes. Very impressive, and when one died the whole nation mourned.

The smaller ships were more like soldiers. Lots of them, and they carried the brunt of the battles. Battleships were mainly good for fighting each other, and not much else.

Shore bombardment was their final use. Which is more useful for that purpose, one battleship or a dozen destroyers, or a hundred airplanes?

I love battleships, but I don't see much use for them anymore.

Precisely, and it's still all about showtime; actual shooting usually turns out quite dismally....for both sides as at Jutland for example. As per my post title: the Kaiser won the shooting match tactically but lost the battle and the war at sea strategically...as did Yamamoto at Pearl Harbor.

Originally Posted by vienna

In modern naval warfare, no ship is immune to an air attack whether it is by a manned aircraft, a missile, or a drone, and the larger the vessel, the greater a target it would be; agility and low profile are the new norms. Consider what the reaction in the US would be if NK, Iran, or even terrorists were to lob a few well-aimed missiles or drones at a US carrier and sink it...

For an example, look back at the Falklands War and what happened to the ARA General Belgrano...<O>

Actually that was very old torpedo against a very old American cruiser but your point actually says it all: everything is vulnerable; thus the very fast Iowa class BB's (33 knots!!!) may and should be reactivated with sufficient escorts and at least one outta-sight carrier group ready to pounce as we practice "innocent passage' right through the South China Sea the the way the Chinks like to skirt Alaska in the Bearing Strait.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

The only advantage with Battleships would be shore bombardment, but BBs are a blunt instrument, much like the WW2 Heavy Bombers.

Now with Precision Guided Munitions, both Laser and GPS guided, one Bomb or shell can take out a target that in WW2 would have required massive area bombing in the hope that one would actually hit the target.

So yes, BBs are obsolete.

Even though no longer part of the fleet, the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin are still in reserve and could potentially be brought back in service, if required.



Here are some of the issues if they were re-activated:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...support_debate

The navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million,[26][27] but this does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns because a survey found the powder to be unsafe.

Precisely why it should not be done with the 16 inch guns beyond a few 'Show' rounds'; and USS Iowa's turret two is still inoperable, I believe, after the infamous fatal explosion anyway.

For example, a full charge for the 16"/50 (40.64 cm) Mark 7 during the World War II period consisted of six propellant bags whose total propellant weight was 660.0 lbs. (299.4 kg) of SPD and 4.463 lbs. (2.1 kg) of gunpowder. Some references show this charge weight as 660.0 lbs. (299.4 kg) while others show it as 664.463 lbs. (301.4 kg). With the post-war adoption of the cooler burning propellant, the six bag full charge weight for this gun changed to 655.0 lbs. (297.108 kg) and 4.463 lbs. (2.1 kg) of gunpowder. Again, some references show this charge weight as 655.0 lbs. (297.108 kg) while others show it as 659.463 lbs. (299.2 kg).

With the atomic shellsMk. 23 nuclear naval shells with an estimated yield of 15 to 20 kilotons.... widely advertised to our 'potential threats'....Fatboy of N. Korea in particular, together with tomahawk missiles, aegis weapons and the escorts, the mission is no longer prolonged shore-bombardment ala Lebanon but massive shows of force. The platform is still good but the gunnery and mission has changed. And if we paint the Iowa's white, Teddy R. would think it was 'just Bully"! 'Cause 'nuthin good goes outta style'...BBY
1907: the Great White Fleet circumnavigates the globe.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet

[Platapus]

Originally posted in the "I never knew that" thread

"The Mark 7 Naval Gun 16" 50 Calibre that was used on the Iowa class Battle ships was used against a surface ship only once in combat.

16 Feb 44, the USS Iowa fired a salvo at the Japanese Destroyer Nowaki at about 35,000 yards, but did not sink her. All other Mark 7 Shots were either training or land bombardment.

(Fischer, Brad D.; Jurens, W. J. (2006). "Fast Battleship Gunnery during World War II: A Gunnery Revolution, Part II". Warship International. Vol. XLIII no. 1.)

During WWII, the accuracy of the Mk 7 rifle at range was pretty poor.

At 30,000 yards, there was a 2.7% chance of hitting a broadside target and only 1.4% chance of hitting a end-on target.

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

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

So even with the projectile tracking radar and our advanced FCS computers, we are still looking at no better than 150 yard accuracy. That's not so good when considering that even the HC (High capacity) Mark 14 projectile carried only a bursting charge of 153 pounds, in which half of that would be absorbed in fragmenting the projectile casing, leaves very little boom 150 yards away. The projectiles for the Mk 7 gun were still primarily big blocks of iron intended on slamming into the target assuming the target is big enough and does not move much.

There have been experimentation using sub-munitions, but they have not been too successful and too expensive

So let's look at the Mk 7 Gun operations.

Ammo and propellant is big and heavy. Normal battleship projectile load (and associated propellant) was about 130 rounds per gun barrel.

Which is probably enough considering the the life of the barrel was about 300 rounds and those barrels are not cheap nor easy to make.

Accuracy, even with today's electronics and the luxury of wasting a few rounds to get the trajectory right is still a best of 150 yards, with a 153 pound bursting charge. This means that you have to hit the target to really do any significant damage. Let's hope that our target is not much bigger than 200 yards and does not move. So what sort of targets would be appropriate?

Certainly not specific buildings. No, this is a weapon system for targeting small towns. Since there is a lack of large enemy fortifications, this would be a great terror weapon if you want to indiscriminately slaughter citizens, which is bad press. In Viet Nam, it was used a few times to create helicopter landing areas in the jungle, but there were better ways of doing that.

Shooting long distances with unguided munitions is a concept long dead.

Even old unguided rockets are better than a Mk 7 Rifle.

A SCUD-D (1980's technology), which is about as basic as you can get for TBM has a CEP of 50 meters, range of over 700,000 yards, explosive payload of about 2,000 pounds.

Pretty sure we have rockets and missiles that can do better than a SCUD-D

Battleships and the 16 inch rifle are, sadly, obsolete. Especially in today's OOTW environment where there are few stationary targets and a non-existent FEBA.

I would think that a better case could be made to reactivate (actually re-manufacture) Gato class WWII submarines. They would have more use than a WWII BB, in my opinion.

Battleships are cool, but then so are Trebuchets.

I would not want to fight a war with either of them.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

During WWII, the accuracy of the Mk 7 rifle at range was pretty poor.

At 30,000 yards, there was a 2.7% chance of hitting a broadside target and only 1.4% chance of hitting a end-on target.

Many years ago I had that exact discussion on another forum. I had pointed out that naval gunnery overall had an average 7% accuracy, with 2% at extreme ranges and about 12% at 5,000 yards. During the discussion one member was overly honest about his days in the army: "I was in the artillery, and I can guarantee you we hit the ground at least 98% of the time."

Of course an island is a much bigger target than a ship, so if your shooting at an island with nothing but enemy troops on it you've got a great chance of doing some serious damage, which is where the battleships finally found their niche. Not much of that these days.

[em2nought]

We should be fighting with nukes, better that Islam is wiped of the face of the earth than one US soldier needlessly give their lives, or end up being taken care of by the VA for the rest of it.

Originally Posted by em2nought

We should be fighting with nukes, better that Islam is wiped of the face of the earth than one US soldier needlessly give their lives, or end up being taken care of by the VA for the rest of it.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I don't think one is enough