AHC: The Battleship Stays Relevant

Redbeard

Banned
You need the guide missile not to be developed. Just can't really armor against these weapons. The BB was armored against gun fire at very specific ranges. When you have to armor against gun fire and missiles, you can't do it and have the ship float. And then missiles are better weapons than guns. Longer range, can be carried by cheaper things (planes, smaller boats, subs).
Actually I think the battleship was quite well armoured against the SSM. The SSM would typically cause great damage to anything outside the armoured citadel and turrets/barbettes but would have big difficulties in treaching the vitals behind armour. The battleship was very vulnerable to underwater explosions (torpedoes/mines) as was/is any ship.

Thye battleship became obsolete not because it was vulnerable but because you for the same buck could pack a bigger bang in the aircraft carrier and SSM carrying vessels - and because there hasn't between any conflict between equally advanced naval forces since the early 1940s - which probably would have shown the extreme vulnerability of the aircraft carrier.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Reactivating the Iowa was a Reagan gimmick to get over 600 ships. The dollars would have been better spent building more cruisers, but that would have taken more time.
It was also done as a dick measuring contest. The USSR was flouting their Kirov class ships as being the biggest, baddest surface combatants around. So the USN basically went, "Hold my beer," and reactivated the Iowas, turned to the Red Navy and said, "your move, bitch."
 

SsgtC

Banned
Actually I think the battleship was quite well armoured against the SSM. The SSM would typically cause great damage to anything outside the armoured citadel and turrets/barbettes but would have big difficulties in treaching the vitals behind armour. The battleship was very vulnerable to underwater explosions (torpedoes/mines) as was/is any ship.

Thye battleship became obsolete not because it was vulnerable but because you for the same buck could pack a bigger bang in the aircraft carrier and SSM carrying vessels - and because there hasn't between any conflict between equally advanced naval forces since the early 1940s - which probably would have shown the extreme vulnerability of the aircraft carrier.
This has largely been my understanding as well. That navies stopped armoring ships, not because the armor was ineffective, but because it was only effective at battleship levels. And that's just not practical on a frigate, cruiser or destroyer. Or carrier for that matter.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Actually I think the battleship was quite well armoured against the SSM. The SSM would typically cause great damage to anything outside the armoured citadel and turrets/barbettes but would have big difficulties in treaching the vitals behind armour. The battleship was very vulnerable to underwater explosions (torpedoes/mines) as was/is any ship.

Thye battleship became obsolete not because it was vulnerable but because you for the same buck could pack a bigger bang in the aircraft carrier and SSM carrying vessels - and because there hasn't between any conflict between equally advanced naval forces since the early 1940s - which probably would have shown the extreme vulnerability of the aircraft carrier.

You need to think in terms of mission kills. The Soviet weapons would penetrate the armor plate, and the soviets did test against actual BB armor to prove. But even if the armor was perfect, it is irrelevant. The main belt only protects the guns, the ammo magazines, the engines, and positive buoyancy. The rest of the stuff will be shredded by missiles, an since the main guns are near useless in naval combat, the ship is useless for the war. And this is best case scenario.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It was also done as a dick measuring contest. The USSR was flouting their Kirov class ships as being the biggest, baddest surface combatants around. So the USN basically went, "Hold my beer," and reactivated the Iowas, turned to the Red Navy and said, "your move, bitch."

Definitely. I were to sail on one ship for my ego, I would go in an Iowa only because we never finished a Montana.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Increased automation to reduce crew size
Replace the aft turret with some form of VTOL flight deck.
Swap out some of the secondary & tertiary AA guns for AA missiles and later on a Phalanx system too

So you want a Kiev class with the anti-shipping missiles replaced by guns?
 

Driftless

Donor
So you want a Kiev class with the anti-shipping missiles replaced by guns?

Split the difference. Heading towards the 21st Century, missiles for offense and defense are necessary; but so are quick reaction old school lower caliber guns down to 20-25mm for low tech raiders (USS Cole type situations). To be honest, I was thinking in more general terms in my initial response and not very specifically about ordnance layout.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
But for defending a reasonable length of coastline with a short-range asset with speed below 50km/h, numbers will be needed, so not very cheap. Surely a far more sensible alternative is missiles mounted on trucks, aircraft and small combatants. Any enemy capable of suppressing such defensive systems would also most likely be capable of plinking battleships/monitors as an amusing pastime. Even for point defense of a very limited section of coastline the tradeoff between cost, speed of response and survivability does not seem like it would favour a battleship/monitor.

Even the classic 'shore bombardment' alternative is only low-cost as long as legacy WW2 ammunition is available and it is possible to handwave away the platform cost. As soon as it is exhausted or expired, the cost of manufacturing new shells is probably going to be comparable or higher than e.g. MLRS, BM30 etc on a per-round basis. And such systems can be mounted on much cheaper and smaller ships, while outperforming 16" guns.

How much would have each new shell cost, in your analysis?

When I think of cheap, I also think of small ships from commercial designs. Once you have the base weapon system worked out (MLRS, 16" Iowa gun, 203mm army gun) AND one assume a low threat environment, why can't you just mount on some existing commercial ship or inshore oil platform. Take the 203 for example, very slow to shoot if one does on land since hard to handle the shell. But in a turret on small ships, we can build automated loaders that will increase the rate of fire by 3 times to 10 times. And we can keep huge amount of ammo in the magazine.

So for something more realistic, why couldn't one mount one or two crusader/paladin guns on very small ship by naval terms (few hundred tons) with a shallow draft at low cost. Now yes, much like a land based MRLS, they will be destroyed from time to time.
 
Thye battleship became obsolete not because it was vulnerable but because you for the same buck could pack a bigger bang in the aircraft carrier and SSM carrying vessels - and because there hasn't between any conflict between equally advanced naval forces since the early 1940s - which probably would have shown the extreme vulnerability of the aircraft carrier.
The problem is I don't think BBs are realistically much better than CVNs once they start getting hit by big LGBs or missiles, so everything will be killed if hit its just that CV can hit at much longer ranges than the BBs.
 

Driftless

Donor
So for something more realistic, why couldn't one mount one or two crusader/paladin guns on very small ship by naval terms (few hundred tons) with a shallow draft at low cost. Now yes, much like a land based MRLS, they will be destroyed from time to time.

Basically, a monitor of some form?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So a sort of armoured AEGIS super-Virginia? That's a much more plausible design, but surely it gets you to the point where you have to seriously question ever taking such a valuable and powerful ship within gunnery range of anything. Having artillery on that is almost on a par with mounting a couple of 5" on a Nimitz.

That's where I am at. You have to split the design. A super-Virginia (BBGN by the way I name), would be arguable a good ships. So is a monitor for Marine support. It is when we combine the two that I see problems. With a super-Virginia lead task force support by at least one SSGN, I want to do all the killing well outside of 16" gun range.

And one can argue for a Marine ship. May have command staff. Does have some guns larger than 5". Has enough armor to take a few 155mm artillery hits. Has a shallow draft. Not very fast (under 20 knots) to save on engine size. Very little cutting edge tech. One per Marine divisions. Or if cheap enough, one per Marine RCT.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Basically, a monitor of some form?

Yes. The UK made these things out of spare guns in WW1 at apparently a low cost. Some were not much wider than a one gun turret. Slow as mud. Has to be dealt with if the enemy wants to operate on a sustained basis within gun range.

I literally think you start not with a ship design, but a small inshore oil drilling platform. Build up from there with off the shelf tech. I am trying to get something that looks cost wise more like a single F-15 and not a DD.
 
How much would have each new shell cost, in your analysis?
It’s a head-scratcher, to be honest. Starting in the early nineties, where do you turn to get 16” naval shells manufactured to the original spec? It’s not exactly an off-the shelf item. With luck there might be some old equipment that can be refurbed and then it’s just lots of precision engineering. But presumably you would have to adjust the fuse pockets to take modern fuses. Filling might not meet modern safety specs although swapping for something modern is simple. Then probably re-test and re-qualify everything to meet modern documentation and safety standards. Worst case you have to build a forging and machining plant first. At any rate it would mean spinning up a process no one has done in 40+ years, even if it is just a giant version of normal artillery ammo. Also highly likely that someone will want to “improve” things and add bells and whistles and more cost. Then you get into the propellant charges which pose their own similar issues, I’m not sure if there are also primers needed to fire the bags... Let’s assume the barrel liners won’t need replacing or it gets silly.
Bottom line is it would be a good few million to get it going and unless lots of shells/charges are manufactured the unit cost seems like it would be high. Probably not like Tomahawk high but probably more than MLRS where I think you can nowadays (not 1991) get a guided missile good for 70km with a 90kg blast/frag warhead (point, delay or air detonation) for $150K a pop. So more explosive, in a modern warhead, with flexible fusing, further, guided, for less money and fired off a complete multi round launcher that weighs less than a 16” barrel. The base 30km unguided version must be as cheap as chips.
. With a super-Virginia lead task force support by at least one SSGN, I want to do all the killing well outside of 16" gun range.
Yes, to me it seems nuts to deliberately take billions and billions of dollars of long range killing machine into knife-fighting range with an armed enemy. If all they have are AKs and RPGs sure, but then what do we need a zillion dollar ship for?
TBH a really lightened MLRS launcher starts to look tempting. Just chopper it ashore 25km from what you want blown up and go to town. Or 60km away if you are willing to spring for the expensive missiles.
 
In 1991, the USN decides that the armored, big gun battleship still has a place in the fleet and decides to retain the Iowa class instead of retiring them. Yes, I know this is near ASB and all the reasons why. What I'm curious about is, IF the Navy had kept them, what upgrades/modifications do you think they would carry out to the ships, how much longer would they serve, and what would their replacement be? For the replacement, keep in mind, this is a Navy that has decided to keep armored big gun ships in its fleet. Other than that, go crazy.

Plans for additional modernization were being discussed at the time, in so far as adding additional missiles but also new shells. The two designs I'm aware of was a fin stabilized one good for about 40 miles, and a rocket assisted one good for about 80; no idea if the two designs could be combined to get a shell good for 100+ miles out. Such a modernized Iowa would be great for End of History missions, such as Somalia or Haiti '94.

As for as a replacement for the Iowas, I think that's where we're going anyways. The procurement of new systems like the Dong Feng are in the process of rendering the Aircraft Carrier obsolete, as the manpower and monetary cost of a carrier precludes risking it against missile swarms that also prevent it from utilizing its own weapons (aircraft) effectively. The submarine, meanwhile, lacks the ability to preform simple naval operations like sea lane control among other tasks, due to its inherent nature. Thus, we are left with the return of surface ships.

First and foremost, the aforementioned missile swarms pretty much invalidates the logic of "avoid getting hit", which the U.S. Navy has operated under since WWII; you can't outrun multiple hyper-sonic missiles. In of itself, that's never made much sense anyway, given that the Iowas, despite being multiple time heavier than the Arleigh Burkes, are several knots faster even when fully loaded. A modern battleship, utilizing the advances in metallurgy and new types of armor invented since WWII, could not only combine the speed of the "Avoid getting hit" strategy, but back it up with a strong armor to absorb hits as well as an extensive ECW package. That the size of the vessel and additional power generation capabilities would allow it host far more Anti-Air and possibly ASW weapons as well is a given, further enhancing its ability to survive in the modern role. Finally, with the gradual coming of the Railgun, the value of a battleship is enormous; who needs CAGs when you can launch shells from hundreds of miles away with no risk of losing pilots and at a far cheaper price than having multiple aircraft get used?
 

FBKampfer

Banned
WWII gets butterflied away, and conflicts between carrier powers remain limited to second rate navies, and carrier aviation never manages to sink a capital ship, asside from a few instances of torpedo planes, to lift a phrase from @Peabody-Martini and Stupid Luck and Happenstance, "bayoneting the survivers" from a battle between big gun ships.

Warships remain heavily armored, and missiles to carry sufficient ordnance to sink them remain quite heavy and short-ranged, keeping carriers in the role of supporting the battleships, keeping the heavy fighters lugging the big heavy missiles off the battleships, as Cold War world power navies never make it to an active conflict, and the efficacy of the missiles vs contemporary battleships remains untested.

Large numbers of missile barges are relevant, being able to carry missiles big enough to carry a sufficient payload a tactically advantageous range, but being lightly armored (as a practical concession to the astronomical cost of large numbers of expensive ships who's primary ammunition is an order of magnitude more expensive than a 16" shell) are seen as effectively a sacrificial battering ram.


Old school flag officers who started in the 50's and early 60's while missile tech was still developing and the battleships were never questioned as the main bite of a navy run things through the 70's and early 80's, keeping Battleships in vogue from their personal experiences, and bureaucratic inertia keeps them in play throughout the 90's.


Effectively battleships are the 20th Century version of the rams that most ironclad battleships had in the mid-late 1800's.
 
Top