Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Rise and Fall of the Battleship (And Why They Won't Be Coming Back)
PopSci ^ | 1-3-2014 | Sam LaGrone

Posted on 01/06/2014 1:08:10 PM PST by Sir Napsalot

USS Iowa firing all of its 16-inchers. A fantastic spectacle but anachronistic in 21st century warfare. (US Navy Photo)

Those who cover the militarized aspects of the ocean eventually will encounter a group of people who want the U.S. Navy to get back into the battleship business.

The argument goes like this: The four remaining World War II Iowa-class battleships are cheaper to operate, cheaper than building new ships, and provide powerful and much-needed weapons (giant 16-inch guns—that’s the diameter of the shell, not the length of the barrel) to the U.S. arsenal. (The 2012 summer movie spectacular Battleship may have reinvigorated some of the calls to reactivate the big ships following the glorious montage of the USS Missouri coming to life to fight maritime aliens).

Before killing the buzz of why bringing back the Iowa-class ships doesn’t make sense, let’s take a quick history tangent.

The modern armored ship entered popular American culture with the 1862 ironclad battle between the Union’s USS Monitor and the Confederacy’s CSS Virginia (often referred to by its Union moniker Merrimack).

(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: battleship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last
Some history, then the why it won't be brought back.

Don't think any other nation is thinking of reviving Battleships either.

1 posted on 01/06/2014 1:08:10 PM PST by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
You've been....

Thunderstruck!


2 posted on 01/06/2014 1:10:02 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("Gun horror is not a productive emotion, it's learned helplessness disguised as moral superiority.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

They require far too many crewmen for a modern warship, which is why they were retired again after the Bush I administration. It has nothing to do with their armament, which can reach many of the targets we want to hit. We’re not paying sailors $25 a month any more.


3 posted on 01/06/2014 1:12:48 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (A courageous man finds a way, an ordinary man finds an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

4 posted on 01/06/2014 1:13:38 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Great for a gun platform for fire support. And for launching cruise missiles. I would got out on a limb and say there will never be another naval battle like Leyte Gulf, but who knows? The Chinese are hell bent on a blue water navy...


5 posted on 01/06/2014 1:15:26 PM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I wonder how a battleship’s armor would handle a modern ship killer missile. The destroyers back in the 70’s through the 90’s were aluminum from the main deck up. Not too good for stopping anything.


6 posted on 01/06/2014 1:16:38 PM PST by meatloaf (Impeach Obama. That's my New Year's resolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Yeah....I know all that.

But they are so cool. Can’t we have just a couple?


7 posted on 01/06/2014 1:16:57 PM PST by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

There were both rocket boosted and terminal guided shells.


8 posted on 01/06/2014 1:17:43 PM PST by Rodentking (There is no God but Yahweh and Moses is his prophet - http://www.airpower.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I’d keep one running. Sabot rounds, smart projectiles, accepting surrenders...


9 posted on 01/06/2014 1:21:06 PM PST by Anton.Rutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I’ll always love them Iowa class battleships. Such a beautiful and awesome boat that oozed strength and power. I’ll never forget being on the receiving end of the Iowa as she practiced with her 16”ers and we towed the targets.


10 posted on 01/06/2014 1:21:50 PM PST by diverteach (If I find liberals in heaven after my death.....I WILL BE PISSED!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The big battleship existed to deliver massive ordnance over long distances. The end began in WWII, and now are so many other ways to deliver massive ordnance now, that role of the battleship is finished. Plus - it is a huge, expensive target for supersonic anti-ship missiles that nearly every tinpot dictator possesses now.


11 posted on 01/06/2014 1:24:37 PM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Those wooden decks are so 19th century.


12 posted on 01/06/2014 1:25:34 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

I like the idea of Battleships. But I also recall the Battles of the Falklands. Exocet missiles and their ilk love Battleships too.


13 posted on 01/06/2014 1:26:12 PM PST by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
I went aboard the USS Iowa with my Veteran father when the ship was dedicated at the Pacific Battleship Center. We had complete run of the ship and got into spaces that won't be open to the public for years (if ever).

What impressed me is the care the Navy took in mothballing the ship. If for instance a boiler has been drained, the drain plug is left wired to the boiler and written instructions for replacing it are attached.

Here is an Electrician's Mate explaining to his sons how to put a turbo-generator on line in correct phase.

Note the tags.

14 posted on 01/06/2014 1:26:57 PM PST by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
They require far too many crewmen for a modern warship

Yep. The heavy cruiser I served aboard had a crew of about 1200. You just couldn't do that these days.

Sure, you could automate the heck out of the thing, but that would constitute a whole new ship design. 16-inch guns and the 600-lb steam propulsion plant were designed to be crewed by people. They'd have to be redesigned. By then you have a whole new ship anyway.

It's all about the mission. Ship-to-ship, it's too big and slow a target and payloads these days are better than any armor. Ship-to-shore, i.e. fire support, you can get better range and accuracy nowadays without the bulk.

But they were good. My late Dad told a story about calling in fire support on a hill in Korea. He was expecting 155's but got the 16-inchers instead. He said it was a little startling when the top of the hill just went away. There's something to be said for that.

15 posted on 01/06/2014 1:28:27 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Too much deck area to swab?


16 posted on 01/06/2014 1:31:18 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I think a naval engagement of the future will be at close ranges. Why? Radar counter detection invariable leads to EMCOM - emissions control being enforced. Targeting will be via satellite and final targeting visual, that’s right visual. The old saying is radiate and die. Radar is suicide, same with active sonar.


17 posted on 01/06/2014 1:31:40 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

18 posted on 01/06/2014 1:32:06 PM PST by gura (If Allah is so great, why does he need fat sexually confused fanboys to do his dirty work? -iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
The battle of Leyte Gulf is famous for the "crossing of the T" in which US forces caught Japanese forces in single file, transiting the Surigao Straits. We were able to pluck many of those ships off, one by one. Our ships could fire abeam; the Japanese ships could only fire ahead, and their fire was limmited. But this tactic is ancient. Ships of sail did the same thing.

With modern guided missiles and air capabilities, crossing the T, as well as having big, heavy battleships to put shells on-target is not cost-effective.

19 posted on 01/06/2014 1:32:26 PM PST by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"They require far too many crewmen for a modern warship, which is why they were retired again after the Bush I administration. It has nothing to do with their armament, which can reach many of the targets we want to hit. We’re not paying sailors $25 a month any more.

Checked to see how many sailors man our carriers?

The combat radius for a 16" gun [full 16" not with a theoretical sabot] is only 22 to 24 miles.

That being said an Iowa makes for a relatively hard target, can carry a butt load of missiles and can I have been told can deliver as much ordinance via its 16" guns in 45 minutes as a carrier can deliver in 24 hours.

Big guns can be automated to a certain degree -- look up Des Moines class cruisers. Coming back? Probably not, in part because they have no sponsorship and partly because of the whole range limitation issue.

20 posted on 01/06/2014 1:32:53 PM PST by R W Reactionairy ("Everyone is entitled to their own opinion ... but not to their own facts" Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Two other reasons for retiring the battleships:

Replacement parts are nowhere to be found except on museum ships, if still there and in working condition.

No one has made ammunition for the 16-inch guns for decades. Whatever is left has been in storage since 1991 at Seal Beach NWS and would have to be tested prior to use.

21 posted on 01/06/2014 1:34:06 PM PST by chrisinoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Battleships are wonderful in asymmetrical warfare. Wonderful.

Every argument that can be applied to battleships can be applied to aircraft carriers. They too, are wonderful in asymmetrical warfare. And are vulnerable in symmetrical warfare.

Bring back the battleships, I want to watch third world missiles bouncing off them.


22 posted on 01/06/2014 1:34:17 PM PST by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
This things are way too big and complicated:


23 posted on 01/06/2014 1:34:29 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

It’d bounce off. The captain of the Missouri said as much during Gulf War I.


24 posted on 01/06/2014 1:35:02 PM PST by gura (If Allah is so great, why does he need fat sexually confused fanboys to do his dirty work? -iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

A battleship would shrug off almost any of the modern anti-ship missiles needing little more than a paint job afterwards. I do believe there is a supersonic carrier killer missile that the Russians developed some time ago which might be a threat, but that’s about it. Those are some serious ordinance and can only be carried by strategic bombers. I also believe the Chinese have them now.


25 posted on 01/06/2014 1:35:52 PM PST by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
(The 2012 summer movie spectacular Battleship may have reinvigorated some of the calls to reactivate the big ships following the glorious montage of the USS Missouri coming to life to fight maritime aliens).

Awesome part of the movie.

26 posted on 01/06/2014 1:35:54 PM PST by Excellence (All your database are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Targeting will be via satellite and final targeting visual, that’s right visual.

I find your post a little contradictory. You make some good points, but if you could target with satellites or aircraft (even drones), why wouldn't you fire from long distances, rather than make your platform more vulnerable by closing in?

27 posted on 01/06/2014 1:35:59 PM PST by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter
"accepting surrenders"

Great Thinking!

We need more of those (surrenders).

28 posted on 01/06/2014 1:36:05 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

A lot of that was due to US development of radar, and Japanese ignorance of it.


29 posted on 01/06/2014 1:36:20 PM PST by gura (If Allah is so great, why does he need fat sexually confused fanboys to do his dirty work? -iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Well, with GPS guided shells the artilery is making a come back. Of course ships can easily be killed and subs make more sense. But if we have ships, makes sense to me to have regular guns on them.


30 posted on 01/06/2014 1:36:56 PM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

It is a passage of time, as the time for the Battleship had come and gone.

But it won’t stop us from admiring them, or have cherished memories, tales from the elders, etc. Like a great dame, proper tributes need to be paid.


31 posted on 01/06/2014 1:36:59 PM PST by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

The Belgrano was a light Cruiser, and she was sunk with a torpedo. The Sheffield got hit with a missile, she was a destroyer.


32 posted on 01/06/2014 1:37:45 PM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
"He said it was a little startling when the top of the hill just went away. There's something to be said for that. "

Yep, Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

33 posted on 01/06/2014 1:38:43 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

(Grin)


34 posted on 01/06/2014 1:39:17 PM PST by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The argument for battleships is to bombard enemy beaches prior to landing. The possibility of landing troops on an opposed beach like they did at Tarawa or Iwo Jima is virtually zero, so the usefulness of the battleship is virtually zero as well.


35 posted on 01/06/2014 1:39:34 PM PST by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Sir Napsalot. Guided missiles are superseding artillery on land as well.


36 posted on 01/06/2014 1:40:21 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: R W Reactionairy

Aircraft carriers house squadrons of fighters, bombers, surveillance, control and anti-submarine aircraft, each aircraft capable of attacking or defending against multiple targets. No other vessel does that. I do think that they should look again at the Pykrete concept which was briefly explored during World War II, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk


37 posted on 01/06/2014 1:43:09 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (A courageous man finds a way, an ordinary man finds an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter
I’d keep one running. Sabot rounds, smart projectiles, accepting surrenders..

We could give the Iowa to the Mexican Navy, so Obama and Boehner could sign Amnesty on it in Los Angeles.

38 posted on 01/06/2014 1:43:12 PM PST by Dagnabitt (Amnesty is Treason. Its agents are Traitors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lou L
I find your post a little contradictory. You make some good points, but if you could target with satellites or aircraft (even drones), why wouldn't you fire from long distances, rather than make your platform more vulnerable by closing in?

Satellites only give crude estimates of location. They tell you the enemy is in an area the size of Delaware. Also, satellites can and will get shot down in a real war. My contention is that naval warfare will get primitive real quick. Nobody is going to radiate unless you want a ARM up your butt.

39 posted on 01/06/2014 1:43:36 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Int he modern world, there’s just no practical use for them, however as we are aware, technology can suffer disastrous setbacks.


40 posted on 01/06/2014 1:45:34 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diverteach

That must have been incredible!!! What were the firing ranges? Any pics of it you could put up, I bet every FReeper would love ‘em!


41 posted on 01/06/2014 1:47:27 PM PST by bobby.223 (Retired up in the snowy mountains of the American Redoubt and it's a GREAT life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
"accepting surrenders"

Great Thinking!

We need more of those (surrenders).

What? Are we going to rent it to the Taliban?

42 posted on 01/06/2014 1:48:13 PM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

With Bammy-in-Charge, the Al Qaeda jihadis too.


43 posted on 01/06/2014 1:49:51 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

There was no battleship in the Falklands War. You really in Vt? I lived in Bratt for 13 years.


44 posted on 01/06/2014 1:50:08 PM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Yeah, OK - but this article could just as well have been written in the 50's.

Today, we need more timely articles like "The Rise and Fall of the Fighter Jet, "The Rise and Fall of the Aircraft Carrier", or "The Rise and Fall of the Tank" that point out the degree to which we are still overspending on the tools of yesterday's wars.

45 posted on 01/06/2014 1:50:54 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

On an EMF closed battlefield where electronics are toasted, old school whips ass!


46 posted on 01/06/2014 1:50:58 PM PST by dblshot (I am John Galt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
I'm thinking that a battleship could do a good job of nuking Mecca and Medina as well as spiking the 12th Madi's well in Qom.

It'd be a start.

47 posted on 01/06/2014 1:51:34 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

If China gets a blue water navy and engages U.S. interests with it - it will be a submarine/air/space to surface engagement and the Chicoms will no longer have a blue water navy. It would make them feel good to be “just as strong” at sea than those nations that would “hold them down/back”. We need psychologists more than military strategists to deal with them.


48 posted on 01/06/2014 1:51:44 PM PST by epluribus_2 (he had the best mom - ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Rail guns may lead to new vessels that carry guns as their primary weapons.

If missile and missile-defense developments are such that they cannot be stopped then armored ships will return.

If missile-defense developments are such that they missiles are totally ineffective, then direct fire may return as a primary attack weapon.

Those would not bring back the BB-61s, but they might lead to the development of new battleships.


49 posted on 01/06/2014 1:52:09 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

The rise and fall of the Musket; The rise and fall of the Cavalry; the rise and fall of the Lance; the rise and fall of the Ship of the Line; etc.


50 posted on 01/06/2014 1:53:50 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson