Battleships... do we still build them? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Battleships... do we still build them? (Page 2 of 7)

Posted: 7/26/2011 11:49:43 AM EST

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We don't build battleships anymore.

But it's worth noting that the Navy still maintains an inventory of 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 barrels, along with lots of shells and propellant.

The Navy knows that *IF* they decide to put a battleship back into service, the means to manufacture such items is no longer available. Retooling would have to occur, which would take a lot of time and $$$, a luxury that you often don't have when pressed into war.

All the propellant is gone. they are selling off the barrels too.

Actually I think the barrels already sold on GovLiquidation.com
A number of them were put up as surplus a couple months ago and there was a thread on it.
So they have likely sold them all off already.......

Posted: 7/26/2011 11:51:23 AM EST

[#2]

Bring back the galleys and their mighty catapults!

Posted: 7/26/2011 11:52:48 AM EST

[#3]

BB-62 is in prime position for shelling Camden and Philadelphia simultaneously.

Posted: 7/26/2011 11:53:13 AM EST

[#4]

While I have been on a Iowa Class BB(New Jersey in the mid 80s as a kid) and love the big Battleships, their time is passed.

For what it costs to build and maintain a big battlewagon, you can level a city with cruise missles cheaper and faster. Plus BBs are just big targets for missles and aircraft.

Carriers and high speed Destroyers/Missle ships are what modern battles demand...not big gun boats.

Posted: 7/26/2011 11:53:37 AM EST

[#5]

Quoted:

BB-62 is in prime position for shelling Camden and Philadelphia simultaneously.

and would anybody notice?

Posted: 7/26/2011 11:53:55 AM EST

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

BB-62 is in prime position for shelling Camden and Philadelphia simultaneously.

and would anybody notice?

Would anybody care?

Posted: 7/26/2011 11:54:30 AM EST

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
BB-62 is in prime position for shelling Camden and Philadelphia simultaneously.

and would anybody notice?

Would anybody care?

Just tell me where to send the check.

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:01:21 PM EST

[#8]

Quoted:
We don't build battleships anymore.

But it's worth noting that the Navy still maintains an inventory of 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 barrels, along with lots of shells and propellant.

The Navy knows that *IF* they decide to put a battleship back into service, the means to manufacture such items is no longer available. Retooling would have to occur, which would take a lot of time and $$$, a luxury that you often don't have when pressed into war.

No, we do not maintain those things. The last of the barrells are sitting down at Hawthorne awaiting demil (if they haven't been already), the powder is long gone (proven dangerous after the Iowa incident), and I doubt the shells are around either.

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:04:20 PM EST

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did.

Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false.

You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal.

That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory.

Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out.

Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place.

No, not really. You far overestimate the capabilities of Naval Gunfire Support.

The BB has ben completely supplanted in its role of projection of power by the CVN, which can do far more, and with far more precision.

Genocide and depredation are not tools of national policy for us. We do not use them.

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:04:58 PM EST

[#10]

Could 1 Burke take out the entire WWII German or Jap navy?

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:23:18 PM EST

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We don't build battleships anymore.

But it's worth noting that the Navy still maintains an inventory of 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 barrels, along with lots of shells and propellant.

The Navy knows that *IF* they decide to put a battleship back into service, the means to manufacture such items is no longer available. Retooling would have to occur, which would take a lot of time and $$$, a luxury that you often don't have when pressed into war.

No, we do not maintain those things. The last of the barrells are sitting down at Hawthorne awaiting demil (if they haven't been already), the powder is long gone (proven dangerous after the Iowa incident), and I doubt the shells are around either.

Then I stand corrected, but this is something that has happened recently. The Navy kept those in inventory for many years after the last Iowa class was decommissioned in 1992.

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:27:20 PM EST

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I love battleships. I did my youngster cruise on the Wisconsin. They are cool to look at and are real badasses of the time the were made, but technology has left them behind...until the Posleen invade that is.

As did my brother. Interesting.

What class was your bother in? There is only a small window in the last 30 years where the Wisconsin was available for midshipman cruises.

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:29:13 PM EST

[#13]

Quoted:

Genocide and depredation are not tools of national policy for us. We do not use them.

They were in WWII, see Lemay and his British counterpart Harris.

Coincidently, WWII was the last war we soundly won. Just because our national policy has weakened, does not mean that harder measures are forever out of consideration.

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:29:24 PM EST

[#14]

Quoted:
Could 1 Burke take out the entire WWII German or Jap navy?

No, but it was never designed to and nobody has anything like that stuff anymore anyway.

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:36:51 PM EST

[#15]

Arguably the battleship class was obsolete by the time of the sinking of the IJN Yamato by a carrier task force. Even the mighty KM Bismarck and KM Tirpitz were done in by aircraft; Bismarck had it's rudder crippled and according to the crew scuttling charges were set after the entire superstructure above the deck was destroyed. The British, of course, claimed to have holed her with the guns of battleships at close range; the rediscovery of the wreck put that to rest though when it was found to have outwardly protruding metal at explosion sites, but I digress.

If you want to see battleships in action today then you'll have to play Battlestations: Pacific or NavyField.

TL;DR: Battleships are good for intimidation factor alone due to more cost effective fighting vessels displacing its firepower need, not to mention the ungodly amount of fuel oil a battleship requires.

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:45:42 PM EST

[#16]

Toured the USS Iowa in Portsmouth harbour in 1986, toured the USS Massachusetts a couple of weekends back, both amazing ships, it amazed me that the Massachusetts still has a ton (actually many tons) of 16" shells aboard. Was interesting to see the shrapnel damage from Jean Bart and to see the remains of a 16" shell that flew 15 miles, penetrated 15" of armor on Jean Bart and went a further 70 feet through the ship then exploded.

USS Iowa in 1986:

I know it isn't feasible or realistic but I would love it if the US kept one BB in commission and used it for diplomatic power projection, CVNs are cool but nothing beats a BB as a visual representation of "don't fuck with me". Park it off Libya (with a couple of destroyers and subs in support) and watch Ghadaffi crap his burka

Posted: 7/26/2011 12:58:43 PM EST

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Genocide and depredation are not tools of national policy for us. We do not use them.

They were in WWII, see Lemay and his British counterpart Harris.

Coincidently, WWII was the last war we soundly won. Just because our national policy has weakened, does not mean that harder measures are forever out of consideration.

And a battleship isn't the right tool for that job. It's usefulness is pretty limited around much of the world.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:04:42 PM EST

[#18]

I was going to say the USS Constitution is still in service then I realize they consider her a Heavy Frigate.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:05:42 PM EST

[#19]

Quoted:

Or just the new littoral class fast but wimpy?

Was watching a show last night on Hitler's Admiral Graf Spee battleship, and got me thinking about ours today.

We still have them and subs protecting our carriers right, but are all of our battleships ancient, or do we have any new ones being built?

Someone post some pics of cool ones if you got them, or point me to an old thread as I'm sure this has been covered.

Edit: Apparently I mean do we still build destroyers, not battleships. I'm Naval vessel retarded.

There will not be any BB's until rail gun technology comes on line. Then, we may see some BB's be built to field those guns ( which could fire over 500 Miles).

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:06:26 PM EST

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Genocide and depredation are not tools of national policy for us. We do not use them.

They were in WWII, see Lemay and his British counterpart Harris.

Coincidently, WWII was the last war we soundly won. Just because our national policy has weakened, does not mean that harder measures are forever out of consideration.

Um, I think we soundly won Desert Storm.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:08:38 PM EST

[#21]

Quoted:

I was going to say the USS Constitution is still in service then I realize they consider her a Heavy Frigate.

Fuck Yeah, bring her back too !

"Marines to the fighting tops!"

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:11:28 PM EST

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We don't build battleships anymore.

But it's worth noting that the Navy still maintains an inventory of 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 barrels, along with lots of shells and propellant.

The Navy knows that *IF* they decide to put a battleship back into service, the means to manufacture such items is no longer available. Retooling would have to occur, which would take a lot of time and $$$, a luxury that you often don't have when pressed into war.

No, we do not maintain those things. The last of the barrells are sitting down at Hawthorne awaiting demil (if they haven't been already), the powder is long gone (proven dangerous after the Iowa incident), and I doubt the shells are around either.

Then I stand corrected, but this is something that has happened recently. The Navy kept those in inventory for many years after the last Iowa class was decommissioned in 1992.

As far as I know, the only thing that we kept around were the barrels, and they weren't really preserved –– they were pretty much left out to rot.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:13:01 PM EST

[#23]

If you have to invade a beachhead again, wouldn't big guns be a good way to shell the coastline to soften it up?

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:13:39 PM EST

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Genocide and depredation are not tools of national policy for us. We do not use them.

They were in WWII, see Lemay and his British counterpart Harris.

Coincidently, WWII was the last war we soundly won. Just because our national policy has weakened, does not mean that harder measures are forever out of consideration.

"Genocide and depredation" will never be instruments of national policy. In fact, they never were.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:16:30 PM EST

[#25]

Quoted:
The battleship of the future - the Arsenal Ship.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/arsenalship.jpg

http://i972.photobucket.com/albums/ae208/navybrat85/arsenal_72.jpg

That is an OOOOOLD project, that has been long since canceled.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:20:20 PM EST

[#26]

Quoted:
If you have to invade a beachhead again, wouldn't big guns be a good way to shell the coastline to soften it up?

You could do it better with aircraft.

But why bother - go OVER the beach and attack from behind.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:24:29 PM EST

[#27]

Quoted:

If you have to invade a beachhead again, wouldn't big guns be a good way to shell the coastline to soften it up?

That was the Marine Corps position.

The Navy's position is that the BB's were not cost effective to maintain or crew and a drag on resources solely to keep a 16"50 NGFS asset available.

The Navy has been proven correct.

But this is gonna be good anyway.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:33:20 PM EST

[#28]

The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:46:30 PM EST

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Or just the new littoral class fast but wimpy?

Was watching a show last night on Hitler's Admiral Graf Spee battleship, and got me thinking about ours today.
We still have them and subs protecting our carriers right, but are all of our battleships ancient, or do we have any new ones being built?

Someone post some pics of cool ones if you got them, or point me to an old thread as I'm sure this has been covered.

Graf Spee was not a battleship, per se. It was more of the battlecruiser type (lightly armored, heavily gunned, fast). Think of it along the lines of the HMS Hood...

Graf Spee was not fast, something like 26 knots. She was a glorified commerce raider that was meant to give the impression that Germany had captial ships. Any contemporary battleship or an even older battlecruiser would have run her down (29 to 32 knots), gunned her down (13 and 15 inch guns-versus 11 inch) and eaten her alive. In reality, she was chased and hounded into port by two light cruisers and one heavy, three ships that combined she should have outgunned.

Posted: 7/26/2011 1:49:43 PM EST

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I always wondered if the US Navy has any Heavy Cruzers in mothball still? I assume they don't as they would be so old now it would be cheaper to build a new one then retrofit one. Still, it seems like there could be a day when lobbing shells is desirable over expensive missles but obviously I am wrong or we would have some big gun boats still.

Nope. The last heavy cruiser in mothballs was the Des Moines and she was scrapped out in 2007.

i would think we should have one or two available. Think third world coastal fishing/pirate hangouts. Nothing says bar closed like a 16 inch shell coming thru your window.

Heavy cruisers would be plunking 8 inch shells through the windows, not 16 inch.

Posted: 7/26/2011 2:16:33 PM EST

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Or just the new littoral class fast but wimpy?

Was watching a show last night on Hitler's Admiral Graf Spee battleship, and got me thinking about ours today.
We still have them and subs protecting our carriers right, but are all of our battleships ancient, or do we have any new ones being built?

Someone post some pics of cool ones if you got them, or point me to an old thread as I'm sure this has been covered.

Graf Spee was not a battleship, per se. It was more of the battlecruiser type (lightly armored, heavily gunned, fast). Think of it along the lines of the HMS Hood...

Graf Spee was not fast, something like 26 knots. She was a glorified commerce raider that was meant to give the impression that Germany had captial ships. Any contemporary battleship or an even older battlecruiser would have run her down (29 to 32 knots), gunned her down (13 and 15 inch guns-versus 11 inch) and eaten her alive. In reality, she was chased and hounded into port by two light cruisers and one heavy, three ships that combined she should have outgunned.

yep, hell pretty much all the german "battleships" spent most of their time holed up in port scared to face allied sea power, and frankly hitler had no idea how to use a navy. and concerning graf spree the ship had stupidly thin armor, only thing that gave her any speed. I mean christ something like an iowa class ship would have chewed her up.

Posted: 7/26/2011 2:27:15 PM EST

[#32]

Quoted:

Genocide and depredation are not tools of national policy for us. We do not use them.

Damn, and here I thought we were living in the time of Josef Stalin or Nazi Germany......

Posted: 7/26/2011 2:27:39 PM EST

[#33]

Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

CGNs, not BBs. The BB isn't a platform that would work with those guns, it can't generate enough power.

Posted: 7/26/2011 2:29:23 PM EST

[#34]

Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

At the rate we're going, we'll never see anything of the sort in our lifetimes.

Posted: 7/26/2011 2:31:07 PM EST

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

CGNs, not BBs. The BB isn't a platform that would work with those guns, it can't generate enough power.

BBNs...

Posted: 7/26/2011 2:32:18 PM EST

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

CGNs, not BBs. The BB isn't a platform that would work with those guns, it can't generate enough power.

How about a BBN? An 890ft 58k ton nuke boat....... it would be awesome.

Posted: 7/26/2011 4:45:26 PM EST

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

CGNs, not BBs. The BB isn't a platform that would work with those guns, it can't generate enough power.

How about a BBN? An 890ft 58k ton nuke boat....... it would be awesome.

I'm all about it, WITH 9 ea 16 inch guns just for S&G. Technology has advanced to the point that nuke reactors are the next logical step in BB technology, and the effects of a 16 in LG or GPS guided projectile on a target on a beach head just makes my mouth water with excitement. It would be the Death Star of the USN.

Somewhere in VA, sitting quietly in a peaceful, spacious study room filled with the aromatic scent of fine pipe tobacco, complete with volumes of literature written about NSW sitting on custom-made hardwood shelves in the background-while wearing an expensive smoking jacket and sipping on a glass of golden, liquid wisdom-I can see a face turning purple and a head exploding.....

Posted: 7/26/2011 4:48:11 PM EST

[#38]

Heavy cruisers can inflict as much damage as an old battleship and to so more accurately and more efficiently with fewer personnel on board.

Posted: 7/26/2011 4:51:36 PM EST

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

CGNs, not BBs. The BB isn't a platform that would work with those guns, it can't generate enough power.

How about a BBN? An 890ft 58k ton nuke boat....... it would be awesome.

I'm all about it, WITH 9 ea 16 inch guns just for S&G. Technology has advanced to the point that nuke reactors are the next logical step in BB technology, and the effects of a 16 in LG or GPS guided projectile on a target on a beach head just makes my mouth water with excitement. It would be the Death Star of the USN.

Somewhere in VA, sitting quietly in a peaceful, spacious study room filled with the aromatic scent of fine pipe tobacco, complete with volumes of literature written about NSW sitting on custom-made hardwood shelves in the background-while wearing an expensive smoking jacket and sipping on a glass of golden, liquid wisdom-I can see a face turning purple and a head exploding.....

Now quick mention the Coastal Monitor with a 16 inch gun.

Posted: 7/26/2011 5:00:23 PM EST

[#40]

Quoted:
There are no active battle ships in the fleet at all anymore.

Unguided weapons are so lame :P

You mean like a Howitzer? You should see some of the smart munitions they use now. How about one unit firing multiple shells that all land miles away at the exact same second?

Posted: 7/26/2011 5:05:27 PM EST

[#41]

Nope the cost to deploy a battle ship is off set by cruse missiles

Posted: 7/26/2011 5:21:17 PM EST

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

CGNs, not BBs. The BB isn't a platform that would work with those guns, it can't generate enough power.

How about a BBN? An 890ft 58k ton nuke boat....... it would be awesome.

I'm all about it, WITH 9 ea 16 inch guns just for S&G. Technology has advanced to the point that nuke reactors are the next logical step in BB technology, and the effects of a 16 in LG or GPS guided projectile on a target on a beach head just makes my mouth water with excitement. It would be the Death Star of the USN.

Somewhere in VA, sitting quietly in a peaceful, spacious study room filled with the aromatic scent of fine pipe tobacco, complete with volumes of literature written about NSW sitting on custom-made hardwood shelves in the background-while wearing an expensive smoking jacket and sipping on a glass of golden, liquid wisdom-I can see a face turning purple and a head exploding.....

Now quick mention the Coastal Monitor with a 16 inch gun.

I think that's a great idea! In fact, the CG could be given that mission, along with port security and sea rescue. More money for an under-appreciated organization that I have great respect for. In the meantime, my BBN would be manned by merchant seamen.

Posted: 7/26/2011 5:34:33 PM EST

[#43]

Aren't battleship tactics about 100 years old now?

Seriously, we can launch bombing missions basically from anywhere in the world and hit a target anywhere else in the world. They didn't factor that in in 1911

Posted: 7/26/2011 5:54:08 PM EST

[#44]

Revell-Monogram.....Chinese Trumpeter...Airfix,they still make Battleships.....huge fleets of them too.

Posted: 7/26/2011 6:10:33 PM EST

[#45]

Quoted:
Revell-Monogram.....Chinese Trumpeter...Airfix,they still make Battleships.....huge fleets of them too.

Correct. Between bouts of posting GD gibberish in BB threads, I have conquered the world in my bathtub while my yellow rubber duck approved of my brilliant naval military leadership.

That's why Dport doesn't like me. He's jealous.

Posted: 7/26/2011 6:31:58 PM EST

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The battleships will fight on the seas again, only they will be armed with railguns and lasers. But since congress canceled the navy's railgun and laser development programs it will be a while.

CGNs, not BBs. The BB isn't a platform that would work with those guns, it can't generate enough power.

How about a BBN? An 890ft 58k ton nuke boat....... it would be awesome.

I'm all about it, WITH 9 ea 16 inch guns just for S&G. Technology has advanced to the point that nuke reactors are the next logical step in BB technology, and the effects of a 16 in LG or GPS guided projectile on a target on a beach head just makes my mouth water with excitement. It would be the Death Star of the USN.

Somewhere in VA, sitting quietly in a peaceful, spacious study room filled with the aromatic scent of fine pipe tobacco, complete with volumes of literature written about NSW sitting on custom-made hardwood shelves in the background-while wearing an expensive smoking jacket and sipping on a glass of golden, liquid wisdom-I can see a face turning purple and a head exploding.....

you'd have to redesign, from the ground up. There's no need at all for the 16" guns, so no need for the BB...

Posted: 7/26/2011 6:32:24 PM EST

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Revell-Monogram.....Chinese Trumpeter...Airfix,they still make Battleships.....huge fleets of them too.

Correct. Between bouts of posting GD gibberish in BB threads, I have conquered the world in my bathtub while my yellow rubber duck approved of my brilliant naval military leadership.

That's why Dport doesn't like me. He's jealous.

Posted: 7/26/2011 6:40:06 PM EST

[#48]

Quoted:
There are no active battle ships in the fleet at all anymore.

Unguided weapons are so lame :P

But we still have a frigate.

Last sailed on 21 July, 1997.

Fired her port and starboard batteries, too.

Posted: 7/26/2011 6:46:08 PM EST

[#49]

Quoted:
If you have to invade a beachhead again, wouldn't big guns be a good way to shell the coastline to soften it up?

Softening up a beachhead, in the traditional sense of throwing a lot of big BB shells at an opposed beach landing, has never really worked.

At Inchon what worked was DD's closing in tight to the shore and hitting targets they could see, and then (along with some gun cruisers) acting essentially as arty for the Marines. The most recent support fires from a gun was RN and RAN ships hitting targets in Iraq while once again acting as indirect fire called down by Royal Marines .

Precision works the best. Hitting targets as opposed to making impressive amounts of noise. And that's nothing current ships or planned ships, or aircraft can't do.

Posted: 7/26/2011 6:47:38 PM EST

[#50]

Today's cruisers could take out WWII's biggest baddest battleships in a heartbeat - hours and days before the battleships lumbered into range with something as primative as a 16" gun.

Dupe.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Battleships... do we still build them? (Page 2 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us