User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:38:12 AM EDT
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:41:03 AM EDT
[#1]
In before Josh and Dport. No we don't build BB's anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:46:40 AM EDT
[#2]
But we're still building carriers and subs... curious what their long term plan is to protect the carriers because those BB's won't last forever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:48:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
But we're still building carriers and subs... curious what their long term plan is to protect the carriers because those BB's won't last forever. We, um... we really don't use BBs to protect our carriers... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:49:08 AM EDT
[#4]
What are you calling a battleship?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:49:20 AM EDT
[#5]
There are no active battle ships in the fleet at all anymore.
Unguided weapons are so lame :P |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:49:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
But we're still building carriers and subs... curious what their long term plan is to protect the carriers because those BB's won't last forever. Tell me you meant to say "destroyers." Please tell me you mean DDGs, and not BBs. 
And yes, we're still building DDGs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:50:04 AM EDT
[#7]
I dont think so
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:50:11 AM EDT
[#8]
We have no BB's in service, the last Iowa Class BB is long since retired. The BB is not a cost effective platform in terms of the cost of crewing and maintaining.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:50:13 AM EDT
[#9]
sir, i do not believe there is a battleship in active duty with the united states navy. there has not been since OIF I.
missiles, i believe, are the reason. no need in having 16" guns when you can program gps coordinates into a cruise missile, punch the "launch" button, and there she goes, target soon to be obliterated. sad, but true. the Iowa was the last one in service, i believe. a leviathan loaded to the gills with whoop-ass. -tom! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:50:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
But we're still building carriers and subs... curious what their long term plan is to protect the carriers because those BB's won't last forever. No they didn't..........welcome to 2011...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:51:29 AM EDT
[#11]
This thread is not going to go as you expected. And I have a feeling it will become amusing.
The last "battleship" in our fleet was decommissioned nearly 20 years ago. Is this a battleship in current use you are referring to? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:51:51 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
We still have them .... but are all of our battleships ancient, or do we have any new ones being built?
Hate to break the news to you but we do not have any commissioned Battleships. We have not had any for a long while now. There are 0 plans to build anything with a BB designation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:52:02 AM EDT
[#13]
I like where this thread is going
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:55:25 AM EDT
[#14]
In before our resident BB lover.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:56:25 AM EDT
[#15]
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:56:31 AM EDT
[#16]
Ahhh... edjamacate me here... so Destroyers then... are we still building those?
I've never taken any interest in naval vessels before last night's show.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:57:36 AM EDT
[#17]
In b4 D_port
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:57:44 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Ahhh... edjamacate me here... so Destroyers then... are we still building those? I've never taken any interest in naval vessels before last night's show. Destroyers! There ya go. 
Old post. But just something about destroyers and relatively new plans. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3927940 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 9:58:02 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Ahhh... edjamacate me here... so Destroyers then... are we still building those? I've never taken any interest in naval vessels before last night's show. Arleigh Burkes |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 10:03:26 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Ahhh... edjamacate me here... so Destroyers then... are we still building those? I've never taken any interest in naval vessels before last night's show. Ok I'll try. I'll also assume you are as much a naval newb as me. Battleship to a sailor means something. It means a specific class of ships, with very specific characteristics. Kind of like guns. A sub-machine gun, and a machine pistol, and a rifle, and an assault rifle are all "guns". But each one is very specific with certain areas where they shine, and others where they do not. So it is with battleships. Cruisers, and destroyers, and frigates are all "battleships" i.e ships constructed for war, but that definition only works for uneducated newbs like me and you. Our carrier groups are protected by submarines and guided missile cruisers and destroyers like the Ticonderoga class and the Arleigh Burke class. We fight naval battles differently now than in WWII so our ships our different. Hope this helps as a starting point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 10:19:54 AM EDT
[#21]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 10:26:45 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Ahhh... edjamacate me here... so Destroyers then... are we still building those? I've never taken any interest in naval vessels before last night's show. Battleship  Not Battleships. Burke Class  Long Beach  Ticonderoga Class  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 10:28:17 AM EDT
[#23]
You do realize that battleships have been obsolete ever since the rulers of Britain, Germany and Russia were cousins, don't you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 10:28:49 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 10:38:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Nope; BBs were built at a time when they were the flagships of navies and the mentality was that we would engage on BB to BB engagements at sea. In this day and age, BBs habve been made obsolete by the Supercarriers (the new flagships) and smaller, more maneuverable DDGs that not only can provide beyond the horizon protection for the Battle group with their vertically launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, but also are the eyes and ears of the task force with their radar systems...
We still have our HPs (Oliver Hazard-Perry Class Frigates - 20 in active service) and the bulk of our surface fleet is comprised of both the ABs (Arleigh-Burke Class Destroyers - 60 in active service, with two - the Spruance (DDG-111) in pre-commission and the Michael Murphy (DDG-112) out of dry dock, still under construction) and out remaining TIcos (Ticonderoga Class Cruisers - 22 in active service). The old Battle wagons like the Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and New Jersey served with honor and distinction since WW2 and through the Korean War, Vietnam, The Cold War and Operations Desert Storm. All our BBs are now museums, except for the USS Iowa (BB-61), which is waiting at the Reserve fleet in Suisun Bay for a city to take her as a museum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:07:03 AM EDT
[#26]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:08:37 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
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. Those got put up for scrap not that long ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:12:15 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Ahhh... edjamacate me here... so Destroyers then... are we still building those? I've never taken any interest in naval vessels before last night's show. There's a huge difference between battleships and destroyers. Battleships have 4 holes and destroyers only have 2.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:42:46 AM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:43:43 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: ^Quoted: But we're still building carriers and subs... curious what their long term plan is to protect the carriers because those BB's won't last forever. Tell me you meant to say "destroyers." Please tell me you mean DDGs, and not BBs. And yes, we're still building DDGs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:45:45 AM EDT
[#31]
bring back the big guns! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:46:34 AM EDT
[#32]
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:46:46 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Ahhh... edjamacate me here... so Destroyers then... are we still building those? I've never taken any interest in naval vessels before last night's show. There's a huge difference between battleships and destroyers. Battleships have 4 holes and destroyers only have 2.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:48:36 AM EDT
[#34]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:53:05 AM EDT
[#35]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 11:58:00 AM EDT
[#36]
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. Current plans, as I understand it, is to equip all new DDs with enough power generation to mount rail guns when they become available. That's the future of navel guns. The projectiles fired by these guns will eventually be self-correcting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:00:41 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:03:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
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 didn't mount 16in Guns. They had 8in guns and the Desmoines Class had the latest Mk16 raid fire semi auto guns. But even an 8in shell coming through your window would wake you up! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:06:49 PM EDT
[#39]
The battleship of the future - the Arsenal Ship.
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:07:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
^
Quoted:
But we're still building carriers and subs... curious what their long term plan is to protect the carriers because those BB's won't last forever. Tell me you meant to say "destroyers." Please tell me you mean DDGs, and not BBs.
And yes, we're still building DDGs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:12:29 PM EDT
[#41]
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 As dead as BB-71. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:16:32 PM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:18:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Big gun ships became obsolete when aircraft became the primary means of destroying other ships. The range of the guns will not outreach the range of the airplane. Hence by the '30s some sailors figured out that the big gun ships were doomed to a secondary role to the aircraft carrier. While battleships were still useful to fight other battleships, to provide fire support for amphibious operations and to act as anti-aircraft platforms to protect the aircraft carrier, the battleship reached its zenith in 1944 and then forever lost its importance as a weapon in the naval arsenal. Interestingly, in 1945-46 Britain finished her last battleship that the Royal Navy would ever have, the HMS Vanguard. She was a good ship, but her armament dated back to WW I with her eight 15" guns mounted in four turrets. They were the same type of guns mounted on the WW I Queen Elizabeth or Royal Sovereign class battleships or the HMS Hood or HMS Renown & Repulse class battle-cruisers.
Battleships can still be useful for amphibious operation and nothing is scarier than 16" shell that can flatten an entire city block, but we've other armaments that can do the job with greater precision and less collateral damage. Sadly, the day of the big gun ships are over. I suspect that with newer aircraft the days of the carrier may also be approaching its end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:20:07 PM EDT
[#44]
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 dead battleship. Fixed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:25:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
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. Don't be silly. Cruise missiles and bombs say it much better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:25:55 PM EDT
[#46]
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. True, even if you attached low yield tactial nukes to the tomahawks all you get is outrage of the world and maybe escalation. The terror and damage that can be done by 16 inch guns is beyond belief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:27:27 PM EDT
[#47]
why would we?
Its a crime to defend yourself here. You must allow others to walk over because your white and have money. You must take it like a sport and understand that having ships hurts other countries feelings. Get over your self and be quiet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:27:33 PM EDT
[#48]
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. See TLAM-A (not sure how many of those are still in existence, though)... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:35:21 PM EDT
[#49]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 12:39:22 PM EDT
[#50]
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. Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors. they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades. What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
