What made Battleships obsolete?

Here ya go:

http://www.bloggingwv.com/the-most-powerful-diesel-engine-in-the-world/

While these would be achingly slow, they would "fill the bill" and talk about economy! Well, in relation to hp produced and distance covered per gallon. Pretty thirsty in real terms, but inexpensive in relation to what they can move and for how far per gallon. I'm glad I was able to find that link again, interesting it is an engine design from Finland, but produced in Korea for cargo/container ships. Love the fact they left the humans in the frames for size reference.

 

It's the same principle as Nuclear propulsion. The reactor doesn't make the ship move. The reactor provides the energy (Electricity) for the boiler that makes the steam.

Brad

 

The reactor is used to heat water that is then pumped to a steam generator to heat secondary water that is used to turn a turbine. The reactor just replaces the boiler. It is another form of steam plant.

If anyone really wants me to I can explain in excruating detail how naval propulsion plants work seeing as how I worked on and ran them for 27 years.

 

You can look up some schematics for the German "H" class.

 

Sorry about that I meant to say "Electricty/ Heat" in reference to the diesel electric steam turbines that are used on the new USCG GLIB CGC Makinaw.

 

You also have to remember that post-WWII theres been a tactical shift from massive bombing campaigns/coastal bombardment to precise, controlled engagement, and in exceptional cases where such firepower is needed, (Vietnam) long range heavy bombers are more cost effective. These days there's rarely a need for whole areas being bombed. Imagine battleships acting as indirect fire support in the Middle East; there's just too much collateral damage.

Aircraft carriers, definitely filled in the role for force projection and precision bombing for both land and sea encounters, but also highly underrated cruisers have rendered them obsolete. Their missiles, although more expensive, have the capability to strike accurately and meet the requirements of the ever more unconventional battlefield.

 

If I am not mistaken, most, if not all, of the US Navy's Nuclear Propulsion literature/information/technical data, etc. are still highly classified.

I would caution anyone with knowledge of said material to bear that in mind when conversing online, or anywhere else.

 

That may be true, but I don't think it applies to the Somalian pirates. Think about it; the pirates attack 30,000 ton freighters in 25 foot skiffs. Anyone who does that isn't going to be impressed by mere size. The fact that the Iowa can deploy more firepower than current warships is irrelevant; how much firepower does one need to destroy a 25 foot skiff, or a 100 foot mother ship? The only weapons aboard the Iowa that might reasonably be used against Somalian pirates are the 5"/38's, and even these would probably be over kill most of the time.

 

i do believe that america us navys nuclear information technical data is highly classifired.
any us subs that had sunk at to be atttented too before the russians or any other nations find these us subs on the seabed,the americans wanted to keepe it a secret,this was in 1970's,so i am thinking it really be sercret in our days.
i don;t blame usa for keeping all there inventions secret,looke want happend to germany ande england! smart move from thee americans in my veiws.

 

The only statement a battleship makes today is that it is the most costly of all naval warships and does not offer any advantages in delivering ordnance over less costly warships. Yes, battleships can launch cruise missiles but so can subs and cruisers and do it less expensively. The big guns of a battleship are severely limited in range compared to cruise missiles.

If you take six smaller surface ships; i.e. frigates, cruisers, destroyers, all of them can do whatever is necessary to destroy any pirate vessel in existence. What they can do that a battleship can't do, is be in six different places at once, which is far more important than anything a battleship can do to counter pirates.

It's ludicrous to argue that a battleship what be cost effective in fighting pirates. Every warship currently in active US Navy service is far better at countering pirates than a battleship would be.

 

these days, c-130s, B-2s, and other TAC or naval air arms can deliver ordnance precisely at targets far inland, same as with a surface or sub-surface naval unit using long-range gunnery and precision guided missiles. when delivered stealthily by air or long-range missiles, the enemy will wake up the next morning and discover their major infrastructure destroyed. how much impact that has on morale, i can't tell.

as to the BB advocates, i also agree that the sight/knowledge that less than 20 miles from your shore a gargantuan ship is cruising; nearly indestructible, bristling with guns and missiles, commanded by a skipper with an attitude to match; will surely make anyone stop and think.

 

with regard to battling present day pirates, you're right. just remember that in the old days, pirates also had capital ships.

the US had used destroyers (in stealth) against soft offshore targets in iran. i remember karg island and some offshore oil rigs. but for the most part, the USN used iowa-class ships to come within 20 miles of a hostile shore. send destroyers and frigates near an enemy shore and you risk the same fate as the glamorgam in the flaklands, the stark, that israeli corvette off lebanon, and very nearly a pair of frigates during dessert storm.

 

You don't need a lot of range to hit targets in Somalia. The rounds from the 16"/50's are a lot less expensive than cruise missles and a BB has a lot more 16"/50 rounds than any smaller ship can carry cruise missles.

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Long Range Land Attack Projectile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many Frigates would it take to drop 36,000lbs of munitions on a single target?

The problem with the "Modern Navy" is that they are not prepared for an unconventional war at sea. With all due respect for the crew of the USS Cole,(U.S.S. Cole ) I don't think a Zodiac, packed with explosives, detonated at the waterline would have too much of an effect on any Iowa Class Battlewagon.

Battle ships make a statement. You can not fight a war against a 19th century opponant with 21st century technology and be effective.

 

We aren't talking about fighting opponents with cruise missiles and modern air forces, so why do you need a huge, expensive, armored leviathan? Fighting Somalian pirates involves taking out small boats, vessels the size of fishing trawlers armed with small arms and rocket launchers, and perhaps shooting up some minor port facilities, if things go that far.

The pirates would simply laugh at a battleship deployed off their coast and instead of overawing them, use of a battleship would just inflate their sense of self-importance. For what it would cost to deploy a battleship, a dozen or so much smaller, far more effective, warships could be much better utilized. Aside from the nostalgia involved in fielding a battleship, they have little utility in the real world.

What kind of shore targets are you talking about? Fishing ports occupied by handful of pirates and several hundred civilians? I'm sure bombarding such a target with a couple hundred 16" shells would do the job, but so would hitting the target with the same number of 5" shells fired by a destroyer, and it would be a lot cheaper and arouse a lot less criticism in the world media. You don't need a lot of range, as you pointed out, nor do you need a lot of dead civilians.

How many single pirate targets are there in Somalia that would require 36,000 pounds of ordnance to destroy? If any should ever be found, it would be much simpler, and far less costly, to launch a B-2 (capable of carrying 80 500-pound JDAM's), to take it out.

In fact, there has never been an instance in history where armored battleships have ever been effectively used against pirates, not one. The "Modern Navy" as you describe it, is far better equipped to fight pirates than WW II battleships which were designed to fight other battleships. The chance of pirates successfully using an inflatable packed with explosives against a destroyer at sea is just about nil. The USS Cole, if you will remember, was refueling in a crowded islamic port where defending itself was extremely difficult. Avoiding that scenario has much more to do with providing sufficient fleet oilers than with equipping the fleet with a costly dinosaur like a battleship.

You keep saying that "battleships make a statement", but the only statement they really make today is, "I have no idea how to defeat this opponent, so in desperation, I'm sending in an old, outmoded, inappropriately armed, fossil, in the absurd hope it will be able to overawe the enemy."

 

Maybe I am just nostalgiac. If you have ever walked the decks of an operational battleship maybe you would understand. There is a power that a battleship exudes when it is at sea and ready for battle, you can smell it, feel it, and taste it.

If the Iowa class Battleships are so obsolete than why won't the Navy, or Congress, allow the modern weapons platforms to be removed?

The only thing a modern Warship has over the Iowa Class BB's is no asbestos. If it weren't for asbestos they all would still be operational and the world would be a better place.

 

the gulf of aden problem is academic.

let's get this clear. a battleship today isn't entirely obsolete. the cost of a DDX land attack destroyer was set at 2.2 billion and its intended weapons haven't even been finalized. no existing ship in the USN is suited for land attack and littoral fighting and that's what keeps the iowas active (despite their legendary operating costs.) again think back, what kind of ships has the US navy openly sailed within 20 miles of the enemy's shore in the past 30 years?

 

Err.... What is a submarine?

I'll take Battlewagons for 2000 Alex!
J/K, J/K!

I agree with DA. Why do we need a 3000 lb prjectile to destroy a 50 lb skiff? What can a battleship do other than empty the treasury. IIRC there is a problem that our ships are to slow compared to the pirate skiffs. Will a battleship be faster than the ships already deployed? If we want to talk about the best way to fight pirates, than we should use our super carriers. They are being deployed anyways, so why not send one of them over to the Gulf of Aden?

 

I don't know who wrote the paper and I in no way support the veracity of the author; however, I do like the thesis and there is some great footage of BB's ( The Youtube link is a playlist of several videos not just the "Top10" episode):

21st CENTURY BATTLESHIPS (BBG-21s): Threat to the Inefficient Aircraft Carrier Land Bombardment Racket

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. A single Iowa BB stops an entire fleet from being sunk in a preemptive attack? It's like saying that if a carrier was at Pearl the Japanese would have been forced to call off the attack.

Wouldn't adding a flight deck for STOVL aircraft only increase it's vulnerability? I would think it would by adding all that fuel and munitions needed for flight operations.

The Italian Ship Roma was sunk by two Fritz-X radio guided munitions. To say that the Iowa's are fully capable of withstanding dozens of modern missiles is unfounded. The superior armored belts issue is also mute. Modern torpedoes are rigged to detonate underneath the ship, creating a huge amount of force that "breaks the back". To me it doesn't add up.

 

Hence my statement:

Aside from adding the fuel and munitions required for flight ops you also nullify the the no#3 Turret not to mention the issues associated with adding so much weight and it's affect on performance of the ship.

The Roma did not have the Phalanx(sp?) CIWS either. As far as torpedos that's anyones guess there are a lot of variables for torpedos one of them being that most hostile nations don't have the capabilty to deploy them; but, once the torpedo is in the water who knows. The 18" Armored band would certainly defelct the lion's share of any waterborne IED attack; which I think is more of a threat than torpedo attack.

I still think the largest problem with the BB's is that they contain asbestos and would have to be adapted to accomodate female sailors.

Brad