Archive through October 01, 2025
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Real-World Military:
Archive through October 01, 2025
I see legs in my future if this line of discussion continues.
Jean
WebMom
Quote:You might want to remember that the Admirals in charge of Navy development tended to be aviation / carrier officers.
Of Course they concluded any project to return the battleships to service is not viable.
Jeff, with all due respect, that's BS. I could just as easily claim:
"You might want to remember that the writers for U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings tended to be Naval otaku.
Of Course they concluded any project to return the battleships to service is very viable."
You can always hypothesize some reason why someone arguing a contrary position is doing so for unworthy motives. And it has zero evidentiary value. But even if it were a good idea back in 2000 (which I do not concede, until I see more evidence), those ships are now more than 20 years older. The world's political situation is very different. Militay technology is very different. Our economic situation is very different. So even if it were a good idea in 2000, that hardly proves that it would be a good idea now.
Jason Schaff;
H.M.S Prince of Wales - sunk by airstrikes (not involving nukes) on 10 December 1941.
Musashi - sunk by airstrikes (not involving nukes) on 24 October 1944.
Yamato - sunk by airstrikes (not involving nukes) on 7 April 1945.
None of these were in harbor. They were underway and maneuvering. Musashi and Yamato were larger and more heavily armored than an Iowa class battleship. H.M.S. Prince of Wales was smaller, but did have thicker deck and belt armor. (The Iowas had thicker turret armor.)
Modern air forces have penetrating ordnance that would cut through the deck armor of any battleship with ease. As "bunker busters", the usually have GPS guidance - not so good against a maneuvering warship. But they could easily be fitted with laser or electro-optical guidance systems.
Modern anti-ship missiles don't have warheads designed to penetrate armor, because they don't need them. But such warheads could be developed for modern missiles in a small fraction of the time (and for a small fraction of the expense) required to return a battleship to operational status.
On the Iowas, it is also worth noting, when built, it was with an expected 20 year service life, given how often they were in, and out, of mothballs, they are very close to that age.
It is time for them to be torn down, and have their engines, and machinery replaced. On one hand, this will allow for modern power plant usage, on the other, this will be time consuming, and expensive. Furthermore, a lot of the knowledge to work on WW II vintage armor has been lost, it will also take time and money to relearn that.
My only comment on Sec Hegeseth's speech is that how it's received has a lot to do with the hearer of his words. Generally speaking (I'm not addressing specific comments here on the BBS) I've seen a lot of conclusory statements made (pro and con), but little in the way of real logic.
Such an approach may feel good because one can vent one's spleen, but the effect is likely just to inflame the other side and is quite unlikely to sway opinions. For example, calling someone a "Nazi" is obviously inflammatory, probably untrue, and absolutely not going to shame that person into giving up a dearly held belief. Rather, the aggrieved hearer will call you a Nazi (or evil, or whatever). Which is just as unlikely to persuade you. In all probability, neither of you will actually cause the other to knuckle under, so all that is accomplished is hatred. Being clever with mean verbal ripostes only makes the situation worse. You may show off how smart you are, but all you've done is increase the heat, which is generally counterproductive.
Assuming swaying opinions is the intent.
If one *wants* conflict, then angry tirades are an effective way of generating it - something that our enemies (Russia and China, for example) are taking full advantage of. Indeed, being deeply involved in the world of AI, I've seen reports that both Russia and China have engaged in state-sanctioned, AI-driven "rage machines" (social media accounts) both liberal and conservative -they don't care, so long as conflict arises. Sadly, their strategy is working, though its long term consequences may not turn out the way they want (i.e., results are unpredictable and may end up harming them more than us). For example, the rage is not really paralyzing us, it's driving radical changes in policy every few years which can have unpredictable results.
So, what we get is a lot of mud-slinging and name-calling and close to zero real discussion. I'd like to see more of the latter, personally.
I propose:
1) a person can have a wrong opinion about an important subject and still be a person that wants to do good and should be treated with respect regardless,
2) you yourself may be wrong because you have wrong assumptions, or wrong logic, and thus should listen carefully,
3) our enemies WANT us to sling mud at each other (and therefore we should deliberately not do so), and
4) getting angry is going to hurt the angry person a heck of a lot more than the person you're angry at. (Snide comments about violence aside, holding anger like that hurts yourself and others, and even in the case of violence generally only begets violence against those whom you care about or creates martyrs that hurt your cause).
Believe it or not, it really is possible to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with you about a subject you care about in a deeply personal way. I've done it many times. Indeed, there are some people that I genuinely call "friends" with whom I have profound disagreements, and either I or they are personally involved in the subject matter. I'm talking about issues that have an extremely profound effect on life choices and self-identity, and yet we remain civil and remain friends.
Bottom line, it's my opinion that characterization should be made less inflammatory and be backed up by reasoned argument. Who knows, maybe you'll convince someone on the other side - or maybe your own opinions will be modified for the better.
That doesn't mean you easily back away from dearly held beliefs. It does mean treating others with respect, even when they get upset with you and even more especially when you get upset with them.
I restate - I'm criticizing no one on the BBS, and I address no commentary made here about Sec Hegseth's speech. I'm not addressing his speech at all (though I do have my own unspoken opinions about it).
I'm making general observations about our society, the effect of confirmation bias on how people interpret a speaker's words, and how we need to be aware of our enemies' damaging social engineering on our society (and consciously counter it).
I am curious about the Battleship argument. From the comments above, it sounds like there may be an actual debate.
For those of you who know the subject better, I'd love to grab the popcorn and watch the discussion while I learn...
Ted; as mentioned above, Battleship New Jersey is a you tube channel that covers this subject in some depth, as does Drachinifel on navy topics in general, pre-1950. Yes Drachinifel did the April fools B-10 episode, he mostly does serious stuff.
All the Iowa class names have been reallocated to new subs.
In fact, the USS Missouri (SSBN-780), USS Iowa (SSN-797), and USS New Jersey (SSN-796) are all in active service now.
The USS Wisconsin (SSBN-827) has been laid down.
Ryan
You could always rename either the old Battleships or new Subs
Is is just the Royal Navy that considers it is very unlucky to rename a ship (unless it's captured!!)..... but I am guessing Naval Personal of most navies are superstitous to one degree or another - and so not a good start for a ship!?!
As others have mentioned - 80 years is along time - what hidden cracks/fractures will exist?
How easy is it to mass repair 80 year old steel (noting it can be done - various historical ships have it done - but there clearly is a difference between 'welding to avoid part X falling off so it's sfe to tourists to walk past it while is moored up or in a dry dock - v repaired so it can go to sea AND fight - and firing those 16" guns will cause ALOT of stress*).
* - Not a new issue - I know on some ships which became 'overgunned' due to other restrictions (Wahington Navy Treaty and HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney for example) was unable to either fire a full broadside, as it caused structural damage when they did - and so even firing 2 to 6 barrels at a time, doing that with 80 year old steel sounds 'interesting??
So - you need to build new Ammo - and probably new Barrel linings (as they didn't last for ever back then, never mind now - unless a spare two or three dozen was put in storage?).
X-Ray the whole ship to see if there is any terminal cracks in the hull.
Repair it (and possibly use laiminated armour where you have to cut out sections whuch are too warn/damaged to repair - as the ability make 12" Steel plate I doubt it easily possible).
Find enough crew to man it (noting something which comes up every so often, especially with new partly Automated ships - fewer crew can cause critial failures with damage control - extra crew is extra damage control).
And then yes, anyone within 20 miles of the Coast will fear those guns.
BUT - I think it is actually relatively easy to Mission kill a Battleship - enough light damage WILL destroy it's Radar, Sensors and any technology - blind firing guns can be done.... but other than hitting the 'ground', thats about the best you can hope for.
** - In the late 1990's - did a Naval game where the US had a Battleship and I was the Russians/USSR - Anti-Ship missiles could hit the Battleship and would bounce on the armour (I don't think the rules where tehchnical enough to work out damage on armour - they was modern rules after all!!)- but with the rules, with enough hits on the superstructure she was blinded.
Sounds a wonderful idea - but I think that ship salied the last time they was re-activated and then put back in reserve/mothball.
(Yes, Pun intended!)
Well stated, Ted.
Just in case NATO wasn't busy enough... anyone following the "Global Sumud Flotilla"?
Its about 120 miles off the Coast of Gaza (so still in International Waters) - and it's 'closely' being followed by the Italian navy frigate Alpino and the Spanish patrol vessel Furor - plus a Turkish Recon Plane.... and the Israeli Navy.
The previous flotilla was intercepted in international waters by the Israeli Navy - it seems this one will get closer though before anything might happen (I would guess 8 hours or so to leave International Waters and cross the blockaid 'line').
If the Flotilla called for help - what would the Spainish and Italian ships do (noting if a ship was sinking, the Maritime Rules of the Sea might create a situation where a rescue is attempted and a 'further accident' happens)?
Would either side fire warning shots to 'warn the other off'?
Would we even know how to build a BB from scratch in this day and age? It's not like we can crank out ships like we did back in WW2.
Thanks, everyone!
There is one situation where I can definitely see a battleship-sized and battleship-armored (preferably with an appropriately scaled icebreaker bow) being useful in the modern word.
Send it to the South China Sea to join the ongoing games of chicken between various ships of various nations who are arguing over ownership of the various island, etc., therein. As long as they are just risking ramming, fire hoses, boarding axes, etc., I would say that the battleship would win any deep-water confrontations with anything that could not outrun it. Make sure it's got good ABM capability or nearby support plus a strong SAM capability and say a half dozen CWIS on each beam, and it will successfully "deal with" any aggressive vessels in anything less than a major shooting war.
Now, would that be cost effective, either as a reactivation of an Iowa or as a new construction? No, but it would be fun to watch the videos of "bullying" ships try to bully that ship!
James
My 2p...
It will cost an abosolute fortune (see my earlier post - how do you repair 80 year old steel etc) - so it's possible, but not cheap. A new BB would be even more!
Yep - minor bumps between two vessels will see the other vessel come off far worse...
...... but it may well be, any damage done to the BB will be horribly expensive to repair.
A gouge 100 feet in length down the side of the hull for example - think Titanic, but not as bad!!! (And yes, the other ship will probably sink).
The armour might well hold, but any cracking will perhaps make it terminal in cost to repair?
As others have mentioned - is there enough skilled workers to do the work - as you don't want to start the work and 3 years later, finish that work and because of the delays have to do other work on it.
(Famous UK example is the Firth of Forth Bridge - it takes 7 years to paint it ad by the time they have finished....they go back to the other end and start again! I am sure there are other examples - Huge companies which had to manually update PCs from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95, no doubt were delighted when they had nearly finished and Windows 98 came out!!!)
So, it's fun to think of, but IMHO is just not practical now.
First Point: I want to apologize to Jeff Wile for saying (in my 9:12 PM post from yesterday) that his argument was "BS". I am not backing off from my claim that his argument was flawed. Implying that Navy arguments against bringing back battleships were wrong because the officers advancing those arguments were "aviation / carrier officers" is flawed because you can always hypothesize some unworthy motive for "the other side". But even if bias exists, it doesn't prove the argument itself is false. That can only be deteremined by examining the arguments on their own merits. Are they factually correct? If so, what to those facts actually mean? Are the interpretations of the facts correct or are other interpretations equally or more plausible?
So I stand by my position that his argument is flawed. It deals in accusations of improper motives and ignores the merits of the arguments themselves. But the way I worded the sentence in question was unnecessarily ill-mannered. I shouldn't have put it that way, and apologize for doing so.
Second Point: One point I haven't seen addressed yet is the vulnerability of battleships to submarines. The U.S. currently has the largest (and presumably best) submarine fleet on the planet. But numbers 2, 3, and 4 are Russia, China, and Iran; all "bad actors". Even if we have qualitative superiority, the combined submarine forces of 2, 3, and 4 outnumber us significantly in number of hulls. And China at least is rapidly modernizing its submarine force. Rather than spending enormous resources to put a battleship back into commission, I think we would be better off increasing our submarine building rate and/or upgrading the ASW capabilities of our surface forces. Note that either option would require major (and expensive) upgrades to our infrastructure.
>> upgrading the ASW capabilities of our surface forces
Bring back the Vikings!
--Mike
Have any of you heard of "Quicksink"?
USS Wisconsin in 1956 had a collision with the Destroyer Eaton, the Wisconsin was repaired by using 68 ft of the bow of the unfinished Kentucky, took 3 week to replace it, no cost is given, but they were fortunate that they did not have to use new construction.
Paul at present there are no steel mills capable of making the armor used in battleships, it is questionable if the mill were available that there is anyone with the knowledge to even know how it was done. Some plates could take weeks to got through the whole process.
Alan note the the Italian Battle Ship Roma was sunk by a German Fritz-X glide bombs in Sept 1943
Alan Trevor:
Regarding the battleship sinkings you point to:
Prince of Wales - zero air defense other than its own AA guns and those of HMS Repulse. Also worth noting that Repulse lasted in fighting shape for several hours before the Japanese were able to finish her off.
Yamato - zero air defense except for her AA guns and those of her escorts and attacked by waves of hundreds of aircraft
Musashi - minimal air defense except for her AA guns and those of her escorts and attacked by waves of hundreds of aircraft.
Yeah, if someone is stupid enough to send a ship into a situation where the enemy has overwhelming air superiority, the ship will be sunk; even a heavily armored BB. Supposed counterexamples that depend upon your enemy being an idiot hold no water.
Alan:
Thank you, I appreciate your taking time to clarify your meaning.
As to point #1.
You do need to recognize, that there are historical examples of officers exercising their personal bias against their peers/competition.
John Erickson, was shunned and blamed for an accidental failure of a competitors failure of an experimental gun on board the U.S.S. Princeton.
Nearly prevented the Navy from acquiring what became the U.S.S. Monitor. (Imagine the damage the confederate ironclad could have done had the Monitor not been there to intervene.)
Or The episode leading up to the Court Martial of Billy Mitchell. The Battleship admirals tried to “fix” the demonstration of air power targeting a German Dreadnought battleship war prize in the 1920s.
I would argue that the “Revolt of the Admirals” in the late 1940s was a direct result of the cancellation of the Aircraft Carrier U.S.S. United States. (Opinions differ depending on who is telling the story, but members of the U.S. Air Force argued that aircraft carriers were obsolete and that money allocated for the U.S. Navy would be better spent on buying more intercontinental bombers. (I think they were advocating B-36 bombers, but I might be misremembering that part.))
There were even air force officers arguing against any funding of space exploration out side of earths atmosphere because rocket thrust wouldn’t function in vacuum. (Robert Heinlein wrote about it in one of his few nonfiction books.) (this last example dates back to the mid 1940’s.)
With regard to point #2.
I think you have misstated the issue:
The main point is not that a submarine can attack a battleship, (or indeed, any surface ship.)
It needs to be restated in terms Sea Control verses Sea Denial.
Submarines are fine platforms for the classic Sea Denial Mission.
What Submarines lack, is a practical ability for Sea Control Role.
Granted, with cruise missiles, they can effect a limited Force Projection role, (at least until they run out of cruise missiles and torpedoes.)
Aircraft carriers (and to a lesser extent) Battleships are better suited for the classic Force Projection role in that a full Carrier Air Wing (60-90 combat aircraft) have long range (and air refueling capability) and a Force Multiplier effect in that the Air Wing can conduct multiple missions over an extended period. (At sea replenishment of weapons fuel or even, if needed replacement aircraft and personnel.
Battleships (depending on the class ship and the magazine capacity) can fire many salvos of their main gun battery. (British battleships standard was 200 rounds per gun. Not sure what the Iowas ammunition supply was.)
Granted, the range of a battleship is far less than that of a modern carrier, but it works out that anything inside of a circle 48 to 54 miles could be targeted and hit within a couple of minutes, while a carrier needs far more time to load, fuel, and launch an air attack
Of strike aircraft.
(Do the math, with a muzzle velocity of 2,700 feet per second, the flight time of a Iowa battleship main gun battery is far faster than a carrier could hope to match, unless they keep a attack strike in the air ready and able to hit the enemy 24/7, 365 days a year.)
And as long as were talking about money, new nuclear attack submarines are not cheap. With life cycle as in use by the U.S. Navy, you need three Submarines to ensure one sub is available all of the time.
We talked about this before, 18 months preparing for a deployment, 18 months actually on deployment, and 18 months after deployment, (repair refit, crew rotation, modifications and upgrades for weapons and physical plant (such as power plants, engines and other hardware systems such as communications or navigation. Etc.))
54 months, repeat as necessary, more time if SLEP is scheduled, or the nuclear reactor requires refueling (once every 15 years or so.)
Both Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships, to a less effective standard, are able to deploy ASW aircraft (or helicopters in the case of Battleships.)
Submarines are definitely not able to operate the sort of air assets needed for air superiority missions or even air mobile anti submarine operations.
Which means a sub is only able to conduct ASW up to the maximum range of its sensors, or, if operating as part of a coordinated group of ships or other subs, up to a maximum range of any ship or boat in the group, limited by communications.
(Note, active communications or other emissions (sound, cavitation of propellors etc.) can be detected by an enemy.)
So, yes, a battleship can be targeted and destroyed. So can carriers or submarines.
It is not just what vulnerabilities a battleship has, its that a battleship could bring other weapons and capabilities to the battle group.
And that is the part of the discussion we have been prevented from having while we are nit picking about 16inch shells and the cost to replace an old obsolete weapon ammunition, instead of what new weapons could be mounted on a nearly 900 foot long, 108 foot wide and 45,000+ displacement ton ships.
Eddie Crutchfield:
I suspect you are mistaken.
U.S. Carriers armor data is not available, but carrier decks have been and presumably continue to be armored.
Both the U.S.S. Forestal and U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) suffered massive explosions when a number of aircraft were on deck preparing to launch on a strike mission, when multiple air to ground missiles “cooked off”.
The Enterprise survived the equivalent of 19 missile detonations back in 1969 during training off of Hawaii.
Fires burned for hours, but when extinguished, the captain reported his ship was mission ready.
I don’t remember the situation on the Forestal, but one of the pilots of the squadron on deck at the time was John Mccain, shortly before he was shot down in Vietnam.
There were other carriers damage In similar situations back in the 1960’s…accidental explosions did occur.
Also, when the U.S.S. America, conventional powered attack carrier was expended some years ago, there was an damage assessment team that examined the damage to the ship after each attack. Don’t know if that report was ever released, but it would probably answer the question as armor used in American aircraft carriers.
The Iowa class battleships after their 1980s reactivations carried a number of Harpoon and Tomahawk missile launchers giving the an extended range of attack. I do not recall if they fired any of those missiles during Desert Storm.