Archive through October 02, 2025
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Real-World Military:
Archive through October 02, 2025
Jason;
It seems to me you're kind of moving the goalposts.
Quote:Incredibly hard to sink, or even mission-kill, with anything short of a nuke. Does anyone have a weapon, other than the 16" guns on the Iowas, capable of piercing 6-12" of high-quality armor plate?
Sound familiar? It should. That's your own very first point from your earlier post considering the pros and cons of reactivating battleships. And that point emphasized the "hardness" of battleships, suggesting that "anything short of a nuke", or the Iowa's own guns, couldn't do much against the armor. And that just isn't true. Even in WW2, weapons other than "battleship-caliber" guns were quite capable of crippling or killing battleships. Our current armor-defeating technology is far more advanced. That technology isn't generally employed on anti-ship weapons because modern warships are not armored. But it certainly could be, if the need were to arise.
And that's what my post was addressing; your implication that battleships would be "incredibly hard to sink" because of their armor. That's a completely separate point from those battleships not having adequate air cover. I cited the examples I did to show that battleship armor can be defeated, and by technology 80+ years older than what we have today.
Jeff;
I've never denied that
Quote:... there are historical examples of officers exercising their personal bias against their peers/competition.
But the existance of the bias doesn't disprove the argument. The argument might be right in spite of the fact that the person advacing the argument is biased. That's why the arguments must still be considered on their own terms. Let's go back to your original quote that I objected to.
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.
You provide zero evidence that these "Admirals in charge of Navy development" were biased in their assessment, implying instead that the mere fact* that most of them were "aviation / carrier officers" was proof they were biased and therefore wrong. You followed that up in your subsequent post by citing some historical examples. But how does blaming John Ericcson for a gun exploding provide any evidence at all regarding whether the arguments of those "Admirals in charge of Navy development" well over 100 years later, were sound or not?
More later.
*(Well, assumption. Unless I miscounted, there have been 24 Chiefs of Naval Operations, and two "acting" CNOs who only served for short periods of time, since the end of WW2. Only six of them had a primarily aviation background.
On the BB debate...
...surely the relevant two points are
1) If you have sufficent aircover - Armour is not needed
2) If you don't have sufficent aircover - Armour might help, but you may still be sunk?
I am sure 'someone', 'somewhere' has run the numbers.
Under 2) - how much 'airpower' or 'Missiles' is needed to get through a modern AAA defensive grid to get enough hits on a Battleship?
The answer might be, no nation in the World, other than the US can get 300+ Aircraft or Missies into a small enouogh area to overwelm the AAA, to give the chance enough gets through to get enough damage done?
So, a Modern BB might be considered 'survivable' enough to make it worth while.
Equally, the Sub threat might be enough to say 'too many eggs in one basket' or the 'sods law' effect* (both Hood and Bismark are good examples have an 'unlucky' hit', which should never have happened - and Roma perhaps a combination of unlucky AND poor preperation) - to discount a modern BB.
* - For every 4 or 5 ships battered to death (post 1914), I bet 1 ship was lost because something unexpected happened? In other words - the "1:100 event" of something happening, is perhaps 1:10 to 1:20?
The middle ground is therefore perhaps some light modern armour (which can be easily built), with 8-12 more easily buildable Guns, to provide the instant 'cheaper' firepower ships give - the classic Battlecruiser for example.
8" Guns are probably easy to build still - not sure how quick say a 14" gun could be built?
So - is a Heavy Cruiser is probably the largest ship which can be rapdily and cost effectively built? Is that sufficent for the modern roll of replacing BB's (with Missiles, it probably is, to give some longer ranger capacity - but they don't have the shock and awe the old BB's gave.....so they might just be seen as another ship??)
Playing Devils Advocate to my own post (and too late to edit).
Under point 1 - something will stil get through, even if you have sufficent aircover.
So heavy armour (BB) is better than light armour (BC) which is better than no real armour (95%+ of modern Warships?)
However, unlike WW2 (which I thought about on the way to work) - I don't think many nations can sustain a high enough levels of attacks to get enough aricraft or missiles to 'leak through' - to get that lucky hit (as a single missile or bomb may not sink a ship**)?
** - Most recent Naval War I think was the Falklands - and the Royal Navy lost several ships - but most was sunk due to multiple hits - HMS Sheffield being the exception (and hence why Alumminimum is used less often now, as it it burnt too easily??)
Is that sufficent to bring back BB's - I don't think so.
USNI news (a subsidiary of the U.S. aNaval Institute Proceedings) post an article back in 2022.
Quote: “ Japan’s Ministry of Defence is proposing to build a pair of ballistic missile defense ships – the among largest warships in the Japanese inventory since World War II – government officials said last week.
The Ministry of Defense listed design expenses and engines for the two Aegis BMD ships among 100 items requested that did not have a specific cost at the time of the budget rollout as part of its FY23 budget request. The Ministry of Defense requested $39.7 billion in spending for the next fiscal year, which exceeds the FY 2022 budget of $38.4 billion.
The two ships would be built instead of the land-based Aegis Ashore installations that the Japanese Self-Defence Force backed away from in 2020 based on risks of missile debris falling to the ground, USNI News reported at the time.
“In view of the cost and time [necessary] for the deployment, we will halt the process,” then-Minster of Defense Taro Kono told reporters, according to Kyodo News.
“For the time being, we’ll maintain our missile defense capability by Aegis-equipped destroyers.”
The two Aegis destroyers are expected to have a displacement of around 20,000 tons with a length of 690 feet and a beam of around 130 feet, making them one of the largest and heaviest ship that the JMSDF will operate. In comparison the Izumo class helicopter destroyers have a displacement 19,800 tons (27,000 tons with a full load) with a length of 800 feet and a beam of 124 feet while Japan’s largest destroyers are the Maya class destroyers, which have a displacement of 8200 tons and a beam of 22.2 meters.”
While not a classic Battleship, at 20,000 tons and 690 feet long, these two anti ballistic missile ships are twice the displacement of most of the heavy cruisers the U.S. navy had during WW2.
I would argue that this is an indication that still larger surface ships will be built by several nations. Probably not armed with 16 inch gunned turret ships, but missile armed, and likely some sort of anti drone defenses.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed taking the €140 billion in frozen Russian assets in European banks and use it to buy weapons made in Europe (such as the Eurofighter Typhoon) and provide them to Ukraine.
Go, Ursula, Go!
OK, what did President Trump mean by "bringing back battleships"? Given that he cited thick armor (well, 6 inches?) and the relative cost of large caliber shells compared to missiles, he was not talking about some new, very large cruiser. He was talking about reactivating at least some of the Iowa-class ships. That's the matter under dispute. Would it be a good idea to reactivate Iowa-class battleships?
I am not actually 100% against the idea. I'm more like... 80% against the idea. I believe the project would be enormusly expensive and I have so far heard no arguments that convince me that the money would not be better spent on other things, whether (limiting it just to naval assets) multiple smaller surface ships, or aircraft, or submarines, or more capable weapons for existing platforms. A lot obviously depends on just how much putting an Iowa back into commission would cost. No one knows. But pretty much everyone (that I've heard address the issue in any detail) seems to agree it would require multiple billions of dollars, and multiple years.
On the other hand, the Government's... admirable... record of completing large and technically complex projects on time and under budget reassures me greatly...
What does a battleship bring to the table, that we can't get with contemporary vessels? BIG guns and thick armor. I've tried to address the armor issue above. The armor does indeed make the battleship harder to sink. It would be silly to deny that. But I've already expressed my belief that it wouldn't improve survivability enough to justify all the other hassles involved, everything from badly antiquated machinery and electrical systems, to crew training.
I've previously mentioned Ryan Szimanski, curator of the New Jersey museum ship. In one of his videos, he mentioned the ship being visited by a former battleship sailor. This sailor told Ryan that he believed there were only four sailors still in the Navy who had ever served on a battleship. That video was made six years ago. Even if all four of them are still around, their collective knowledge would span only a small portion of all the battleship's systems. Is there sufficient corporate knowledge between them and recently retired personnel (who might be temporarily brought back under special provisions) to teach the sailors who would actually man the battleships? Maybe... possibly... but I suspect that for at least some of the systems involved, there is no one at all who could show new sailors how that system works, and how to maintain it. The sailors would be learning the systems solely from old manuals, a much more difficult process than having some "old heads" around to show them what to do... and not to do.
Next post (might not be today) I want to disuss why I think acquiring new 16" ammuntion for the guns is likely to be far more expensive than is usually suggested.
One option is the stockpile of conventional 280mm ammo for the Army big guns (Atomic Annie). These could be combined with a sabot to arm the guns.
What did President Trump mean?
He meant "I had this idea. I know nothing of the practicality or what we'd do with them, but wouldn't they be Kewell?"
The Navy recently procured 3 modern gun ships, the Zumwalts, that were intended to provide significant long range fire. Build more, and buy the shells.
Ignoring, for the moment, the cost of manufacturing replacement 16inch shells…(not disputing Alans point, just setting it aside for the moment.)
Missile systems are superior in a number of categories to “dumb” ballistic artillery.
Longer ranged, maneuverable, scalable (meaning that a large number of warheads are already in the inventory for different kinds of targets.)
The list of comparable disadvantages include:
Cost:
A Patriot Missile Anti Aircraft, Anti Ballistic Missile costs over $1 million USD. Not suggesting the Iowa Class needs the ability to launch Patriot missiles, just that I happen to know what the cost is, my Brother in his first enlistment served in a Patriot Missile battery in Germany years ago, and remember him talking about the annual demonstration launch, often attended by multiple Army senior officers, to witness the only such launch of the system each year due to the high cost.
Similar missiles also have high costs due to the need for electronics, the need to maneuver for precision control, communications (depending on guidance in flight during target acquisition and terminal phase.
In comparison, a WW2 technology guidance is ship borne, the shell is fired on a ballistic trajectory at a target (either stationary or on a speed and course that is predictable based on its last observed course and speed) and does not have or require mid course correction, nor does it necessarily need the ability evade enemy interception by existing defenses.
It is, essential a steel casing with some sort of detonator and is filled with an explosive charge.
It should be noted, that when fired, it has a muzzle velocity of around 2,700 feet per second (varies depending on the type of shell which changes between types such as armor piercing, high explosive, or a relatively few other options.)
Using modern technology, it may be possible to intercept a single shell, though stopping a five foot long 16 inch diameter metal object traveling at high speed, again, varies depending on a number factors. in general, is launched at a relative speed of approximately one mile every 2 seconds is not an easy task.
In comparison, missiles are currently able to be intercepted, depending on the type, likely will be slower than a 16 inch diameter shell, and can be targeted by various sustems.
In any event, this is an apples / oranges comparison since the artillery shells are far less complicated systems than modern missile systems.
Finally, artillery shells are mass produced in manufacturing systems, often automated.
missiles tend to be assembled in smaller numbers, so it should be recognized that artillery ammunition benefits greatly from an economic concept of “economy of scale” compared to missiles.
Its what happens when you need to manufacture 100,000 sixteen inch shells verses a dozen or a hundred missiles.
The operators of the WW2 factories that produced battleship ammunition may not even had high school educations, certainly not college educated.
Missile production requires much higher skills.
A quick Wikipedia search resulted in:
“During World War II, a 16-inch Mark 8 armor-piercing shell cost approximately $1,400 to manufacture in 1944. For perspective, here are a few other cost estimates for the same era:
In 1940, the estimated combined cost of a single shell and its powder was around $3,500.
An early-war estimate in 1942 placed the shell's unit cost at $500. This may reflect pre-war pricing or a simpler version of the shell.
In 1944, a British 16-inch shell cost £250, or around £10,994 in 2019. “
Wikipedia is not a perfect resource to use, but it is fast.
U.M.M.V.
Alan
"On the other hand, the Government's... admirable... record of completing large and technically complex projects on time and under budget reassures me greatly..."
All I can say is fortunately I was NOT drinking anything when I read that!!!
A few comments.
The ship has a high pressure steam plant. (Four fire rooms each contained two M-Type boilers operating at 600 pounds per square inch with a maximum superheater outlet temperature of 850 °F) In the late 80s the boiler were converted to use Navy distillate fuel.
Apparently electronics can't within 200 ft of any 16-inch gun muzzle may be damaged from overpressure.
The removal of the aft turret was proposed and the space convert to hold AV-8B harriers and helicopters. I think this proposal should be updated.
The hanger can hold F35Bs, VLS, and helicopers and marines. Add SPY Aegis aft superstruct. Trunk the funnels into one. odernize the electronic system. Increase the electrical generations. Add ASW. Replace the remaining 5" with 127 mm/54-caliber (Mk 45) lightweight gun
Concerning the Zumwalts, it seems the AGS system guns are being removed in favor of a hyper-sonic missile system that is undergoing testing.
Concerning the Japanese Ballistic missile ships see the article in Naval News, June 3. 2025 " Japan’s ASEV Super Destroyer: Fresh Details Unveiled"
$3,500 in 1940 is approximately $81,000 today.
With regard actually trying to reactivate the Iowa-class battleships: none have been maintained even to Category X mothball reserve levels since Iowa and Wisconsin were stricken from the NRV in 2006 (while the National Defense Authorization Act 2006 required maintenance roughly equivalent to Category X, it has in practice not proven something that the various museums have been able to provide, aside from cathodic protection and a certain amount of dehumidifying). Long story short: it's not happening.
The standard displacement for that planned Japanese "super-destroyer" is down to 12,000 tons now.
For those of you mentioning a hanger on the Iowa class there is no hanger on the Iowa class. In order to provide a hanger the stern turret and most of the first 3 or 4 deck levels would have to be reconstructed. Apparently before being retired they did have some sort of structure near the stern turret to hold drones and such. I did not see it on the New Jersey when I was there about 7 years ago.
Today's Battleship New Jersey channel is a video about reactivating the Iowas.
Jeff exactly what am I mistaken about
Jeff modern armor is completely different from the Class B, Class A and STS armor. Since we dont know a lot about it other than it is a combination of different technologies. It is estimated that the deck is composed of 2 inches steel, a layer of reinforced concrete in some cases and a thermal fire protection of some sort. Sis armor is believed to be composed of composite armor, kevlar, ceramic plate, and fire coatings. Battle ship armor is composed of various combinations of steel and other metals to increase the hardness. and resistance to penetration. These plates ranged from 1/4 inch to 25 inches. At present there are no steel mills that are capable o milling that thickness of armor. In addition the method of making face hardened armor is beyond modern mills. Face hardened armor has a dense face that is designed to break up the shell and a soft backing designed to give to limit the penetration. hat is the armor that can take weeks to heat quench multiple times to get the right combination . Again not mill has the technology to do that now.
Eddie, I did intend to provoke you, just suggest that it is not necessary to mill single armor plates such as the Yamato class battleships were. (600 mm if the sources I consulted are to be believed.)
A quick google search resulted in this:
Quote” In the era of all-steel armor, large armored warships like battleships had the thickest plating. For example, the American Iowa-class battleships had armor of up to 19.4 inches (493 mm) on the main turrets, but this was a composite system of multiple plates, not a single sheet. ”
This was a Wikipedia post, and may not be correct, but it is what came up.
The point I attempted to make, is that today, armor is indeed composed of different parts, often depending on what the perceived threat is.
If your main threat is missiles with high explosive warheads, a different combination of armor might be needed, if armor piercing system (such as a 16 inch iowa class main gun) is the main threat, perhaps a different cmbination would be a better choice.
That is all I meant to suggest.