There's a substantial number of high ups that don't want them to be activated again, having other items more important, hince the destruction, if it has happened, of the barrels. Congress mandates a lot of spending on things the military doesn't want, but this is probably not something doable in this deficit situation.
Battleship is not obsolete
rocksmexico
New Member
i think a battlefield would be.. maybe not , i cant be sure , but what i know is that a destroyer can do more damage than a battlefield because it can send a missle , in the exact place they need it to be
The Battleships were updated with missles, but they are expensive also. Catch the value of missles fired by the US in the opening day or two in Libya?
84RFK
Active member
I suppose it's already said here, but Battleships in modern naval warfare is definately obsolete.
But I tend to believe that they are the ideal off-shore gun-platform, or launch-pad, in case of a conflict calling for heavy artillery prior to a landing, or where no sufficient beach-head is available to land heavy artillery.
But I tend to believe that they are the ideal off-shore gun-platform, or launch-pad, in case of a conflict calling for heavy artillery prior to a landing, or where no sufficient beach-head is available to land heavy artillery.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I agree, if it comes to it, I can compile a list of Battlships sunk by airpower during the second WW ll as demostration of this.
Depends on the SAM capability they could be fitted out with, plus they are better protected from damage than any other ships in service now. IF they got in firing range, they'd make Swiss cheeze out of anything afloat.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Subermarine Technology and stealth has increased greatly since WW ll.
Aircaft, have ever increasing capabilities and are posing new threats to ships with every new generation of software upgrades, as well as stealth and weapon capabilites.
Litoral states are getting access to more and more difficult to locate ground to ship missiles that can be launched outside of a battleship's range (if they are even detected prior to launch) and enage said ship as it gives gunfire support.
Also , smaller and less costly and easier to field ships nowa days can carry the same amount, or even more firepower and engage naval and other targets, from dozens and sometimes thousands of miles away in the terms of cruise missiles.
Also , the agurment of "gunfire" support will be irrelevent as time progresses.
For example, during the battle of Iwo Jima, the U.S. Navy heavily shelled the Japanese defenders at various points during the engagement.
Why? At the time there were no anti ship missiles, that could be launched from mobile platforms from under a tarp that had longer ranges, and were cheaper than the battleships guns.
ALSO, listen to this.
Lastly, look at the trend of Amphibious assualts lately, there is a increasing effort in order to add a extra layer of protection to any invading amphious task force by developing landing craft and other heavy lift landing vessels, that can depart the landing assault ship from ever longer ranges out to sea, in an effort minimize an landing ship's exposure to said mobile missiles.
If a battleship was going to justify it's exsistance with it's cannons, it would have to leave the task force, move CLOSER to the shore, and risk being attacked via a myriad of threats that did not exsist 60 years ago.
Yea, you can put tomahawks and CWIS and RAM systems on it, sure you could put fancy new radar on it. But other than being a floating software platform, that is not cost effective, and strains ship and force deployment by requirng a carrier task force type of protection, those guns are now outranged, an will be if not already outclassed, by ever growing cheaper and FASTER anti ship missiles and torpedoes.
Battleship, is just not cost effective anymore, and it's usefulness today is questionable.
Aircaft, have ever increasing capabilities and are posing new threats to ships with every new generation of software upgrades, as well as stealth and weapon capabilites.
Litoral states are getting access to more and more difficult to locate ground to ship missiles that can be launched outside of a battleship's range (if they are even detected prior to launch) and enage said ship as it gives gunfire support.
Also , smaller and less costly and easier to field ships nowa days can carry the same amount, or even more firepower and engage naval and other targets, from dozens and sometimes thousands of miles away in the terms of cruise missiles.
Also , the agurment of "gunfire" support will be irrelevent as time progresses.
For example, during the battle of Iwo Jima, the U.S. Navy heavily shelled the Japanese defenders at various points during the engagement.
Why? At the time there were no anti ship missiles, that could be launched from mobile platforms from under a tarp that had longer ranges, and were cheaper than the battleships guns.
ALSO, listen to this.
Lastly, look at the trend of Amphibious assualts lately, there is a increasing effort in order to add a extra layer of protection to any invading amphious task force by developing landing craft and other heavy lift landing vessels, that can depart the landing assault ship from ever longer ranges out to sea, in an effort minimize an landing ship's exposure to said mobile missiles.
If a battleship was going to justify it's exsistance with it's cannons, it would have to leave the task force, move CLOSER to the shore, and risk being attacked via a myriad of threats that did not exsist 60 years ago.
Yea, you can put tomahawks and CWIS and RAM systems on it, sure you could put fancy new radar on it. But other than being a floating software platform, that is not cost effective, and strains ship and force deployment by requirng a carrier task force type of protection, those guns are now outranged, an will be if not already outclassed, by ever growing cheaper and FASTER anti ship missiles and torpedoes.
Battleship, is just not cost effective anymore, and it's usefulness today is questionable.
84RFK
Active member
Could you also compile a list of aircraft-carriers sunk (by any means) after WW II?
I tend to believe that the size of an aircraft-carrier would make it a target of comparable size to a battleship.
A battleship incorporated into a carrier-group would thus enjoy the same level of protection as the carrier itself.
Air-superiority is the key word here.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
What tyes into air supremecy more? An carrier with its air sqaudrons of planes that can attack all types of targets across the horizion?
Or the battleship with the disadvatages I have already listed , just now fast forward technology about 60 years.
I guess when it all comes down to it, neither method, or use of warships is without it's faults, but utlimatley there is a method behind the demise of the battleship.
This can be admittly seen today, ask those pulling the purse strings about that method. For the changing times, I am sure they can enlighten you much more than me and my humble comments on the purchasing, maintaing and fielding of a battleship in the 21st century.
Or the battleship with the disadvatages I have already listed , just now fast forward technology about 60 years.
I guess when it all comes down to it, neither method, or use of warships is without it's faults, but utlimatley there is a method behind the demise of the battleship.
This can be admittly seen today, ask those pulling the purse strings about that method. For the changing times, I am sure they can enlighten you much more than me and my humble comments on the purchasing, maintaing and fielding of a battleship in the 21st century.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Same message has been sent and felt via seeing a Carrier task force off your coast today.
But a carrier can strike farther, and hit just as if not harder.
Think on it, if your are standing in a field staying your oponent down from 100 yards away,
Even the finest Katana forged by a master sword maker who has put the most well crafted folds in the steel, can cut through a body today just effectively as it did 500 years ago.
But if you oponent has equally expensive rifle, then novelity of the Katana soon gets over shadowed by it's usefullness today.
The battleship is the Katana, the Carrier Strike group the rifle, up close and personal, a Katana would be devastating, however...
In a world full of men with rifles... Your going to have to change with the times.
A battleship today, would be a Novelity Item, moreover than anything practical.
Ask me? Ever bought something expensive that you claim you could use for only a handful of situations?
But in the End you find that either those situations you claimed are few and far in between, or just are not even relavent nowa days? Now you are having trouble justifing the costs?
Thats the Battleship today.
Sure You could use it for one or two scenarios on today's plain of Naval weapons deployment, but with new factors, you won't use that ship as much as you may think on paper.
And like that lead sinker kit I bought a few months back, looked great, bought it, but I can only claim using it about twice...
Last edited:
namvet
Active member
I don't support bringing them back. or did you miss that???
namvet
Active member
forget it. it was way back on post 16 anyway