Czin, are we talking about Dreamland, or real life? Right now the railgun is not a viable weapon.
Battleship is not obsolete
Czin
Active member
I like to think about the somewhat distant future (2050ish distant.) Distant enough to be very different, but not too distant as to be unpredictable.
Useless main gun? dude you sig is right you really are half mad
the main gun is the only thin that can make a boom loud enough to scare the wits out of the enemy, besides if the rail gun isn't going to be around till 2050 than they will need a new type of battleship to carry it, and the Navy will have a battleship with two turret in front and one in back each having three railguns, so even then the Battelwagon will NOT be obsolete 
Decommissioned doesn't necessarily mean obsolete, In some cases Decommissioned means not currently active, we have eth U.S.S Wisconsin berthed in Norfolk at Nauticus as an attraction and a museum, but for some reason the Navy keeps her in operational condition
I went on a tour of her and asked "why" I was told "just in case" ...............made me smile, I hope that makes you smile a little too my friend
Czin
Active member
We should build a 250,000 ton battleship, sail it up to chinese waters in hearing distance from the main body of the chinese navy and shout at Bejjing "Hey China ours is biggers than yours! Oh wait you don't have one!" Then sail away laughing our rear ends off like small children.
Last edited:
Czin
Active member
The double entrede in that makes it even more hilarious.Just moon em and leave a rooster tail when you leave
1. Short Answer: Yes, they are very obselete, congress is idiotic for forcing the navy to keep them mothballed.
2. Battleships have a comparatively short range, and 16 inch guns have virtually no accuracy compared to cruise missiles or planes.
3. The cooling and electricity requirements for railguns currently make them impractical, not sure when that might change, but at current point, they are not.
4. Even if 16 inch guns weren't innacurate, class range, and generally inefficient compared to missiles or planes, the ship that they require is far too large not to be hideously vulnerable to missiles, bombs, and other threats. Doesn't matter if you've got 20 inches of belt armor, a missile can cut through that easy, and sure, point defense CIWS and counter missiles work fine, but you don't need nearly as much of them on a smaller ship
5. An aircraft carrier size is justified due to the massively more firepower than can put out for their size compared to a battleship, in case you ask.
6. I think there is some utility to the 5 inch guns on current destroyers and cruisers as they are relatively small and efficient for the amount of size they take up, and ad a fair bit of versatility for relatively short range fire when I missile might be overkill. They are also smaller and therefore less crippling to the fleet if lost.
2. Battleships have a comparatively short range, and 16 inch guns have virtually no accuracy compared to cruise missiles or planes.
3. The cooling and electricity requirements for railguns currently make them impractical, not sure when that might change, but at current point, they are not.
4. Even if 16 inch guns weren't innacurate, class range, and generally inefficient compared to missiles or planes, the ship that they require is far too large not to be hideously vulnerable to missiles, bombs, and other threats. Doesn't matter if you've got 20 inches of belt armor, a missile can cut through that easy, and sure, point defense CIWS and counter missiles work fine, but you don't need nearly as much of them on a smaller ship
5. An aircraft carrier size is justified due to the massively more firepower than can put out for their size compared to a battleship, in case you ask.
6. I think there is some utility to the 5 inch guns on current destroyers and cruisers as they are relatively small and efficient for the amount of size they take up, and ad a fair bit of versatility for relatively short range fire when I missile might be overkill. They are also smaller and therefore less crippling to the fleet if lost.
LeEnfield
Active member
It was Regan that brought them back in the US, he found that telling people that under the oceans the US submarines could destroy the world, and they would look out and see nothing, So he brought back a couple of Battleships that would put into ports and look impressive, and they did. With a crew of some 2.000 men and armed with obsolete weapons they were more of a liability during times of conflicts than a help. Okay they did shell some places but there was no real opposition to them.
sully
Active member
Somehow I hate to disappoint you but the last time a US Battleship fired her guns in anger was at Desert Storm the USS Missouri & the USS New Jersey had Missile up grades I am not sure about the USS Wisconsin but the USS Iowa only had two active Big Gun Turrents but I do know those Big 16" were very accurate at 28 miles.The only thing wrong with the Iowa Class Battlewagon is the expense to run the platform.
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Very much so, very expensive and as mentioned would require a large contingent of warships to supply or support any one battleship.
One of the reasons this has been over looked with carriers is that a carrier can project it's power much farther than a battleship.
Also a battleship has to move much closer to the enemy to engage it, making such an expensive assent very vulnerable. Especially in todays naval environment of high speed anti ship missiles, that can be transported by truck and hidden along a coast line almost anywhere.
Hence in amphibious assaults, those missiles are usually the first target of an well coordinated air camp gain to ensure the safety of the amphibious assault force.
As with the tomahawk upgraded battlewagons used in Desert Storm, they did not make much impact as far as I have found other than making expensive missile platforms.
Which mind you, can be accomplished by much smaller and less expensive tomahawk equipped warships.
One of the reasons this has been over looked with carriers is that a carrier can project it's power much farther than a battleship.
Also a battleship has to move much closer to the enemy to engage it, making such an expensive assent very vulnerable. Especially in todays naval environment of high speed anti ship missiles, that can be transported by truck and hidden along a coast line almost anywhere.
Hence in amphibious assaults, those missiles are usually the first target of an well coordinated air camp gain to ensure the safety of the amphibious assault force.
As with the tomahawk upgraded battlewagons used in Desert Storm, they did not make much impact as far as I have found other than making expensive missile platforms.
Which mind you, can be accomplished by much smaller and less expensive tomahawk equipped warships.
Last edited by a moderator:
03USMC
Active member
During Operation DESERT STORM battleships USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI fired more than 1.000 rounds of 16" ammunition in support of ground operations. USS MISSOURI alone fired more than one million pounds of ordnance. Using Remotely Piloted Vehicles and Marine spotters ashore, targets included artillery, mortar and missile positions, ammunition storage facilities and a Silkworm missile site. USS WISCONSIN's RPVs provided on-site reconnaissance support from 11 nautical miles out for advancing Marines. On 03 February 1991 the battleship USS MISSOURI (BB-63) fired eight 1.25-ton shells from its 16-inch guns at prefabricated concrete command and control bunkers Iraq was moving into Kuwait, destroying the bunkers. The barrage, totalling 18,000 pounds of high explosives, marked the first combat firing of the MISSOURI's 16-inch guns since the Korean War, and was in support of Marines and coalition ground forces. This also marked the first use of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) for gun fire spotting in a hostile environment. And on 03 February USS MISSOURI destroyed an Iraqi artillery emplacement. On 06 February USS MISSOURI destroyed 4 artillery emplacements and a command bunker with another 16-inch gun barrage in support of Marines. In a second salvo, the MISSOURI fired 28 16-inch rounds against a radar control site complex, completely destroying it. 5-inch batteries also engaged. MISSOURI had fired a total of 112 16-inch shells and 12 five-inch rounds in 8 fire support missions over 48 hours.
Within two hours of relieving its sister battleship, USS WISCONSIN (BB 64) conducted its first naval gunffre support mission since the Korean War, firing an 11-round salvo with its 16-inch guns and destroying an Iraqi artillery battery in southern Kuwait. Secondary explosions reported. USS NICHOLAS escorted the battleship. USMC OV-10 called in the fire mission. On 07 February USS WISCONSIN pounded Iraqi artillery, electronic warfare and naval sites with its 16 inch guns. 50 rounds sunk or severely damaged 15 boats, destroyed piers at Khawr al-Mufattah Marina. 19 rounds also fired at artillery and missile sites. On 08 February USS WISCONSIN attacked a dozen Iraqi artillery emplacements with 36 rounds of its 16-inch guns in support of a Marine reconnaissance probe into occupied Kuwait. Using its remotely pilot vehicle to visually relay pictures and gun-firing coordinates of targets, the battleships's harassment and interdiction mission was designed to pin down and confuse Iraqi gunners during the Marine attack. Off Khafji, Saudi Arabia, WISCONSIN also blasted bunkers, troops and artillery sites, and continued its naval gunfire missions responding to calls for fire from U.S. and coalition forces on 09 February. Then on 12 February USS MISSOURI, USMC aircraft/artillery, and Saudi artillery mounted a combined arms attack on multiple fixed-position targets (Iraqi troops, artillery, a hardened command bunker and tanks) in southern Kuwait. The battleship expended 60 rounds in 9 naval gunfire support missions. On 21 February USS WISCONSIN destroyed a command complex, firing 50 rounds from off Khafji. RPVs spotted targets and provided coastline reconnaissance. Two days later USS MISSOURI destroyed targets on Favlaka Island off the coast of Kuwait City. On 24 February CINCCENTCOM announced the initiation of the ground offensive, and USS MISSOURI and USS WISCONSIN fired at targets in occupied Kuwait in support of the ground offensive. The next day USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI continued naval gunfire support, with MISSOURI alone firing 133 rounds or 125 tons of ordnance on targets.
From here:
http://http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-7.htm
In 1983, a bloody civil war was raging in Lebanon, and U.S. naval forces were offshore to protect U.S. interests and U.S. Marines who had landed in the war-torn country. On September 19, after a period in which U.S. ships fired when U.S. position were attacked, USS Virginia (CGN 38) and USS John Rogers (DD 983) fired 338 rounds from their 5-inch guns in support of Lebanese Army forces defending the strategically important village of Sug el Gharb in the Shouf Mountains east of Beirut. This signaled a shift in U.S. policy, and on 25 September, New Jersey took up station off Beirut.
On 28 November, the U.S. government announced that New Jersey would be retained off Beirut although her crew would be rotated. On 14 December, New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from her 16-inch guns at hostile positions inland of Beirut. This is the first 16-inch shells fired for effect anywhere in the world since New Jersey ended her time on the gunline in Vietnam in 1969.
On 8 February 1984, New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekka Valley east of Beirut. Some 30 of these massive projectiles rained down on a Syrian command post, killing the general commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon and several other senior officers. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.
From Here:
http://http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/history/full_history.php
Within two hours of relieving its sister battleship, USS WISCONSIN (BB 64) conducted its first naval gunffre support mission since the Korean War, firing an 11-round salvo with its 16-inch guns and destroying an Iraqi artillery battery in southern Kuwait. Secondary explosions reported. USS NICHOLAS escorted the battleship. USMC OV-10 called in the fire mission. On 07 February USS WISCONSIN pounded Iraqi artillery, electronic warfare and naval sites with its 16 inch guns. 50 rounds sunk or severely damaged 15 boats, destroyed piers at Khawr al-Mufattah Marina. 19 rounds also fired at artillery and missile sites. On 08 February USS WISCONSIN attacked a dozen Iraqi artillery emplacements with 36 rounds of its 16-inch guns in support of a Marine reconnaissance probe into occupied Kuwait. Using its remotely pilot vehicle to visually relay pictures and gun-firing coordinates of targets, the battleships's harassment and interdiction mission was designed to pin down and confuse Iraqi gunners during the Marine attack. Off Khafji, Saudi Arabia, WISCONSIN also blasted bunkers, troops and artillery sites, and continued its naval gunfire missions responding to calls for fire from U.S. and coalition forces on 09 February. Then on 12 February USS MISSOURI, USMC aircraft/artillery, and Saudi artillery mounted a combined arms attack on multiple fixed-position targets (Iraqi troops, artillery, a hardened command bunker and tanks) in southern Kuwait. The battleship expended 60 rounds in 9 naval gunfire support missions. On 21 February USS WISCONSIN destroyed a command complex, firing 50 rounds from off Khafji. RPVs spotted targets and provided coastline reconnaissance. Two days later USS MISSOURI destroyed targets on Favlaka Island off the coast of Kuwait City. On 24 February CINCCENTCOM announced the initiation of the ground offensive, and USS MISSOURI and USS WISCONSIN fired at targets in occupied Kuwait in support of the ground offensive. The next day USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI continued naval gunfire support, with MISSOURI alone firing 133 rounds or 125 tons of ordnance on targets.
From here:
http://http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-7.htm
In 1983, a bloody civil war was raging in Lebanon, and U.S. naval forces were offshore to protect U.S. interests and U.S. Marines who had landed in the war-torn country. On September 19, after a period in which U.S. ships fired when U.S. position were attacked, USS Virginia (CGN 38) and USS John Rogers (DD 983) fired 338 rounds from their 5-inch guns in support of Lebanese Army forces defending the strategically important village of Sug el Gharb in the Shouf Mountains east of Beirut. This signaled a shift in U.S. policy, and on 25 September, New Jersey took up station off Beirut.
On 28 November, the U.S. government announced that New Jersey would be retained off Beirut although her crew would be rotated. On 14 December, New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from her 16-inch guns at hostile positions inland of Beirut. This is the first 16-inch shells fired for effect anywhere in the world since New Jersey ended her time on the gunline in Vietnam in 1969.
On 8 February 1984, New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekka Valley east of Beirut. Some 30 of these massive projectiles rained down on a Syrian command post, killing the general commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon and several other senior officers. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.
From Here:
http://http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/history/full_history.php
Last edited:
Prapor
Active member
Certainly not.
Russia, for example, has brought Peter the Great (aka Yuri Andropov) out of reserve.
See more here: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/worlds-largest-most-powerful-battleship-t83900.html
By 2020, 3 more of these giants will be in active service once again
Admiral Nakhimov (former Kalinin)
To be back in the Navy by 2012.
Admiral Lazarev (Frunze)
Admiral Ushakov (Kirov)
Both to be modernized by 2020.
Eventually, each of those will become the battleship of each of Russia's four Fleets (Black Sea, Baltic, Northern, and Pacific Ocean).
Russia, for example, has brought Peter the Great (aka Yuri Andropov) out of reserve.
See more here: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/worlds-largest-most-powerful-battleship-t83900.html
By 2020, 3 more of these giants will be in active service once again
Admiral Nakhimov (former Kalinin)
To be back in the Navy by 2012.
Admiral Lazarev (Frunze)
Admiral Ushakov (Kirov)
Both to be modernized by 2020.
Eventually, each of those will become the battleship of each of Russia's four Fleets (Black Sea, Baltic, Northern, and Pacific Ocean).
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Hell why didn't you elighten me in the begining? I love knowlegge thats in the right place at the right time!
03USMC
Active member
You seem to be stuck on a high tech solution, which is probably just as bad in terms of cost effectiveness as bringing an Iowa Class out of moth balls, if you think willy nilly firing 1,200,000 dollar missles at every target or sorties of FA18's.
The Iowa Class is obsolete for everything except being a large caliber NGFS platform, and in such a configuration it's too costly to crew, operate and maintain for having such a limited role. The Navy has said that since the 80's and the only lobby for the return of the BB'S is a small contingent in the USMC and folks with a case of nostalgia for the old Battle Wagons, for whatever reason.
Aside from all that, there are some flaws in your understanding of NGFS accuracy and the benefit trade off in high tech vs low tech approaches to fire support and target engagement.
Last edited:
03USMC
Active member
Actually one of the main reasons that Iowa Class BB's were recommissioned and retro-fiited with Cruise Missle Cans was the Soviet Navy's Kirov Class Battle Cruisers (see Prapors post in this thread), which is roughly the same size as an Iowa Class BB, the Kirov class was set up as a large weapons platform guided missles, Katshan AD gun, Torpedo's and depth charges although it only bears 130 mm Gun Mounts (5.1").
So it was a case of cold war my ship is as big as yours and it has a bigger battery. Problem was that Iowa class was really only suited for a NGFS/Shore Bombardment/ Cruise Missle platform role, when a few Tico or other similar ships could have provided the same platform for GM's but without the 16" main gun.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I do believe that eventual larger firepower in a smaller package, as is the evolutionary trend in military technology will one day give battleship like NGFS to smaller naval vessels.
As for the exact tools of the trade who knows?
Yes it would cost more, but it maybe more balanced out between the smaller crews and less fuel to run the thing.
As for the exact tools of the trade who knows?
Yes it would cost more, but it maybe more balanced out between the smaller crews and less fuel to run the thing.
sully
Active member
The Russian Battle Cruiser posted above has never been a threat to the US because it has had so many problems with it's Propulsion systems it has spent most of its time alongside the pier.Also the Us Agies class Cruiser has it out-classed in every way possible as far as Fire Control.