Battlewagons, flattops and obsolescence
Murdoc reported the other day that the Navy will soon be permanently retiring the last of the Iowa-class Battleships. In some respects – mostly for reasons of nostalgia, this is a sad thing. Those ships were the last warships that looked, well, like warships. Carriers, for all their impressive size, do not look as intimidating as a big-ass BB. (Not for nothing did the ship in Starblazers look like a dreadnought and not a carrier.)
The Navy is moving on. It has no plans to replace the Battleships (although it promised Congress it would replace the Battleship’s shore-bombardment capability, something that as yet it has not done) and will replace the aging, cold-war era cruisers, destroyers and frigates with the new DD(X) class of warships. In addition, the Navy plans on acquiring a large number of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), a smaller multi-role ship based on a modular design.
Some of the commenters on Murdoc’s post complained that putting down the battleships was a big mistake. Among the reasons cited for this, they mentioned: new ships have no armor, leaving them vulnerable to asymmetrical warfare; the Navy is pursuing technical solutions at the expense of proven warfighting potential; new ships cost too much, and we already have the battleships; one of the Navy’s primary missions is landing and supporting ground forces, and the battleship is essential for this; brass hate battleships because they are effective, but not sexy, pretty or high tech; and battleships do not require large taxpayer outlay.
In this, they are entirely wrong except for one point. Battleships are sexy.
The primary role of a blue water navy is to control the sea lanes. Sea control consists of two things: assuring the use of sea lanes for friendly shipping and fleets, and denying the same to hostile shipping and fleets. That is the primary mission of a main-line warship. Other tasks either support the primary mission (e.g., the Aegis cruiser which protects the carrier, allowing its strike aircraft to complete the primary mission) or support secondary missions (e.g., projecting power inland either by use of carrier air assets or supporting Marine landings.)
In a perfect world a speed boat with a missile launcher would be more than adequate for denying access to the sea. A bulk transport would suffice for moving Marines around. Sadly, there are nasty rude hostile forces who hope to interfere with our cunning plan to control the world’s oceans. To put a spoke in our wheel, they build boats that can sink our boats. We don’t build nifty umpty-billion dollar boats just because they’re cool, or even just so they can sink the bad boats. While this back and forth evolution of offensive and defensive weapons systems follows its costly logic, remember the primary mission.
We roll in all sorts of defenses, and clever weapons to allow the platform to survive in a hostile environment and as a result, almost every aspect of the modern warship, indeed the entire composition of the carrier battle group has little to do with accomplishing the primary mission per se, but rather with protecting the fleet from enemy action so that it can survive the battle and then carry out the primary mission – establish sea control
This process has already had its way with the venerable battleship. Exceedingly clever naval architects put armor on battleships to allow it to survive toe-to-toe engagements with other battleships. They installed massive 16” guns because those were the most effective weapons of the day. The most advanced analog computers were installed at great expense to increase the accuracy of those guns. Large crews enabled rapid and effective damage control in an era of unguided munitions. However, despite all of the skull sweat and careful thought, a battleship’s engagement range never increased much beyond twenty miles.
Aircraft carriers signaled the demise of the battleship for one very simple reason – airplanes have vastly greater range than big guns. The battleship became obsolescent because airplanes fly farther than shells from sixteen inch guns. Airplanes could detect enemy ships from much greater ranges. No matter how much armor a battleship has, once we know where it is, any number of aircraft can be dispatched from beyond its weapon’s range, and will eventually destroy it. As the Japanese learned. That is why battleships ceased to be the frontline weapon in America’s naval arsenal.
That we were able to re-task obsolete battleships to useful missions like shore bombardment is all well and good. But those guns only reach 21 miles or so, and are not precision weapons. Cruise missiles and any number of other future weapons will do the job better. But the battleship, once queen of the sea, has really found work as a janitor, no longer able to perform the mission for which she was designed – sea control.
There is a point of diminishing returns, where the additional cost of defensive measures costs so much that the platform is ridiculously expensive, even though it might be a technological marvel, look really cool and seem awfully impressive in every way. The high cost of all the enhancements necessary to permit the weapon system to continue (for a while) to perform its primary mission not only reduces the number of platforms, but diverts resources from other needs.
Right now, B-2 bomber is a perfect example of a weapon system on the very teetering edge of obsolescence. At a billion dollars a pop, it is an expensive bird. Where did that money go? Not into increasing the range, payload, speed or other characteristics that bear directly on the mission of delivering munitions on target. In fact, in most of these regards, the B-2 is less effective than the B-52. All that extra money went into stealth and low observables technology. Defensive measures to allow the bomber to survive an increasingly hostile battlefield. Will we be able to afford the follow on to the B-2 and all the defensive measures that will be needed to keep a human crew alive in say, 2030? Most likely not.
The reason is precision weapons. Advances in cruise missiles and brilliant weapons will soon render most surface vessels as obsolete as the battleship.
A carrier costs five billion dollars. A cruise missile costs a million. How many cruise missiles are you willing to expend to get value for your money? 4,999 and it’s still a bargain. Logistical issues aside, even the most advanced fleet defense system is going to be saturated by hundreds of missiles, let alone thousands. And as computer technology hurtles forward, those things are going to be cheaper and cheaper. And then there’s the guy in New Zealand who built one in his garage for $5000. Sea-denial will be within the reach of any nation or entity that has the technological wherewithal to build what is essentially a small RC jet plane with explosives and commoditized computer parts.
The fast, smart missiles that will be arriving at a military near you over the next few years will change the nature of warfare. Inhumanly precise, they will make armor useless. With sufficient intelligence, they can target warships and task forces from beyond the range of their strike aircraft. In sufficient numbers, they will saturate any imaginable defense. That last task will be easier yet when you imagine that the missile will have built-in terminal guidance systems that will allow it to dodge incoming defensive fire. In that world, how big and expensive a ship do you really want to build? How big can you risk building, and how small can you build and still retain significant military power? That is the question that will confront naval planners over the coming decades.
We will have to weigh the cost of a weapons platform with the risk of losing it. The ultimate in distributed warships would be a SEAL sitting in a Zodiac boat with a shoulder-fired precision munition. We could have thousands of those. The risk of losing any individual ship would be acceptable. Multi-billion dollar warships are a much bigger thing to risk losing, in terms of both cost and personnel. If precision weaponry evolves to the point where almost any ship can be destroyed as soon as it is detected (and it will) then the days of the large warship will be over. The flipside of that argument is that ships can be much smaller and still (through the use of brilliant weapons) maintain as much effective firepower as a battleship.
Distributed, stealthy, small ships are the only things that will survive in the furball of the future. They will be supplemented by long duration unmanned combat vehicles for both strike and surveillance – perhaps operating off of small and stealthy mini-carriers. There will be missile barges sailing in safe waters with hundreds of cruise missiles able to hit with centimeter accuracy targets a thousand miles away. Nearly undetectable submarines will launch similar cruise missiles from a hundred feet below the surface. Land, air and space-based brilliant cruise missiles will extend the range at which the fleet can project power. Global space-based communications, surveillance and intelligence networks will tie the dispersed fleets together, and give them an accurate picture of enemy activities. Fleet elements from half a globe away or in orbit or in visual range or all three will combine to give us the sea control that we seek.
There will be no place for the traditional carrier in this battle, just as there is no place for the battleship today. Two things guarantee it: the vulnerability of large ships to precision weapons, and the superiority of advanced cruise missiles to naval aircraft. Compared to traditional naval aircraft, missiles are faster, more maneuverable, more expendable, cheaper and smaller. The only factors that have given aircraft the edge up until now are accuracy and range. But just like the aircraft eclipsed the big gun, the cruise missile will eclipse the aircraft.
Carriers will linger on – they will remain useful as extra-territorial airstrips and for projecting power in exactly the same manner that those last two battleships did. They will also remain symbols of American naval mastery. But we are already nearing the point where it has become a serious consideration as to whether we can afford the risk of committing carriers to certain areas like the Persian Gulf, where Iranian missiles could saturate a tactically immobile and easily visible fleet. The range at which that kind of interdiction zone can be projected will only increase over time.
The LCS, and to a lesser extent the DD(X), are the Navy’s attempts to come to grips with this emerging reality. Enhancing our capabilities to project logistical power – in support of troops on the ground – is very important. But we need to really change the way we think about naval warfare. Littoral strategies and forward from the sea are all well and good, but all of our ships – up to and including our current lords of the sea, carriers – will be very vulnerable to any enemy that can build a cruise missile and (key point here) pinpoint the location of our carriers.
The future of warfare is that anything that can be seen can be killed. Further, it can be killed from thousands of miles away. What we need to focus on is developing better weapons, sure; but even more important is securing the base from which all our military power flows – space. (You knew I get here eventually, didn’t you?) Even now, 75% (a wild-assed estimate, but in the ballpark) of our power derives from control of and use of space. Without satellite intelligence, we are blind. Without satellite communications, we are clumsy. Without GPS, our bombs are knocked back to 1970s accuracy levels.
Battleships are the last thing we need to worry about. Even carriers are on their way to obsolescence. Where we need to focus our efforts is where those efforts will yield the greatest payoff, both in terms of absolute combat power on the ground, but also in terms of power relative to other militaries. No one else can (right now) develop space power like we can. Every dollar’s worth of advantage that we gain now is worth three or more in a future where other nations are competing with us directly.
on
| § 23
§ 23 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
What's interesting is that
What's interesting is that when I follow this reasoning it is clear that, for purposes of this thought experiment, warships of any flavor would be obsolete.
Consider the core mission, of securing American sea lanes or, put another way, commerce. That has been the traditional role of American naval power for as long as its been around.
How are those shipping lanes secured? By preventing the bad guy from f*cking with them. And how's that? By physical presence of warships, which can deliver munitions on the enemy.
The age of accurate missiles, where sea-skimming, aircraft delivered missiles could do catastrophic damage to capital ships, is slowy ebbing away. But Northrop and Aerospatiale aren't getting into the ploughshares business just yet. Where we're going, and fast, is hypervelocity weapons which are also hyper-accurate.
Recall recent posting about the DoD's wet dream to have a global intercept capability, firing weapons from CONUS to go boom anywhere on the planet within 30 minutes.
I firmly believe that is the future, and agree absolutely that whatever can be seen will be killed. Which means that deploying blue water navies at all would be a thing of the past, however stealthy, armored, unarmored, or sexy the design of its hulls. The ship no longer has to be within weapons range of the enemy in order to fight. The ship doesn't even have to exist, because the weapon can come from Nebraska, Cape Cod, or- more likely- space. Sea commerce could be protected against enemy fleets from land-based or orbital platforms. No mission, no ship.
But in reality, we both know that there will be a mission for capital warships through our lifetimes. The states capable of sustained naval missile attack are few; of those, a handful are on the Pentagon's shit list. Also, as states become increasingly interdependent economically, it is in the developed world's best interest to work together in the traditional commerce protection role by winning the fight. Hell, there's an exercise under way right now with 14-odd participants: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18674
But if I were a betting man, and I were running an up-and-coming regional power, I wouldn't futz around developing V/STOL carriers and traditional pickets. Some quiet diesel subs and mines would do for coastal defense for now; together with a robust air defense network might give US strike aricraft or the USMC pause.
I would be looking 20 years out, and my yuan or rupees would go into missile and space R&D.
Sea denial will in the near
Sea denial will in the near future be a lot easier than protecting friendly shipping. The thing that will allow ships to continue operating is the fact that there are two aspects to the look/kill equation. First is a capable missile, which will be in reach of most anybody twenty years from now. The second is targeting, which requires surveillance. Realtime satellite recon is the most powerful - and space power is necessary to maintain that capability. We'll have an edge on that. But for other powers, they will be reduced to line of sight for accurate targeting. They can extend this through the use of surveillance drones, but those can be hindered by USN fleet defenses. Uncertainty about the exact position of our fleet will help, as will dispersed fleet elements, and point defenses. The surface ship isn't dead yet, but eventually it will be endangered.
Certain missions will require surface ships - especially for things like landing Marines. They will be protected as well as possible, but the primary mission of naval power will likely be managed from orbit, and with hypersonic cruise missiles fired from inside the US, or from missile barges thousands of miles away.
The Navy is indeed moving on.
The Navy is indeed moving on. To where? To pricing isself out of the water.
The DD(X) program, is creating a destroyer with a cost of 5 billion. For comparision, the USS Ronald Regan only cost around 4.2 billion.
The current DD(X) is to build 6 to 9 of these ships. The DD(X) is a stealthy, ship with the ability to launch 60 to 80 missiles with a pair of 155mm cannons.
From a firepower standpoint, these ships are only slightly better then the current warships. The advanced gun concept, is waste of money. You can generate greater firepower and range with rockets and cheap GPS guidance systems.
The only question is how effective is stealth on a 700 foot warship. I would wager a T-Bone steak, that stealth on a warship is waste of money.
The simple act of movement in a ocean gives the ship away. Wait until nightfall and follow the yellow brick road glow of the algae to find your ship.
Is it wrong that the term
Is it wrong that the term "missile barge" makes my moist bits flutter?
James, I would agree that the
James, I would agree that the DD(X) is probably overpriced. Hell, almost certainly. The advanced gun concept is an unfunny joke. The system as a whole is not terribly well thought out from the perspective I laid out in my post.
Better to spend money on smaller, more versatile platforms. Which are also cheaper and more expendable, because you don't have too many resources tied up in one ship.
Stealth doesn't make ships invisible, but does make the ship harder to target. That can make a big difference. We just need to be smart about it. Stealthing a 100ft ship is easier than a 700 ft ship.
The thing is, we used to build big ships because big ships were more survivable, and provided more stable platforms for inherently inaccurate guns. Then we built big ships because airplanes can't land on a speedboat. When my garage can hold twenty-ship killing missiles, having a big boat is pointless, and dangerous.
I predict that in the not-to-distant future, warships per se will no longer exist. That is, ships that steam into battle like they do now.
What we will have is naval logistics ships that support ucavs and drones; missile barges that launch hypersonic cruise missiles with intercontinental range (maybe even submersible); and Marine support vessels designed to land and supply infantry ashore. Marine flotillas might have escort ships with some descendent of the Aegis system, but that's about as close as you'll get to a traditional warship.
Sorry Buckethead but I’m not
Sorry Buckethead but I’m not convinced.
You say that the Murdoc comments are entirely wrong but don’t say how. The ships on the Navy drawing board will cost billions, they are relatively unarmored, they are years away for being built, and they still will not have the firepower of a battleship. I’m just an old Marine Radio Operator who wants to do the ultimate call for fire – 16-inch naval cannons.
Yes, missile technology is getting better and better. Anti-missile technologies (missiles, lasers, electronic counter measures, and close-in guns) are also improving. However, given the improvements in missiles, it is increasingly likely our ships will be hit. When hit, our current thin armored destroyers and cruisers will do just what the HMS Sheffield did – burn and sink. Today’s missiles are designed to open these tin cans, not to penetrate the 2 feet of armor plating on a capital ship.
The battleships were designed to go toe to toe with Japanese and German battleships carrying guns that make the typical cruise missile look like toy (albeit very accurate toys). I remember seeing an interview with the Captain of one of battleships then still on active duty – he stated very firmly that an Exocet missile is not capable of penetrating the armor plating of his ship. In fact, after WWII, the battleship USS Nevada (an older, lighter class than the Iowa) was used in a nuclear test. A Nagasaki sized bomb was denotated 1500 to 2000 meters from the ship. The heat scorched the ship but did not come close to sinking her. She was towed back to Hawai and sunk with torpedoes later.
So if a modern cruise missle makes it through the defenses and strikes a battleship, the battleship will do what it was designed to do – hit back hard.
Bram,
Bram,
I don't know offhand if you've commented here before; if not, welcome. I like the stuff of yours I've read at Murdoc.
I agree with your point about old skool BB hulls being capable of withstanding Exocet-style attack. Matter of fact, I don't think there's really a question in anyone's mind about their sturdiness.
But what B and, to a less stimulating extent I, were getting at was the future of big capital ships. When you wrote, "So if a modern cruise missle makes it through...", that's where our lines of thought diverge. Consider not what's modern- but what's in the future!
And with that in mind, imagine what next-gen munitions may bring, particularly in naval combat. If a sealed howitzer barrel can penetrate a laboriously constructed deep bunker today, why not the deck of a BB? Or with the sick accuracy of modern JDAMs, imagine what might be capable in just a few years.
Consider real-time orbital "eyes" guiding future missiles with robust penetrators, or a different weapon altogether: a projectile going so ridiculously fast that on impact armor melts, interior surfaces spall, and people get pulped from the shock.
But I agree entirely that the cool factor from 16" guns should not be underestimated. And am absolutely willing to own that it may just be big gun envy.
Bram, how will it hit back?
Bram, how will it hit back? You are on the bridge of the Iowa in the Indian Ocean; I am sitting in a bunker somewhere in Nevada. I fire a hypersonic cruise missile, the launcher for which could literally be anywhere on the globe, or above it. 15-30 minutes later, your ship is hit. How do you fire back? Your sixteen inch guns have a range of 21 miles. I wait a couple minutes for the next satellite pass, or dispatch a drone to do a bomb damage assessment. If you are still afloat, I send more missiles.
Look, if a ca. 1943 torpedo planes and dive bombers could sink the Yamato, I sure as hell can sink a battleship today, and should still be able to twenty years from now.
Imagine that you upgrade the Iowa. Wedgie in an Aegis air defense system, CIWS, standard missile packs, vertical launch systems, the works. That would cost, oh, at least a couple billion. Probably significantly more.
I can still sit back a paste you with $100,000 cruise missiles until you are dead, dead, dead.
Big ships won't be able to survive much longer. How are you going to get that behemoth to within 20 miles of the coast if a hostile power like, I don't know, China is pasting your BB with missiles. Even second rate missiles will hit at that range.
There is a reason the battleship is already obsolete. What I am arguing is that not only are battleships obsolete, but pretty soon most other surface combatants. The range at which even smaller nations can sink any large ship will continue to grow. When those circles start overlapping, the carrier will be done, too.
The center of gravity for military conflict has moved into orbit. Our space based capabilities give us the force multipliers that make our armed forces so much more effective than they were in, say, 1980. The ships are largely the same, they've got radars and some armor and stuff. What is different is the communications, networking, surveillance, and GPS guidance for missiles.
I can make the same argument for near obsolescence for tanks and manned combat aircraft, too. The future soldier, marine, airman and sailor will work closely with networked, semi-autonomous weapons. Already, army corporals are directing fire from planes, artillery, naval cruise missiles, and more. This trend will accelerate. The ultimate fire call for a Marine on the beach is not an inaccurate 16" battleship gun, but a whole slew of missiles, bombs, submunitions, and cruise missiles descending on the enemy from effing *everywhere*, all on his command. When that Marine sees an enemy formation, and can cause it to disappear, it won’t matter that the incoming isn’t from a battleship. Those are the capabilities we need to develop, and which I think our Marines and soldiers will really, really dig.
Bram, I didn't mean to sound
Bram, I didn't mean to sound so snarky. Also welcome! Usually, I only get that way when I'm writing about the shortcomings of the shuttle program.
The thing is, there is a short term need for the firepower of a battleship. But it is interim, because it doesn't really matter where the shore bombardment comes from. And it's a real plus when that same capability can hit targets hundreds of miles inland from shore, without any real possibility of getting hit in return.
That's what we're moving toward, eventually.
Okay, we agree. There is an
Okay, we agree. There is an interim need for firepower. The Navy's solution is many years and billions of dollars away. And when they get their new class of ships, they will have less firepower and be obsolete that much sooner.
The battleships can be sailing again much sooner and cheaper. They can be mounted with the latest and greatest air defense weapons and cruise missiles in addition to their guns. And they sure as hell can hit back within a thousand miles.
When hypersonic missiles and high-powered space based wapons become commonplace, they can be retired. Or, better yet, retrofitted for use in space!
Bram.,
Bram.,
Yeah, SDF-1!!
http://www.robotech.com/gallery/galimage/viewgalimage.php?id=5
I'm all for putting them in
I'm all for putting them in space, if we can manage it. The need for firepower, knowing that it is interim, does not necessarily imply that we should keep the BBs. If the cost of returning them to service, keeping them maintained, crewed, etc. is too high, then it just may not be worth it - especially if it diverts funds from other, even more crucial needs.
The problem is really range - BBs can only hit a small part of a country - the one that is right by the shore. The Marines in 2003 were out of range of BB support within hours. Pushing for rapid deployment of newer technologies might make more sense.
It's a cost benefit thingy, and I don't have all the information to say absolutely that bringing them back is the smartest thing to do.
Oh man, looks like some MO
Oh man, looks like some MO regular commenters showed up at the Ministry...
Is James still going on about the cost of the DD(X)? ;] Sheesh...
Plus, Buckethead, don't think
Plus, Buckethead, don't think I didn't catch the STARBLAZERS mention. About a year ago somewhere on my site I jokingly hinted (vaguely) at the ARGO, and you immediately commented "Ah, STARBLAZERS".
This guy was in a geek contest for a reason, folks...
Seriously, though, this is a great post and discussion. Battleships really get people's passions up.
And another thing!
And another thing!
I don't know the specifics about the gun tube endurance, but I do seem to remember that back when they were getting ready to reactivate the NEW JERSEY (I was in junior high or so) I read about an accidental find of thousands of 16" rounds stockpiled somewhere (Philippines?) and that the Navy was relieved to have found more ammunition. I'm wondering how much good ammo is left.
As far as I know, no one in the world can produce 16" naval rifle ammo any more. And at least some of what's been stockpiled since the 40s or so has to be spoiled or at least suspect.
I love battlewagons. And I'm more than a little skeptical of the new multi-billion dollar ships (though I'm a fan of the LCS). But I've got to think that we've reached the point where they're just not what we need any more.
Though I wouldn't be against keeping one or two in deep reserve just in case...
You view point that all ships
You view point that all ships will be rendered obsolete due to advances in space tech has a certain ring of logic. However, there are a few flaws in your logic with respect to battleships.
Accuracy? Yes missiles will become more accurate. So there is a race going on between stealth and accuracy. IMO accuracy is going to win, stealth can reduce your signiture, but cannot eliminate it. With advances in computing power and single processing, you going be located.
In short, the race between the cost effectiveness of large scale stealth to signal processing results in destroyers costing 5 billion and a Navy unable to field ships.
Now when you add stealth to missiles, then the defending ship is going to have problems. It's hard and expensive to stealth a ship, but its cheap and very effective to apply stealth to a missile. Thus, your point of ships being an endangered species.
This is where battleships shine. The stronger the armor, the more energy the penitrator must have. Be it velocity, mass or explosive power. Each increase in any of these aspects results in making the missile larger and harder to apply stealth to the weapon. Now, while armor is expensive, when compared to stealth technology its practically free.
In short, the application of armor provides several benefits.
A) Protects your ships from asymetric "surprise" attacks. (Ho guy in a row boat with a RPG blowing up your destroyer)
B) Forces opponents to build and field weapons capable of affecting the battleship. Thus, reducing the stealth effectiveness of incomming missiles and increasing the survival time of your ship.
C) Allow your ships to enter litoral waters as you no longer need 200 miles of ocean in order to have sufficent reaction time to defend yourself.
D) Reduce the cost of your ships by reducing the requirement for bleading edge defensive technology .
E) Reduces cost, as a well designed and armored ship, can be used for extended periods of time. The current thin hull designs cap out at around 20 to 25 years.
OK back on topic.
Battleship guns: The 16inch gun. Yes it is currently limited to 20 to 25 miles. To upgrade the range to 100 to 200 miles is no big stretch. There is a huge overkill on structural support built into the gun system.
Battleships vs Space- Ya know, back in the 60's they used 16 inch battleship guns to launch rounds into low earth orbit. Maybe with a some tinkering, you could make a poor man's anti-sat weapon.
Hypervelocity Missiles: Great in comcept, I will wait on the application. A couple of issues.
1) Range vs Payload: There are some serious trade offs between range and payload. You are dealing with a extremely high energy system.
2) Targeting: Hypervelocity missiles are great vs fixed points. I would question their ability to hit mobile targets.
3) Heat: Hypervelocity missiles by definition, cannot be stealthy. So if the target has a decent sensor suite, the target will gets to apply its defenses.
4) Best defense a BattleShip has vs a Hypervelocity missile??. A high pressure water hose. (with unlimited uses as long as the pump works)
On fielding large numbers of stealthy small ships. It sounds great in theory, but in practice, it has some flaws.
Large numbers of stealth small ships is an offensive weapon. Where you expend your ships like ammo rounds in order to do a particular goal. (kinda like the old soviet navy)
A flotilla of little ships, is vulnerable to rough seas, and has inherit limitations on range and endurance thus would require significant logistical support bases. Additionally, they would limited in capability and be vulnerable to asymetric attacks.
This is not to say that your concept is not valid. Its just to say that your concept has limitations. I would imagine, that a real world senario would be a capitol ship with an attending flotilla of small robotic ships.
Anyway this post is getting to long so I'll end it.
Murdoc,
Murdoc,
Sorry, money is the nature of the beast (in a past life, I did some work involving finances). If you look at the Navy procurment accounts, you'll see that the Navy is commiting financial suicide. LITTERALY.
Because of the cost issues, the Navy cannot support a procurement rate capable of A) maintaining the fleet we have. B) supporting more then one ship yard.
Because of the cost issue, the navy has already cancelled virtually all of its ship building plans, delayed implimentation of service life extension plans, ditched a aircraft carrier, stopped sub production diverted R&D funds and has laid off sailors. It is criminal, that in a time of some of highest defense spending periods, the Navy cannot have a leadership capable of maintaining the fleet.
Murdoc
Murdoc
About your concern on 16inch ammmo. From the GAO Report on Battleship Readiness April 12,1999
the Navy is retaining the existing logistical
support necessary for active operations of the battleships, including
technical manuals, repair and replacement parts, and ordnance; (6) the
battleship logistics support structure is largely intact, and according
to the Navy, production of 16-inch ammunition and propellant could be
resumed within a few months; (7) further, two Navy shipyards have the
capabilities and facilities needed to work on battleship-size vessels;
I think reactivating the
I think reactivating the Battleships is a good and cost effective idea in the SHORT term.
Designs were completed in the 80s and 90s for fitting 256 VLS tubes in place of some or all of the 5" guns. This is just cutting metal so is likely to be reasonably cheap. The 16" rifles can fire 13" sabot shells developed in the late 80s to a range of 100+ miles. If EGRM GPS guidance is still vaporware they could be glorified copperheads with laser designators from drones or forward observers. Defense could be handled by VLS ASROC with a towed array, Evolved Seasparrow or perhaps a navalised SLAMRAM with off the shelf radars in place of the 5" directors.
This doesnt involve any major new developments. It should, in terms of material be cheap.
In terms of manpower it would be more expensive than a destroyer (the machinery plant is labor intensive and a large DC force is needed to utilize the ships ability to take damage). However the USMC offered to give up some money to pay for this in the '90s and provide marines to man the guns (nearly 300 personel IIRC). This is again a SHORT term solution. It is VASTLY cheaper than DDX and DDX is likely to be little more survivable in 10-20 years. By that time we may have huge Zeppellins, or just a lot of transport planes, submarines, ect. carrying a metric butt ton of missles. This doesnt even get into intercontenental hypersonic (or orbital) bombardment which might supercede those. At that point Buckethead is right, surface ships will be suicide ships in a high intensity war. The BBS can be retired until wave motion technology advances to the point they are again useful.... :)
Note that this does not eliminate the need for surface ships. Law enforcement, Anti-Piracy, Anti-Slavery, EEZ/fisheries enforcement, showing the flag, Search And Rescue and maintaining blockades all require people on scene in seaworthy (but yes, expedable) modest vessels (Advantage COAST GUARD!).
This doesn't even touch how transports might be defended.
Orbital bombardment is likely the strike method of the future.
One final digression: Regards space jurisdiction and the millitary, while the USAF feels they have a lock on Space it should be pointed out that space is full of GPS satellites and stars....which are of course aids to navigation...therefore all of space is the Coast Guards responsibility. ;)
Semper Paratus!
I work in Finance and know
I work in Finance and know all about those cost-benefit things. I just find it hard to believe that the $Billions it will take to design and build the DD(X) is less than the cost of updating and operating a battleship or two. I would have to see the details behind those numbers to believe them.
The BB’s are, after all, already built!
Or, the heavy cruiser USS Des Moines is still in mothball storage. It has 9, 8-inch auto-loading naval cannons. Each gun is capable of firing 10 rounds a minute indefinitely - that's 90 rounds of long-range 265lb HE projectiles per minute! Serious firepower.
Actually the Reagan Administration did the cost-benefit of the Des Moines class cruisers versus the battleships and decided to re-activate the battleships.
The finance aspect of
The finance aspect of military accounts can make sane men drink. The cost aspect of battleships has actually little to do with cost. The issue has to do with how the Navy accounts are allocated.
The BB would take up a disportionate cost from the personel accounts. As these accounts are set based on deployment, technology, treaty expectations and ship procurement issues set some years in the past. It causes an accounting heart burn to yank a couple of billion out of R&D and bring up to spec a couple of battleships.
Basically, if you really wanted to bring back the battleship, congress would have to mandate it and reallocate funding from account x,y or z. Furthermore, it would require the Navy to take into account redeployment of fleet to take into account the battleship surface action groups.... and so on and so on...
Bottomline, it is not simple.
That said, there are several mitigation plans. IMO the plan out there involves converting the BB's to command ships. That would eleminate alot of the accounting nightmare and would make military sense.
That said, the Navy will never support the return of the battleships, if for no other reason, is that if someone looks at the capabilities of a WWII battleship, upgraded with 200 missile packs, and updated radar....who would fund the DD(X) and who would employ the admirals when they retire?
James,
James,
Exactly!
Like I said on Murdoc: if we overhaul the BB's (or cruisers) instead of spending billions to develop new (less capable) ships, how can a retired Admiral make 6 figures at Northrop Grumman?
Haven't these men suffered enough?
Bram, do you have any idea
Bram, do you have any idea how expensive it would be to refurb and operate a BB? Or to build an ammo line for it, since there is one now?
That Northrup Grumman CEO, ex admiral, would make MUCH more money on that.