Battleship critics and proponents have argued back and forth
for decades, however, there is one overwhelming and undeniable reason why we
had battleships and why we need them today:
they’re able to fight, absorb damage, and continue to fight. The WWII history of the USS Colorado, BB-45,
amply illustrates this capability.
Following are three instances where the Colorado sustained potentially
serious damage that would have incapacitated or sunk any other type of ship.
 |
| USS Colorado - Note the cluster of three 5" shielded mounts on the forward superstructure. The open backs of the mounts can be clearly seen. |
Tinian
While providing gun support during the amphibious assault on
Tinian on 24-July-1944 she sustained 22 shell hits from 150 mm Japanese shore
batteries which caused 43 deaths and 198 wounded. Colorado reported one 5”/51 gun and one 5”/25
gun knocked out. Note that both guns were unarmored, open mounts. Despite the damage, Colorado continued
shelling the island and providing fire support for the ground forces until
3-Aug-1944
Does anyone think a
Burke could absorb 22x 150mm shell hits and continue its mission (or even stay
afloat)?
Mindoro
Colorado returned to the US for repairs but arrived in Leyte
to provide fire support for the assault.
On 27-Nov-1944, the battleship sustained two kamikaze hits, Colorado
reported that one did no damage but the other knocked out two 5’/51 gun mounts
and one 40 mm mount. Casualties were 19
killed and 72 wounded. Again, all three
mounts were unarmored, open mounts. Shrugging
off the damage, Colorado bombarded Mindoro from 12=17 December 1944 before
withdrawing to Manus Island for repairs.
 |
| USS Colorado Moments After Kamikaze Hit |
Does anyone think a
Burke could absorb two Kamikaze (each roughly equivalent to a cruise missile) hits
and continue its mission (or even stay afloat)?
Lingayen Gulf
Colorado then took part in pre-assault shelling of Lingayen
Gulf. On 9-Jan-1945, she was hit by
friendly 5” shells which hit the Sky Control (air defense station) superstructure,
resulting in 18 dead and 51 wounded. After repairs at Ulithi, Colorado joined Task
Force 54 for the pre-invasion shelling Okinawa.
Does anyone think a
Burke could absorb 5” shells and continue its mission?
In each case, Colorado was hit hard and yet was able to stay
in the fight and continue its missions.
It is also noteworthy that Colorado was able to absorb
significant damage and remain combat effective despite being an older armor
design as opposed to the newer North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class
battleships. The later classes would
have been even less affected by the Colorado’s damage.
Note that in the first two incidents, all the reported
damage was inflicted on unarmored, open mount guns (depending on the time
period, the mounts may have had open-ended, lightweight, weather shields). Being an ‘old’ battleship, relegated to
secondary duty, Colorado was armed with the older style open mount guns instead
of the armored, closed 5” mounts that were standard on the newer battleships. Had Colorado had the newer, armored, closed 5”
mounts the damage would have been minimal to non-existent. The casualties were largely due to the
multitude of open mounts resulting in sailors being exposed on deck.
Discussion
Now consider what will happen when our top end surface
combatant, the Burke, gets hit in a future battle/operation.
For starters, the ship will likely sink from anything
remotely approaching the kind of damage that Colorado absorbed without missing
a beat.
Beyond that, almost any hit will result in a mission kill,
at the very least. This means thet
ship’s tasking in the operation will be missing and either that task will go
wanting – likely leading to further difficulties/losses for the overall
force/operation – or it will necessitate pulling another ship from some other
tasking to take over the mission killed task.
Of course, that leaves a gap somewhere else. And so on and so on with ripple effects
extending throughout the fleet and the theater.
If 22x 150 mm shells had mission killed the Colorado, either
vital gun support would have been reduced, leading to increased difficulty and risk
for the ground troops, or some other battleship or heavy cruiser would have had
to have been pulled off its tasking to take over for Colorado which would leave
a gap in whatever the new ship was previously doing.
Do you see the value (the force multiplication, in a very
real sense) that battleships, or any armored ship that can take a hit and keep
fighting, bring to the fleet commander?
Consider, also, the element of risk. The WWII naval commander could, for example,
task Colorado with close range bombardment without unduly worrying about some
enemy artillery hits (or 22 of them!) sinking or badly damaging the ship. In contrast, today’s commander can’t even
entertain the thought of placing a Burke within range of enemy artillery no
matter how vital the gun support might be for success of the ground operation. The battleship offers a greater range of
options because of its toughness. That
is not the case with Burkes.
What we have to recognize is that it’s not just a question
of absorbing damage and not sinking, it’s a question of continuing the
mission (staying in the fight), fully effective, not having to leave the
combat theater, and not needing another ship to be pulled off other duty to
take the original ship’s place. It’s
that secondary, ripple effect that the battleship’s armor, size, and toughness eliminates
and, in so doing, makes the battleship even more effective and valuable. Being able to continue fighting and continue
the mission is a force multiplier for the fleet.
We have no ship, today, that can sustain even a fraction of
the damage that Colorado did, let alone shrug it off and continue to
fight. This is what a ship – battleship,
in this specific example – that can absorb battle damage and keep fighting/operating
brings to the table.
We’ve lost this capability and we need to regain it.
About 2500 six-inch shells were expended in order to sink the Japanese light cruiser Jintsu.
ReplyDeleteA light cruiser!
You could send the whole modern USN to the bottom with that amount, save perhaps for some supercarrier.
I'm certain that's not correct. The best - and scanty! - references I can find attribute the loss to a torpedo hit and ten or so shell hits.
DeleteDo you have a reference?
I do, but it's a Japanese source and it's been a while, let me find it...
Delete"Jintsuu sunk after the following amounts of 6-inch rounds were expended:
Delete1110 rounds from the (USS) Honolulu
160 rounds from the (HMNZS) Leander
1360 rounds from (USS) St. Louis"
Translation is mine but should be accurate.
There is absolutely zero possibility that is correct. Here's a quote from http://www.combinedfleet.com/jintsu_t.htm :
Delete"In all, 2,630 6-inch and 353 5-in shells are fired at JINTSU."
Note that it says 'fired at', not hit.
Here's a quote from Wiki:
"Jintsū was hit by at least ten radar-directed 6-inch (150 mm) shells from the three Allied cruisers, setting her on fire. The barrage killed both Rear Admiral Isaki and Captain Sato; shortly afterwards a torpedo hit Jintsū starboard in the aft engine room."
Here's more proof from the combinedfleet page:
"At 0108, JINTSU snaps on her searchlights to illuminate Ainsworth's force. Two minutes later she is taken under the radar-controlled fire of three cruisers. Rear Admiral Izaki, Captain Sato and Executive Officer Cdr Kondo Issei (50) are killed on the bridge. Around 0117 the steering engine and rudder are disabled by gunfire. Fires broke out and the cruiser goes dead in the water, while the foremost turret still keeps returning fire. In all, 2,630 6-inch and 353 5-in shells are fired at JINTSU.
...
Around 0145 a torpedo hits JINTSU to starboard in the aft engine room. A massive explosion follows; the cruiser breaks in two abaft the middle funnel and sinks three minutes later"
Jintsu comes under fire at 0110hr and sinks at 0148hr. Start to finish, that's a 38 minute time period.
Your source would have us believe that 2,630x 6" shells HIT Jintsu in 38 minutes. That's a bit over 69 hits per minute or over one hit per second. The Brooklyn class is credited with a sustained firing rate of 8 rds/min which, for 15 guns (assuming perfect broadside exposure) equals 120 rds/min and for two cruisers, equals 240 rds/min. At that rate, the ship's magazines (3000 shells per ship) would have been depleted in 25 minutes. Assuming they totally depleted their magazines and achieved 2,630 hits, that would have been a 44% hit rate. Given that the best naval gunnery in WWII saw hit rates of 1-5%, that would be beyond miraculous!
This scenario assumes both cruisers parked, broadside on to the Jintsu, firing non-stop for nearly the entire 38 minute period. This would be so atypical of a naval battle as to defy belief.
Let's consider history. The heaviest beating any ship took in WWII that I'm aware of was some of the Guadalcanal battles where ships absorded 30-50 hits and that left them sunk or sinking. To believe that Jintsu absorbed 50-90 times that number of hits and then sank only after being hit by a torpedo, is beyond belief. Even the monster battleships such as Yamato only absorbed two or three dozen hits of various types before sinking.
Let's consider physical destruction. If each hit physically destroyed a miniscule amount of the target, say, 0.5%, the ship would have been literally gone - vaporized - in just 200 hits with nothing left to shoot at and yet we know that something like 95% of the ship was intact at the moment of sinking. That means that each of the 2,630 hits caused only 0.002% physical damage. A 6" shell that causes only 0.002% physical damage? That's preposterous!
I can go on analyzing this but it's absolutely certain that the claim of 2,630 hits is incorrect. I would speculate that someone took the 'fire at' totals and either incorrectly reported them as hits or your translation confused hits with 'fired at'.
This makes a lot more sense, the Japanese author clearly confused the amount of expended shells with those actually hitting the target, accuracy being what it was in WW2.
DeleteAs I look back on it, note that your own words (translation?) are:
Delete"Jintsuu sunk after the following amounts of 6-inch rounds were expended:"
Note the phrase 'expended' versus hit. I think we're pretty comfortable with the explanation, now.
I strongly suspect that the expenditure report is not accurate, either. Firing nearly 3000 shells in 38 minutes would be a level of output unheard of in any naval battle I'm aware of. It's theoretically possible (barrel heating???) but incredibly unlikely and so far above the norm as to defy belief. I'd love to know where those expenditure numbers came from! Of course, other than academic curiosity, it's a moot point.
Even if we had the will to spend that amount of money, I doubt we could build a modern battleship as we lack the shipyard capacity and design know-how.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to say this as gently as I can. Do you realize just how incorrect and ignorant this comment is? Let's look at your two contentions.
DeleteFirst, we absolutely have the money and we have the will (in most cases, stupidity) to spend unimaginable amounts sums on nearly useless ships. We've spent $25B+ on the nearly toothless Zumwalts. We've spent $18B or so on the Ford which is no more capable (much less, currently!) than an $8B Nimitz. We've spent $30B or so on the LCS which is not only non-combat capable but is being retired almost as fast as they're being built. And so on. Money is the least valid of any objection to battleships.
Second, any manufacturing capability we lack an be easily built. We didn't have the technology to build the giant superstructure slabs for the Zumwalt so we created it. We didn't have the technology to build the components of the Ford (EMALS, AAG, elevators, etc.) so we built them. We had never built a tumblehome hull before so we created the manufacturing to do so. We had no manufacturing capability for building either of the LCS variants so we created it. And so on.
Every new technology (and battleships are not new technology) ever invented required new manufacturing capabilities. That's the simple history of the world. If humanity refused to make anything it didn't already have the manufacturing capability for, we'd still be sitting in caves.
There are a few valid arguments against battleships but neither of your contentions fall into that category.
See, "Why Not Battleships" for a discussion of some of the arguments for and against the battleship. If, after reading that, you have some additional insights, I'd love to hear them.
DeleteLosing 43 dead and 198 wounded would be the whole crew on a burke. Minimal manning means can not absorb battle losses
ReplyDeleteQuite right. Minimal manning is one of many factors that render our fleet largely combat ineffective. Other factors include lack of armor, lack of firepower, lack of redundancy, lack of backups, overly sensitive electronics, lack of separation of critical components, single points of failure, etc.
DeleteRef "armor"; the 5"/38 mounts were never " armored". Those gun-houses were for weather. They were mild steel. True that offers some protection against rifle-caliber small arms ( much as an M3 half-track might) but armored they're not.
DeleteThe lack of 5"/38's might also have contributed to the kamikaze hits unless VT fuzed 5"/21 ammo had been available, don't know that it was.
Boat Guy
"the 5"/38 mounts were never " armored".
DeleteThey most certainly were! From Navweaps site, the Iowa class, for example, had Mk28 Mod2 dual 5" mounts with 2.5" of armor. That's proof against any fragments/shrapnel which is how, I assume, the majority of the casualties occurred on the Colorado.
It may have been 2.5" but it was still mild steel. Yes it's certainly more protection than an open mount.
DeleteBG
I huge issue is ammo storage. Battleships and cruisers were designed with explosive ammo in armored spaces deep in the ship. Burkes are packed with dozens of large missiles with no protection. This is excused by saying the missile propellant and warhead are special insensitive so they will not explode if damaged. I call BS. A big or even small hit on a missile pod and ship explodes and breaks in half. They also carry explosive aviation fuel for their helos while battleships only had non-explosive bunker fuel.
ReplyDelete"insensitive so they will not explode if damaged. I call BS."
DeleteDo you have any reference(s) to demonstrate that propellant and warheads will explode and, if so, under what conditions? I'm emphatically not arguing with you but trying to educate myself (and readers).
I've heard these claims of insensitivity, never with any scientific data or backing, and I'm quite dubious. If they were truly insensitive then they couldn't burn to propel the missile and couldn't explode to damage the target so, clearly, they can burn and explode. It requires only the right trigger.
The question, then, would seem to be what are the trigger conditions? Here's where I run into a wall. I've seen nothing that describes the conditions of ignition and whether a hit or fire can create those conditions. Common sense would suggest that the temperatures and pressures generated during a hit in the proximity of the missile storage would, indeed, be sufficient to trigger the stored missile's fuel and warheads.
A warhead fuze is nothing more than a low-end explosion or chemical reaction that is sufficient to ignite the warhead so, again, this would suggest that stored missile fuel and warheads are NOT insensitive.
I suspect what is meant by 'insensitive' is that they are stable in the face of minor shocks or 'mild' heat but not direct, raging fires or nearby explosions as would occur from battle damage.
That's always been the excuse I've heard; they can't blow up. Of course it depends on the size of the explosion and where it hits. And ship fires can heat up the containers. I suspect this hasn't been studied because they are afraid of the answer. Or was studied and the results trashed. I suspect if one missile explodes, so do the adjacent ones.
DeleteThe Taiwanese may have a better idea worthy of a future post, pictured here:
Deletehttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hsiung_Feng_II_and_Hsiung_Feng_III_Anti-Ship_Missile_Launchers_aboard_on_Central_Upper_Deck_of_ROCN_Chang_Chien_%28PFG2-1109%29_20170309.jpg
These pods could be a four or six pack of missiles. So if these are hit and explode, they are outside the hull. If just one is hit or the pod is on fire and near a fire, the crew pulls a lever and it drops into the sea.
Of course the VLS idea looks much nicer and allows for better stability, but a pod explosion could rip the ship apart in a second. And there is no way to eject missiles in an emergency, other than fire them, which may worsen the problem. But VLS has another big drawback, reloading, pictured here:
http://www.g2mil.com/MK-41.jpg
It is safer and probably ten times faster to hoist up a six pack and snap it in atop than thread the needle six times for VLS, which matters during a war where ports are attacked. Moreover, it is far, far easier to do ship to ship reloading in a bay or calm waters, perhaps impossible for VLS.
Of course having big missiles on deck raises stability issues, but snap in a six-pack atop seems far superior, and easier to build into a ship. These would also allow urgent wartime modifications to allow other ships like useless amphibs to carry pods that a nearby destroyer could shoot.
"Taiwanese may have a better idea"
DeleteThat's just their version of the Mk141 Harpoon rack launcher which has been around forever. Nothing wrong with it. It works nicely for space-limited ships although the number of missiles is, obviously, limited.
I've never heard of a 'drop over the side' capability but I suppose it's possible. The thing is, though, that the missile is 'canister-ized' for ease of handling and protection from the elements. I'm not aware of an easy way to open and drop the missile. Do you have a reference?
"hit and explode, they are outside the hull."
They are although with today's very thin-skinned ships, there's not much difference between an explosion outside the superstructure and inside! The Cole kind of illustrated this.
I would have the entire canister slide into the sea in an emergency. I suspect VLS allows far more missiles on each ship, but they are all packed into just two locations:
Deletehttps://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51-passive.gif
A good hit in either may doom the ship, in seconds. The USS Cole bomb exploded amid ship so the MK-41 launchers were not affected. With external six-pack pods, they would have space between them on deck and beyond the blast effect of a torpedo or mine hit.
Perhaps the arsenal ship (barge) idea is better. Have smaller destroyers with fewer missiles for safety. Have cheap ships with just missiles that the destroyers use as a magazine remotely. So a destroyer need not sail from WestPac to Hawaii to rearm once a month. Arsenal ships will make that journey.
Have never liked the idea of separating sensors and weapons, like the arsenal ship ideas... What protects the arsenal ship? And what good are the sensor platforms if they don't have weapons?
DeleteThe answer to the exploding magazine problem is...this post!!
Armor! Compartmentation! Redundancy! Resiliency!
Robust ships can safely carry lots of weaponry and take punishment, and continue to fight. Somthing we've clearly forgotten...
If you're suggesting using Mk141 type launch racks as a replacement for VLS, bear in mind that the Mk141 is for the 15 ft Harpoon or similar length missiles whereas the Standard missiles (SM-6, for example) and Tomahawk missiles are 20.5-21.5 ft in length and would not fit in/on a rack launcher.
DeleteHere is an interesting website that documents the production of insensitive munitions and touches on rocket fuel. It changed the way I think about our storage of weapons and their vulnerability to being exploded with an outside source of energy.
Deletehttp://www.insensitivemunitions.org/
Reason why I am saying this, I maybe there is something to not armoring the missile storage to the extent that it used need. I really don't know. I do know that a hit from the outside would most likely render the missile inoperative but at least it shouldn't explode like I had assumed.
You may be drawing an invalid conclusion. Insensitive munitions are not inert, they are just less sensitive then older munitions. For example, here are a couple of quotes from the cited article (EMPHASIS IS MINE):
Delete"PBXN-109 loaded bombs satisfied all of the Navy IM requirements EXEPT SYMPATHETIC DETONATION in the stowage configuration.
Today, all new U.S. Navy warheads are being loaded with PBX’s. These new compositions are LESS LIKELY to detonate in aircraft fuel or other fires and are relatively insensitive to bullet and fragment attack"
Note the words 'less likely' instead of inert. If a munition was truly inert, it would be useless as a weapon.
One distinction to make is that these battleships were never build in significant numbers. Even during wartime. From start to finish the total number of battleships build by the USA was 59, from 1888 to the 1940s.
ReplyDeleteAlso 22x 150mm shells has an approximate TNT filler of 155 KG if we take a modern 152mm artillery shell as a comparison .
A modern antiship missile will have anywhere between 150-250kg warheads. The moskva too 2 hits from neptune missiles for it to be sunk.
This is not to say that modern warships could not be build more sturdily. But rather a cursory glance or comparison does not tell us as much as we need to know.
You can bet some smart A** Admiral will say it's the cost of all that extra armor and trade-off's in speed, and yet next conversation will be "steel is the cheapest part of the ship" (a lie) and the reality is with today's weapons with dual and tri-mode seekers a 30 knot ship isn't going to escape any missile, especially since some of these dual use missiles like the sm-6 can not only nail mach 3+ missiles and slower jets, but put one down the stovepipe of a moving vessel too. It would have been well worth the Navy's time to build a few less mobile expeditionary docks and LCS to instead spend the extra dollars on making more robust ships even if it was fewer of them (and put some more $ in headcount to maintain the darn things).
ReplyDelete"trade-off's in speed"
DeleteYou know that speed is not sacrificed for armor, right? Consider all the WWII battleships and cruisers. They were all heavily armored and could all do 30+ knots!
That’s an odd comment.
DeleteObviously speed is sacrificed for armor as it always has been:
pretty much a law of physics whether we’re talking Carthaginian galleys powered by slaves or USN battleships powered by steam turbines.
Best examples of the trade off between the two were probably the British battle cruisers built before and during WW1, which were designed to be able to outrun any warship that could sink them, and sink any warship that they couldn’t outrun.
All design involves compromise - apparently another law of physics.
The main limitations on speed in the water should be engine power and hull form. If the hullform stays the same you should just need a bigger engine to push it.
Delete"Obviously speed is sacrificed for armor as it always has been:"
DeleteWhat an odd comment. Iowa class BB massively armored and 33+ kts. Des Moines class heavy cruiser massively armored and 33+ kts. Alaska class heavy cruiser massively armored and 33 kts. And so on.
All that's needed is a properly sized engine. We can have all the armor we want and all the speed we want as was repeatedly demonstrated in WWII ship designs.
Not really - naval architects can design a warship with an acceptable compromise between speed and displacement as they did in the examples that you have cited, but - as you obviously know - the relationship between speed and shaft horsepower is not a linear one, so you literally can’t build a warship with as much speed and armor as you want simply by increasing the power of the ship’s power plant.
DeleteInterestingly, or maybe not, this is the problem that the Aussies and Canucks are running into when they’re customising the design of the British Type 26 Frigate to suit their supposedly unique requirements. Adding hangar space for a second helo (good idea) means a bigger flight deck. Aegis BMS and a big, power greedy top heavy radar means extra ballast. This all means extra displacement and reduced speed. Then you add an extra diesel pack for housekeeping and you end up with a Frigate bigger than a Washington Treaty heavy cruiser that can’t keep up with the CVNs that it’s supposed to be escorting, armed with a single 5” gun.
Crazy stuff, right?
I can't decide whether you're just trying to be a lawyer or if you really don't understand how this works. I'm going to assume you don't understand and so I'll offer you some explanation and education.
DeleteWe can achieve ANY level of armor and speed we want in a ship design. Once those goals are established, it's simply a matter of working out the rest of the specifications that derive from them - engine/power being the main one, along with size.
As noted, we built armored ships in WWII ranging from small destroyers to giant battleships and all had 33+ kt speed and size appropriate for their function. So, to even begin to suggest that the inclusion of armor into a design somehow precludes speed (the tradeoff you initially claimed must occur) is patently false. Of course, some combinations (battleship armor on a rowboat) wind up with derived specifications that we opt not to accept due to cost or other concerns but they are possible.
Another aspect that you appear not to understand is the issue of original design versus after-the-fact modifications as evidenced by your reference to the Type 26. I'm unfamiliar with whatever Type 26 modifications and problems you're referring to but the underlying issue is that modifications ARE LIMITED by the original design. While we can design a ship with any combination of armor and speed we want, we CANNOT modify existing designs much beyond the original design margins for weight growth, stability, etc. Any person or country that would attempt to do so demonstrates a fundamental failure to grasp engineering principles.
You now have a better grasp of the armor/speed issue.
Hi CNO,
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree about armour and survivability. I'd add the need for artillery as another reason for brining back the battleship. Missiles will run out within a few months, and building them is slow, let alone possible impossible if Taiwan is destroyed and South Korea blockaded by China so no computer chips are available. That leaves guns
I always think of the blog entry on Chuck Hill's Coast Guard blog site where he asks if a 57mm gun is enough to stop cargo ships. He argues the CG needs 5 inch guns and torpedoes. Cargo ship engines are solid blocks weighing thousands of tons. Can a 5kg shell disable one?
A possible 2 step program might be:
1) Get started on designing a modern battleship and building the infrastructure for it
2) while the bbs is being worked up, take some older designs and build gunships with multiple 5 inch guns and room for a few canisters of essm, SeaRam, and phalnx's. These can do naval tasks until the battleships get built.
3) build battleships, and let the fun begin.
On a personal note, my fantasy fleet fir Australia goes like this. The RAN builds 3 classes of Hunters. The Anti sub variant, a guided missile destroyer variant where the space fir multi missions is filled with mk41 vls, and an artillery version, with a minimum 4 x 5 inch guns. Again, this artillery version has space for essm, phalanx, but by removing the massive and gravy CEAFAR sensor tower and smaller computer room, the ship should be lighter so better range, and can do post missile exhaustion duties.
Thanks!
Andrew
As you develop your fantasy fleet, do you recall that we fit FIVE 5" guns and 10 heavyweight torpedoes (plus 40mm and 20mm guns) on a Fletcher class destroyer that was 100 ft shorter and 8,000 tons lighter than the Hunter frigate? It sounds like your fantasy frigate might be a Fletcher class destroyer!
DeleteOr the 6 5"/38's on the Sumner and Gearing classes. Of course by the the emphasis was away from the 20's or even the 40's as the 3"/50's came around.
DeleteHard to beat a Fletcher though, swap Harpoon for the torpedoes, coupla Mk32 triple mounts and gas turbine propulsion and you've got a winner.
Boat Guy
Hmm. Perhaps. But modern navies want to fly helicopters, and now, drones, so the rear 30% will still be likely used for that. Not to mention if they want to use it to carry anti mine drones in that big multi mission hanger. So I don't think there will be much change in physical dimensions.
DeleteAndrew.
Accepting that our WW2 battleships can take a beating, and are useful naval gunfire platforms, it has to be asked - is there really a place for them today, when we have gotten out of the amphibious assault business?
ReplyDeleteTake a shot at answering your own question. Are there scenarios where a heavily armed ship with major firepower would be useful?
DeleteI'm surprised you're asking that scenario when in previous conversations over the last year, on this blog, you've described the battleship as an amphibious assault asset, and downplayed its role in the ASuW fight.
DeleteThe major firepower is useful, but it's outranged by enemy missiles, which is why I don't think it would be as effective in a blue water ASuW fight. Yes, we would surely operate battleships are part of SAGs with supporting DDGs and FFGs, but in the long-range missile duel, the battleship cannot meaningfully contribute to the offense. It's basically got to close with the enemy ships - which will surely be maneuvering away from the battleship, a stern chase is a long chase - while its point defenses engage whatever leakers get past its screen, and the rest of the SAG trades missiles with the SAG and provides an AAW screen for the battleship and themselves.
When it gets into range, the battleship will be devastating, no doubt, but it's a question of how long it'll take to get into that range..
You're missing a lot of missions and scenarios! Consider bombardment of bases, facilities, artificial islands, sinking of merchant ships in a blockade, ground support outside of an actual amphibious assault, etc.
DeleteEven in the anti-surface role, a battleship would not have to sink an enemy ship to be effective. Simply occupying a region (area denial) would be immensely beneficial and the ability to stake out an area and stand and defend it would be very useful.
How about bombarding overseas Chinese bases in Africa, the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and elsewhere?
And so on.
"Consider bombardment of bases, facilities, artificial islands, sinking of merchant ships in a blockade, ground support outside of an actual amphibious assault, etc."
DeleteSure, but do we really need battleships for these missions? These are missions where the battleship's armor is overkill (because the threat profile isn't there), and these are widely dispersed targets while the battleship can only be in one place at a time.
For these mission sets, for the cost and crew of a battleship, we could get ourselves multiple destroyers, which would allow ourselves a certain measure of operational flexbility. Using battleships to run down merchant ships is overkill and wasteful, as overkill as using AAW CG Ticos on counterpiracy patrol.
The failure of the 8" gun was a real misstep in the Navy. Had it continued to be developed, we could have had a weapon that would be viable for emerging threats in this environment - 5" is too slow for anything but shore bombardment, but requires us to get well within the radar horizon.
That is to say, rather than a modern battleship, I favor modern Spruances with dual 8" guns. The Spruance, I feel, is the platonic ideal of the modern destroyer, an ASW-focused ship that packed a potent ASuW punch.
Delete